17 Burst results for "Claremont review of books"

"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

06:29 min | 4 months ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"The U. S on the line. Charles Kessler. He's editor of the Claremont Review Books or Clam UP REVIEW If you will professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. I want to say in his presence Consider the Climate review one of the two finest journals written in the American Today, the other City Journal. I'm a subscriber. Paid for my subscription I might add. I'd have known, honest man I am indeed. I have not asked for a free subscription. I know I would have gotten one. But I'd much rather a little little little way support you. You know, it's a big problem. It's so good. The Claremont Review. What I do is I event except I see the hard copy, then I then Find the article on the Internet. Keep it. On You know what's called collections on being and then it kills me because, like half your articles, I end up keeping your you're stuffing my hard drive. Let me put it now. It's really It's a magnificent do it. You know, that's right. No, I salute you for that, man. I salute you for your new book. The book is crisis of the two constitutions. Now listen to the subtitle, folks. The rise, decline and recovery of American greatness. Now. In a nutshell. You'll expound, but I want for the sake of my audience because I like giving things in a nutshell. The two constitutions are the founders. And if I may use the term the progressives or the left who believe in a living constitution, which means anything they want it to mean. And that's the battle. In America today is that a fair summary Yes, that's very good. That's a that's an excellent nutshell. Good know what's important. So he explains that this this This basically what I call a civil war. So tell me, I want to go to the end as it were at the beginning. What is your prognosis for a recovery? Well, the recovery part really is about Conservatism and how conservatism has done. In dealing with this dilemma. This contradiction between the old constitution the real constitution, so to speak. On the Liberals Constitution. The living one because I think conservatism was called into being, you know, back in the middle of the 20th century. Basically to deal with this problem and to try to revive the Founders Constitution as over against the Liberals Constitution, which is designed basically to replace their supplants. The original and attract all of its legitimacy shift all of its legitimacy to itself to the modern states, too. The way we govern ourselves now. And from Ronald Reagan to Donald Trump. You know, conservatives in power have attempted to rehabilitate the old constitution. Onboard to discipline or or if possible, eliminates. The living constitution. Um And so I wanted to ask really? How well that attempt to revive the sources of American greatness because I think the real sources are in the principles of the Constitution that both the moral principles And the political principles. Of 17 76 and 17 87. How well have we done And, uh way. I mean, it's good that we're fighting back. It's good that we recognize we have this. You know, Civilisational problem to try to solve But I have to say that our efforts to solve it from Reagan to Trump have not been availing. We haven't Put the living constitution so to speak on the road to extinction. We have we have not revived. In full, healthy older America. That Ronald Reagan spoke of in his farewell address. That's one of his great unstudied set pieces. I think 1989 he's leaving office. He says. You know, he succeeded in reviving the American economy. He has put the Soviet Union. He didn't put it this way, of course, but one could. In retrospect, he put the Soviet Union on the verge of extinction. And he had revived American patriotism. But she said the only dark cloud in the sun otherwise sunny skies of the farewell address. The problem is he had not institutionalized that. Patriotism. Well, all right, hold it there that I did not know about this address. Book is up. But that is Charles Kessler's book is up Dennis prager dot com Crisis The two constitutions. What the battle is really about Nerva renew. Is one of the handful of products I can't remember another one, but I'm I know I've done it before, but very rarely in my career. I've asked a product to advertise on my show. Because it made such a difference in my life. I wanted you to know about it. Nerve renew after taking it for about nine months to a year. All of a sudden I realized I could throw away my inserts. I've had pins and needles in my feet and then my not in my hands, but in my feet. And it's so helpful. They have a two week free trial and a one year money back guarantee. Nerve renew dot com They broke protocol by Joel She Rosenberg available Now, wherever books and E books are sold..

Charles Kessler Ronald Reagan Donald Trump Joel She Rosenberg Trump Reagan 1989 one year two week 17 America Claremont McKenna College two constitutions Dennis prager one today both Claremont a year Liberals Constitution
"claremont review books" Discussed on 790 KABC

790 KABC

05:20 min | 4 months ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 790 KABC

"Filed the monuments of our founders. There were a few people Charles Kessler and others. And Chris Flannery, who pointed out that this is what happens when you tell people offensive fied story in which everybody is either a villain or a victim. Right either. You're the like great sort of devil of whiteness, or you are a depressed Signoria. That's the only story they have about America. Of course, people are taking to the streets. Of course, there's arson and violence. When you tell people that long enough through enough channels and then when this was pointed out And somebody said, You know, we should call these the 16 19 riots. Nicole Hannah Jones said It would be an honor. Thank you. Thank you Actual aim. Yeah, That's right. So cool. So I agree with all of this. I mean, I think this really gives great insight. It's a not to use a Roman expression. Actually, this is the time expression say, non event. I've been provider, you know, usually friends anything? If it's not true, you know, Hey, At least it makes a good story. It's well discovered as well. So I agree with with all of that, and they are telling his new stories, and it really interesting point you make is when we compare ourselves right now to the fall of Rome. The issue is in the fall of the Roman Empire. It's It's the fall of the Roman Republic, and actually, Rome had some pretty great years under an empire. They kind of come to their identity with the rise of the empire with the rise of Caesar Augustus. So so maybe we're we are at the beginning of something new. But what do you say to this? This leftist may be subjective ist kind of angle here that well, if it's all just stories, right, if it's all just for telling each other narratives, why is one narrative any better than any other narrative when it comes to American history? It is a great question, so the sort of left the line for a long time has bean. Yeah, it's stories all the way down. It's just you know you like there's nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so that the person who can construct the most appealing narrative is an ancient viewpoint. There were there were philosophers in Greece before Socrates, who thought this essentially That My argument is not that there's no such thing as an important historical story. I think stories the way that we depict things not just the way that we tell facts, but the way that we paint paintings and the way that we sing songs all the stuff right, hugely important for forgetting the emotional power of the truth across, but the key is right. The stories exist for a purpose, just like words exist for a purpose. Words exists to communicate ideas. Stories exist to communicate emotions and to communicate the spiritually reality of what happened. So even if in a painting, you know you paint the crossing of the Delaware with this kind of glorious stream of sunlight when in fact it was It was like a miserable hardship. You're communicating something there about the emotional truth of what went on that This was a noble valiente. Brave endeavor that was God favored right? You can use words to tell the truth, and you can use words to lie. You can use stories to tell the truth, and you can use stories to lie. This is what the left fundamentally denies is that there is no such thing as a true or false story. There's just stories right. But in fact, right there is an emotional and spiritual reality of our founding. It was a God blessed the fantastic eruption of some new Western Liberty. Into a world that had yet to be discovered essentially by by Europeans. That is a miraculously event and to portray it as if it were just subterfuge on the part of, you know, evil masterminds trying to trying to subject ate the You know the downtrodden is simply to lie. It's not just to tell factory all right, because, of course, the 16 19 projects. Is factually false has its own fact checkers have said, but but beyond that, it's artistically false. It's a depiction of what this was at a spiritually emotional level. That is just not true. Wow, There is so much there, and it seems that our culture seems to get it wrong and every step of the way Yes, the 16 19 project. The central thesis is just as a historical matter. It's just wrong. And beyond that there are stories. There are frames, you know that we can have to look at our history. But it's not just all stories all the way down. It's that stories can be truer or false er than other stories and there is a A truth to the founding of our country to the heart of our country, And when we inevitably tell the stories about what that's going to be, I would like us to tell the true story. I would like us which which actually is a lot better than the trash that were being taught in schools. We have to leave it there. Mr Clay oven. We've barely skimmed the surface of your excellent essay, which I recommend people go read it. The CRB That's an ES and US by Spencer Clayton also, listen. It's my favorite podcast. Young heretics. Go listen to it. I right after you listen to mine but go, But you really should. Really. It's my fate. My favorite podcast these days Go take a listen and follow Spencer's work at The American mind and the Claremont Review Books, Mr. Clint Dr Clay even thank you for coming on and helping us clear up a little bit about our history. Michael. It's been a pleasure. Thanks so much for having all right. See you soon. We got to take a quick break. I'm Michael Knowles filling in for the Ben Shapiro show. Do not go anywhere. Do not touch.

Chris Flannery Charles Kessler Spencer Clayton Nicole Hannah Jones Michael Knowles Michael Ben Shapiro Spencer Greece Socrates 16 19 riots Delaware Roman US Caesar Augustus Roman Empire America one narrative Clay oven Rome
"claremont review books" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show

The Andrew Klavan Show

01:42 min | 4 months ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show

"As you know. We always like to bring eloquent an elegant intellectuals onto a desperate attempt to raise the tone of the show But this this week. We hit the jackpot. Charles kesler is one of the finest writers on the conservative side and one of the wisest. He's a senior fellow of the claremont institute. Editor of the claremont review books host of clermont's the american mind video series and the denver dak- distinguished professor of government at claremont mckenna. College also. he is the The employer of my sons spencer cleveland no relation and the only way we can get him on by holding spencer hostage. We can now release charles e there. Yes i am. Thank you and and Let me say also you manage to pronounce the they distinguish name and my distinguished professorship correctly. So that's out there you go. That's good episode was random hit. But you know i wanna talk to you. Have a new book out called crisis of the two constitutions the rise decline and recovery of american greatness I've been reading in it and it's just really incisive of a very broad minded. Look at what's going on. Let's let's begin. It's called the crisis of the two constitutions. Let's start there. What what are the two. Constitutions are our first the what i call the founders constitution which was the original written one of seventeen eighty seven as amended and the principles of that constitution came before it like the declaration of independence contains the but also the.

Charles kesler spencer claremont charles e claremont institute two one first this week two constitutions seventeen eighty seven denver cleveland clermont american mckenna
"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

06:38 min | 5 months ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Welcome back to the dam Prop show question we've been grappling with over the last many weeks is effectively can a free society exist with Sort of cultural no go zone, spaced on one's particular views political views. A. Perhaps even more fundamental question is can America existed in a free society if we as a nation are living Under two different constitutions or framework for what we think. Founding principles. The framework as I mentioned to different frameworks of our nation of this representative republic. This experiment in Small D democracy. Can we exist as a free society and with that sort of dynamic Help us answer that question. We're pleased to be joined by Charles Cussler, editor of the Claremont Review of Books and author of Crisis of the Two Constitutions, the Rise, Decline and Recovery of American Greatness. Charles. Thanks for joining us appreciate it. Well, it's a pleasure to be here, Dan. Thanks for the invitation. Yeah, And so the two constitutions that we're operating under described those for us. Well, it's um you know, it's a bad thing to have one country and to constitutions because you're in. You're in a kind of cold. Civil war situation, and I think that's sort of where we are right now. The two constitutions I'm talking about are the original constitution as amended the Constitution of individual rights On DCA incentive, the govern and limited government and all that we associate with that federalism and bicameral ism all these great civics ideas that go back to the original Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And that's one of America's constitutions. The other one, which is much younger, but it's now over 100 years old is really the Liberals, Constitution or the progressive. Constitution and that is what they like to call the living constitution. We hear this term whenever a Supreme Court justice is going to be confirmed yours up for confirmation. That liberal like Justice Sotomayor or whomever is very, um, skeptical in a way about the the hidebound time bound constitution of your But it is very gung ho about the Constitution of today and the day after tomorrow, and that constitution, the living Constitution is the Liberals. Vehicle, basically for transforming America and they they've been pretty successful at it, and it is the term itself. Living Constitution implies. At the old Constitution. The real one so to speak, is dead. Or at least that it's on life support. It's it's used a sort of Ah, A talisman Rhetorical talisman. I'm doing this under color of the Constitution. Give it gravitas when really the leftist forever finding and new and exciting pin numbers and emanations by which to Expand or contract with the black Letter of the Constitution says Yes, that's right. I mean, for a long time. For a couple of the first couple of generations of modern liberalism or progressivism. They did talk about the convergence. You know that the old Constitution and their new constitution would grow together. And eventually they would be indistinguishable from one another. But they gave up that slow motion argument in the 19 sixties and then again in the 19 nineties after the end of the Cold War. And they sort of pulled out all the stops. And they have a very impatient Politics Now, as you know, they can hardly wait to discover a new right. On to apply it. Aunt to limit the power of the elected parts of government. That's really the bread and butter of American progressivism now for quite a long time well, and that's where I want to go when we come back, because so the new rights they're inventing that imposed responsibilities on others the right to an education the right to housing the right to health care. And the enshrined writes the God given rights as memorialized in the bill of Rights that they're constricting like, Oh, I don't know. Freedom of speech on D, how you rediscover how we get to the Constitution as it was. Originally conceived in this environment, where many on the right don't really want to make arguments against the notion that education, health care housing Gear, a certain income level are indeed right, Moral. Charles Cussler editor. The Claremont Review Books, author of Crisis of the Two Constitutions. The Rise Decline in Recovery of American Greatness will be right back. The more you listen no more. You know, this'll just the damn profit shop. What do Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Donald Trump all have in common? They all attended private schools chosen by their parents. Do you believe that all family should have school choice just like they did. On average taxpayers spent $15,424 per student on K through 12 public education. American Federation for Children believes that all families, especially lower income families, should have the right to use those tax dollars to give their child the best education environment that meets their needs. Whether that's had a district charter magnet, private home or with virtual education. During times of covert the American Federation for Children believe that parents deserve a portion of that $15,424 to use for home. Virtual or private education, especially of public schools. Do not reopen for in person classes. If you agree, and you support school choice, go to fund my child now calm and signed the petition. That's fund my child now dot com Follow along on social media at school choice. Now what.

Charles Cussler Barack Obama Joe Biden Donald Trump $15,424 Dan Crisis of the Two Constitution Crisis of the Two Constitution American Federation for Childr 19 sixties Charles 19 nineties Declaration of Independence Cold War today one country first couple The Rise Decline in Recovery o American over 100 years
"claremont review books" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show

The Andrew Klavan Show

01:56 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show

"The identity politicians the people tearing down statues. The people telling us we shouldn't read Shakespeare because he's racist. Those people have no new ideas, no good ideas, and so when we get caught in this trap that we have to engage with them. We have to take account of their ideas. You know even so that we can refute them. But but that leads us down this rabbit hole of just trying to argue with idiots who are not arguing in good faith, right? They're not arguing to learn from us, and we learn from them, which would have just got? They're arguing to tear our civilization apart. That is why they are doing. What they are doing is why they say everything. They say even if they point out something true, they're saying it so that you'll get distracted and they can punch in the jaw. That's what we're dealing with so so point. Point of gung heretics is kind of look I. Mean we have to fight that? You have to figure out we would win that fight, but we also have to not let the our whole world, because these fights are going to be over one day, and our lives, our lives on this earth are going to be over. They will be as the life of a NAT compared to our infinite lives in heaven in the world to con- so we better be talking also about the stuff that is going to endure. Spencer Clayton I. Don't know how you spell that, but his his the assistant editor of the Claremont Review Books He is the host of the young heretics. YOUNG HERETICS DOT com. He's the financial support of his elderly parents. He doesn't know that yet, but he actually is. Spent as great to see you come by and have a drink and I will talk to you soon. All. All Right? We lost camera there for a minute, but At least you could hear what he was saying. I gotTA stop there. It is the Cleveland last weekend the Cleveland. Weekend is upon you I don't know how to you know comfort you in your distress It's going to be a dreadful. Survivors those few of you who make it through can gather here on. Monday I'll be here. I'm Andrew Klavan. This is the Andrew Klavan show..

Andrew Klavan Cleveland Shakespeare Spencer Clayton Claremont Review editor
"claremont review books" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show

The Andrew Klavan Show

06:12 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on The Andrew Klavan Show

"Join today and they don't have a place where you can put my name into just do it, you know do with black lives matter doomed to scroll my name on the walls. some building that you're walking by my son. Spencer Cleveland is GONNA come on. We're GONNA talk about culture, because everybody panics, and they forget the culture, but the culture is everything coming right up. All, right, who is spins reclaim your. They give me a little thing. Then I can read off so I know who spent circling. See. You're talking about the. Dissolution of the American family or watching right here, I have to read his introduction of. Assistant, editor of the Claremont Review of books, which is a fat marketing this before he worked there, I was telling you about the Claremont Review Books. It is the best. It is a great great magazine. The American mind is the younger version that's kind of on this on the Internet and he's got a great podcast I just listened to the latest episode yesterday. The young heretics which you can get young heretics dot com I get it off apple because I just can't handle all these different places, but expense how you doing. Hey It's good to see you. Can I bring that introduction sheet over next time? I come to have a drink so that you remember. You are exactly. Just where it just wear it on, your shirt is like. Oh, it's the assistant editor from the Claremont Review Board. So I'm bringing you on at a moment when Seattle. Seattle is fallen. people are in a panic trump's poll numbers of of drop and you're sitting around talking about the Bible and Plato. Your last thing about Plato Symposium One of the greatest pieces of work. What can we tell you like? What do we tell you? Why does this matter? I know you know I go on twitter and I look out at this what feels to me like just this vast landscape of despair and anger, and I feel it to their their defacing statues of Winston Churchill. One of the greatest men ever to live without whom there would be no concept of freedom or liberty or quality to currently exist in the world I'm watching that and I get angry. I feel like the only thing to do is just go out and scream and yell about the culture and I think that obviously is incredibly important to be having those. Those fights, but you know see US Louis about whom I will do a podcast episode next week Cs. Lewis said once during world. War Two a cataclysm, a big cataclysm said you know the war creates no absolutely new situation. All it does is aggravate the situation that we're constantly in people. Forget in times of prosperity. That is the West. The West is tiny light of reason and truth and goodness in people carried long they pass it off. It's been done before right, but we theorised writes in prison before before being killed my personal favourite Cicero, the Great Roman statesman. Great works political philosophy basically before he's executed, the republic crumbles in the Empire Falls and who picks up CICERO, but John Adams right. America is the next in this line so look. Do I think this is like the end? No, I do not, but even if it is, this is our whole job our whole job, even if we're about to get taken out, is to be enriching ourselves and others with the tremendous wealth that is, it is our responsibility to pass on, and we'll be better for it, and in the end our enemies, even if they triumph in this world are GonNa be worse off in the long run, and we are going to be on the winning side. You know I always tell people who story of calling you up when you were in England. I just been reading some Plato and I said Geez. I is really depressing me nostalgic for the days when socrates could walk about the Agora discussing philosophy, and those his long pause, and then you said that they killed socrates, and so we have to remember that this is not. Unique a unique moment well I was listening to your is eight, and you have this wonderful on the on the website rejoiced dash. Ever you have this wonderful translation of Isaiah and you started talking about the Bible and why the Bible matters, even if you don't feel that your religious, give me a little of that. Yeah no sure I mean look. People are in all sorts of different places right now when it comes to belief in God, obviously I am a Christian. I believe that the Bible is the true source of Divine Truth that tells you about everything that is true about the world. But people are on all sorts of stages in the journey toward thinking about that and they tend I think we have this atmosphere. This fashionable atmosphere that nobody's smart believes in God anymore, and so all of that stuff is just kind of just superstition. It's old fashioned superstition I. Call This Chronological Chauvinism. The idea that everybody's smart was born after nineteen fifty. You know, and of course that's preposterous. If you sit down and think about it for five seconds right, the great intellects of. Of all time Thomas Acquaints Saint Augustine, all of them have believed in some form of Deity. Aristotle, even the Greeks were not Christian, and so the Bible is not only scripture for Christians and Jews it is also the vast cultural repository of at least fifty percent of the wisdom of the West. Right Athens in Jerusalem are the two great pillars of this civilization that we build across generations so to shrug off. The Bible is just old superstition. It's cutting your left foot off basically. I'm always talking about narrative and the way they build narrative, and they do exactly what you say kind of make you feel like you're a dope. If you believe in this stuff in science has done, they have that word science, which now means absolutely nothing, and they say well science has proved it. Guys have been writing to me and saying we've now proved that there was no exodus of the Jews. There was no Moses I mean. This is the kind of thing you know. They used to make they. They made fun of that Guy Schliemann. When he said there was really a Trojan war, and then he discovered troy so I mean these kind of dismissive attitude. They take a narrative building. It's a way of making you feel like you shouldn't open your mouth, so we're talking about. You're talking about the Greeks. Talking about things coming from Athens and Jerusalem and you did this show. I thought it was unbelievable this weekend your show, young heretics, young heretics, dot com, and you did on the symposium which is. Just a beautiful, beautiful book..

Seattle editor Athens socrates Jerusalem Plato Symposium One Claremont Review of books Spencer Cleveland Plato Claremont Review Board Claremont Review twitter Winston Churchill Thomas Acquaints Saint Augusti Isaiah Cicero US Guy Schliemann apple Aristotle
"claremont review books" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

WMAL 630AM

10:59 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on WMAL 630AM

"Welcome back this is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems that president trump is head of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three essay in the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench perish I really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense right to the main point of the article is to say that look the embassy has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president has been the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump who's an anti establishment figure who the destructor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is been obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the end I say as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of it and said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage in Washington is saying Hallelujah Hosanna absolutely true it you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute he wanted to change the stuff you can get elected you're just in that job because you're an unelected members of your Christie what do you get to decide right well the reality is giving in to see some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million given some real money say two hundred million and what the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this it's a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is well over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars so that the president can hire the people he once who agree with him who are going to implement his position makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing defend but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see if the problem I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves as track on the president's foreign policy in the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard to Ukraine so the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy in Ukraine because up until you know earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped it recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia inadvertently he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why does every time I talk to European leader they tell me you have to do more for Ukraine but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it's been about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy works through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground and that was after he explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we weren't going to give any aid unless investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell convert leave that aside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the Democratic Party and for the in Peter's to establish but they can keep trying lawmakers you know the present is from inside the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning Beres mine and Joe Biden the Democrats are basically suggesting this entire in this tire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that quality transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as a man of ideas about Ukraine it seems like you sort of just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that held a concert version Ukraine but it was not about Biden specifically was about his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has well I you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and you have had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more and in three you're absolutely right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people but it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for to getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically corrupt I don't know I guess that's a case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey we you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we know I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our system and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor of the peace would ask is okay so if trouble so concerned about Biden hunter Biden and why not just go to William Barr many AG is already investigating the origins of trump Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election wanna go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either he wanted you pray to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he has had that conversation with the Attorney General I've been it's call telecom slash transcripts suggest that he had has had a conversation with the Attorney General or at least suggest that he intended to but the bottom line here though is there's only so much that in in the US department of justice that US investigators can find out without the cooperation of a foreign government if the specific act in question happened in that point country or in channels run by that foreign government right so if you really want to find out you can ask did you turn in general you can ask the American officials to find out as much as they can but eventually they're gonna hit roadblocks that they're not gonna be able to overcome without the cooperation of the foreign government where the activity actually took place love the taxes the president of the United States continues to be under such severe investigation despite the fact that there's a lot of angry as to as to motive in exactly what he was doing is against a monster of the gap between him and his own national security which is like the administration throughout my glance thanks much for stopping by really appreciate senior fellow claimants to go check out his latest column over daily caller Michael appreciate your time thank coming up we're gonna take some questions from the Ben Shapiro so mail that that's all that.

Ben Shapiro trump National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute president Michael Anton
"claremont review books" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

WLS-AM 890

09:59 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on WLS-AM 890

"Welcome back this is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problem is the president comes out of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three essay in the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench Perisher really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and as C. those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest that the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense right the main point of the article is to say that the NSA has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president doesn't mean the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump anti establishment figure who the disruptor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is but obviously anyone who's ever worked in the NSA as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of it and said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage in Washington is saying how Louis who is an absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute you know what to DO changed stuff you didn't get elected you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the driver see where do you get to decide right well the remedy is give the NSC some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million give it some real money say two hundred million and let the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this is a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget as well over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars of that the president can hire the people he once who agree with him who are going to implement his position makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president the democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing to say but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see as problems I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves as check on the president's foreign policy in the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president has behavior with regard to Ukraine so the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his house in Ukraine because up until earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped to the recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia inadvertently he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why did every time I talk to European leader they tell me you have to do more for you crane but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic option in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it's been about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy works through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground and that was after he explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we were going to give me a lesson investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell conduct leave at five the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the democratic thirty and for the in Peter's to establish but they can keep trying so my guess is you know the present Yzerman said the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here but what I was mentioning Beres mine and Joe Biden the Democrats are basically suggesting this entire in this entire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that policy transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as a man of ideas about Ukraine it seems like you sort of just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those it may have been founded on on bad ideas like the idea that held a concert version Ukraine but it was not about buying specifically was about his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him that would usually only I would say he has well I you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and he has had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more and in three you're absolutely right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people to the peach bowl I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for to getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically corrupt I don't know I guess that's a case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey when you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we now I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by a foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our systems and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happens so I guess I guess Michael the the the question and that people on the left and people who are in favor the impeachment ask is okay so if trouble so concerned about Biden hunter Biden then why not just go to William Barr many AG is already investigating the origins of trump Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election wanna go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either that he wanted to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he have had that conversation with the Attorney General I you know it's called helicon slash transcripts suggest that he had has had a.

Ben Shapiro president National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute Michael Anton
"claremont review books" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

10:09 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Welcome back this is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems that president trump is head of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three S. saying the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench perish I really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest that the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense right to the main point of the article is to say that look the NSC has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president has been the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump anti establishment figure who the disruptor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question the lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is an obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the NSA as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of them said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage Washington is saying how Louis Hosanna absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute he wanted to change the stuff you can get acted you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the bureaucracy where do you get to decide right what the remedy is to the end of season real money its budget is very small under fifteen million give it some real money say two hundred million and let the president hire people he wants that two hundred million is not that much I hate to say this it's a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is we well over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars so that the president can hire the people he wants who agree with him who are going to implement his position makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing to send but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see this process I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves track on the president's foreign policy and the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard to Ukraine to the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy in Ukraine because up until you know earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped it recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia indeed Burton Lee he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why does every time that I talked to European leader they tell me you have to do more for Ukraine but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it's been about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy works through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground that was a catchy explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we weren't going to give any aid unless investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell Condit leave that aside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the Democratic Party and for the teachers to establish but they can keep trying so my guess is you know the present is from inside the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning Beres ma and Joe Biden the Democrats basically suggested this entire in this tire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that was the transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as a man of ideas about Ukraine it seems like you sort of just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that Hillary Clinton was in Ukraine but it was not about Biden specifically was that his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has well I you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and he has had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact what happened number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more in in you're absolutely right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on the country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people that it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for the getting paid for the access for their connections and so on is that legally technically correct I don't know I guess that's case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey we you guys doing something corrupt with the former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we know I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by a foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States you want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our system and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor the impeachment ask is okay so if trump was so concerned about Biden hunter Biden and why not just go to William Barr mean the AG is already investigating the origins of from Russia he's investigating craning interference in the twenty sixteen election wanna go through domestic law enforcement agencies instead of allegedly apparently he's supposedly told Gordon someone the ambassador to either he wanted you pray to make a public statement about investigating hunter and and Joe Biden I mean for all we know he have had that conversation with the Attorney General I you know the call tell con slash transcripts suggest that he had has had a conversation with the Attorney General or at least suggest that he intended to but the bottom line here though is there's only so much that in the US department of justice that.

Ben Shapiro trump National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute president Michael Anton
"claremont review books" Discussed on 790 KABC

790 KABC

09:39 min | 1 year ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 790 KABC

"It right Hey yeah seven nine K. see welcome back is the Ben Shapiro show joining us on the line to talk about the impeachment hearings in the the problems that president trump is head of the National Security Council is Michael Anton senior fellow at Claremont institute also former staffer in the trump administration of course most famous for his authorship of the flight ninety three essay in the twenty sixteen election Michael thanks much for joining bench really appreciate it thanks for having me so why don't we begin with an article that you wrote for the daily caller this week talking about the president and the gaps that he has with his own and I see those become perfectly obvious obviously over the course of this impeachment proceeding where the media seem to suggest the president having a disagreement with the strategy of his own and I see is somehow an impeachable offense so the main point of the article is to say that look the NSC has this tiny budget which means the president can't hire the people that he wants so we have to take them from the permanent bureaucracy and this is true of every president has been the way the industry has been around for decades but it's particularly harmful to a Republican because the government is staffed with Democrats and liberals and it's really particularly harmful to someone like president trump who's an anti establishment figure who's a disruptor who's coming outside the Washington consensus so he comes in with new ideas he wants to change things he's question a lot of the foreign policy of the United States has been going and he has a difficult time implementing what he wants because he's not allowed to hire people who agree with them and who want to implement what he wants in fact he's forced to borrow people from permanent Washington most of whom don't agree with him and want to do the opposite of what he wants and so you get this crazy parade of people it became this is been obvious to anyone who's ever worked in the end I say as I have twice but now it should be obvious to the general public where you had a bunch of people not all of them but I would say the majority of the people who testified in the Democrats impeachment hearings based on the leaks that we've gotten in their opening statements most of them are not saying in fact I don't think any of them said we think he did something impeachable or he broke the law what they're saying is his Ukraine policy is all wrong and it had me alarmed and we you know we need to get back on track of cementing a strategic alliance between the US and Ukraine and all the press coverage Washington is saying Hallelujah Hosanna absolutely true you know but no no and no one is saying wait a minute he wanted to change the stuff you can get elected you're just in that job because you're an elected member of the bureaucracy where do you get to decide right what the remedy is give the NSC some real money its budget is very small under fifteen million given some real money say two hundred million and let the president hire people he wants to win a million is not that much I hate to say this is a terrible thing to say but it's true two hundred million is not that much money in Washington terms when the federal budget is all over four trillion and to give the NSC two hundred million dollars so that the president can hire the people he wants who agree with him who are going to implement his positions makes sense obviously this is less of a problem for democratic president because a democratic president you know who's hiring a bunch of permanent bureaucrats has basically already hiring people he agrees with which is why the Washington establishment I don't see this as a problem they'd like to just keep going to check on Republicans and enables Democrats right nothing to fan but I do see it as a problem anybody who's a conservative who's a Republican who's a trump supporter should see if the problem I mean I certainly favor the idea that the president should actually be in charges on foreign policy and the idea that you have people inside the president's cabinet or basically seeing themselves as track on the president's foreign policy and the American people elect a person that person gets to set the policy but with that said let's make the case from the other side now with regard to funding of the NSA but with regard to president trump's behavior with regard to Ukraine to the idea is that the president from shifted his policy on Ukraine that he did so for a good reason then the question becomes why do you think that he shifted his policy in Ukraine because up until earlier in it earlier last year basically earlier this year rather the president have been providing deadly aid to Ukraine in contravention contradiction rather to the Obama administration policy very very soft support for Ukraine trump's administration taking a much harder line in favor of Ukraine and against Russia particularly with regard to deadly aid facing down the problems in in Crimea what what do you think triggered president from to shift that policy well first of all that we only ship that took place with initially he didn't have it shipped it recently I was there for the first year of the trump administration and was around the present many times as he expressed skepticism about giving lethal aid to Ukraine he was concerned that it might draw us into a broader conflict with Russia inadvertently he would get he would ask questions about why why is it every time I you know I'm speaking as if I were him now why did every time that I talked to European leader they tell me you have to do more for Ukraine but they don't do anything themselves you know why should the American problem more the European problem in the Europeans are trying to pass it off to me and they don't want to do anything which I think is also a legitimate question and then he would read reports be given reports about systemic corruption in the government of Ukraine and say okay so we give them all this money or given this aid how do I know it's going to be spent or used wisely and he was very reluctant to do it and and I would say it spent about six months or so thinking it over listening to all the arguments of his advisers as the policy work through and eventually he decided to do it right against his initial inclination that was sometime in the summer of twenty seventeen I'm not aware of him ever changing that once he began that policy we've seen a report that apparently the aid was held up for some indeterminate period of time the Democrats are trying to impeach him on the ground that was a key explicitly linked to a quid pro quo that we were going to give any aid unless investigation was launched we'll see if they can prove that allegation they haven't yet the phone call what people are calling the transcript is actually called to tell convert we've outside the phone call transcript doesn't demonstrate that right and we do know that the aid was released and that the Ukrainians never launched an investigation either as a quid pro quo or independently so I think it's gonna be a hard thing for the Democratic Party and for the in Peter's to establish but they can keep trying Mike this is you know the present is from inside the administration I've offered the theory of his behavior here with what I was mentioning the reason I enjoy by the Democrats basically suggested this entire in this entire impeachment hinges on president trump wanted to get Joe Biden in the lead up to twenty twenty it seems to me that if you read the that that quasi transcript if you if you listen to the statements that the president has made if you follow the present at all he has this sort of me as my own ideas about Ukraine it seems like he's or just wrap them all up into a ball and then said I'm withholding aid from Ukraine until you solve issues X. Y. and Z. some of those may have been founded on and bad ideas like the idea that Hillary Clinton is in Ukraine but it was not about Biden specifically was about his perception of corruption however however based on bad material that may have been funneled him by Rudy Giuliani I would say he has you know I want to restate as he has basically three concerns and he has had from beginning about Ukraine number one he doesn't he doesn't want to lead to a wider conflict between the US and Russia inadvertently however low probability that might be it would be very high impact were to happen number two he wonders why this is first and foremost an American issue or an American problem when the Europeans who are much more concerned about it and are much closer to it do less than we do much less in some cases nothing and constantly ask us to do more in in for you you're absolutely right he is concerned about Ukrainian corruption and wondering why when we have so many problems here at home that we need to sort out we should be set spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a country on the other side of the world whose interests don't perfectly align with ours and who which may have a corrupt government and spend the money on wisely as the Biden I just think this is gonna be another thing where the Democrats are gonna have a hard time convincing the American people that it's impeachable I have a long article on impeachment coming out in the next Claremont review books which will be available in a week or two and I make the following argument which I think is perfectly reasonable right what trump is asking about in that specific instance is why did Joe Biden son get paid a lot of money for apparently doing nothing and having no expertise in either the country the language the industry or things like that now we know this kind of thing happens all the time with connected insiders politically connected insiders get paid lots of money sometimes by domestic American interests and sometimes by foreign interests to do what appears to be not a whole lot what are they getting paid for the getting paid for their access for their connections and so on is that legally technically correct I don't know I guess that's a case by case it sure looks corrupt though and it's amazing to me that the Washington establishment is pouncing on trump for asking about that just asking about it is if it's improper for him to say Hey when you guys doing something corrupt with a former vice president possible future president and then you allowed him to strong arm you out of continuing the investigation I don't know what really happened but that sounds pretty bad when you you know look into it I I think it's important that we know I think as an American citizen it is important that we know I personally would want to know if the vice president's son were paid a lot of money by foreign government to do nothing or little that he had any expertise or background to do just so that that government could get access to senior government official I think everybody who is a citizen of the United States should want to know about that and should be concerned about that happening that's an abuse of our system and we shouldn't tolerate it if it happened so I guess I guess Michael the the the question that people on the left and people who are in favor the.

Ben Shapiro trump National Security Council senior fellow Claremont institute president Michael Anton two hundred million dollars seven nine K six months
"claremont review books" Discussed on Reason Podcast

Reason Podcast

12:50 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on Reason Podcast

"Baptist convention drafts, a statement of moral character for public officials where it talks about how toleration of serious wrong by public officials, Sears the conscience of culture fast forward to twenty eighteen he says, oh, that was all a mistake, the stormy Daniels businesses nobody's business, but, you know, Trump's and then in twenty nineteen he tweets in opposition to Pete Buddha judges, same sex marriage. And so what was the only real constant here? The only real constant is he was opposing the democrat and support the Republican, do you. And I mean, I assume you to find yourself, I you know, I as a Christian, but then, also as a conservative, etc. So that principle before party matters. We. Yeah. You know, to me, this is not a hard call. And I guess technically you tweeted, I think it was a tweet last fall, that you are no longer Republican. I don't consider myself and by that it doesn't mean you're not gonna vote for Republicans. It's just you, you had been a card carrying member of the Republican party in Tennessee. You don't literally carry around a car. You decide when you go to the primary polls, how rush which party? So I've voted Republican four Republicans, I have endorsed Republicans, but I don't consider myself a Republican. I can't consider myself Republic soldiers side of the business, just a will to power basically. It's you know that it, it really has nothing to do with principal. It has everything to do with winning the next, you know, five minutes in the news cycle. And then hopefully an electoral victory which may or may not mean anything because this is another thing you know, from kind of libertarian perspective, who I'd always looked at the Republican party, at least in the past few decades, they were a party of free trade, so, like the win win a battle. But the but then the principles are just totally gone. Well, I think so I don't I think you have some people were Maquiavelian some people who you know, what's happening now is just part of the Griff. It's part of the decline to power. But I think for a awful lot more people in this gets back to the culture war point that we've talked about people are living in a state of fear. Now I mean this, this essay, the flight, ninety three election described I briefly that was in the Claremont review books, and it was a pretty influential, at least among kind of higher end circles in conservative put an intellectual frame over the embrace of Trump in, essentially what it was arguing that America is in mortal danger and Americans are in the position of the passengers and flight ninety three and they have to charge, and that's the flight, just for, you know, the millions of people have been born sent you thousands of flight on nine eleven where passengers took control in crashed it into the ground right, Pennsylvania, rather. Than have it. It was, it was either going to go to the White House, or the capitol bright and crash into right? And so, you know, it was charged the cockpit or die, and let die anyway, because you don't know what's gonna happen Trump. But you, you know, the plane's gonna crash with Hillary, so in that, that he was not forming public opinion. He was tapping into a public opinion in, in my days in two thousand sixteen when I was opposed to both Trump and Hillary, I would have many conversations with genuinely distraught people who were saying, David, you have to support him or America will be over rut. So two things who did you vote for in two thousand sixteen? I voted for Evan McMullen. Oh my gosh. She was your your standard. He was. He under study. Bill Kristol had teased odd Memorial Day weekend. Got this great guy, and I, I feel like tryst them shandy or something going down all of these rabbit holes. But I did Bill Kristol get in touch with you to say, hey, you know what you're the guy and I'm going to or did you find out when you read it on Twitter. Now, let everyone else I had dinner with Bill a couple of days before all of this happened. And we had talked about the state of the effort to recruit, somebody to take on Trump and Hillary, and, you know, all of the big names had said no Mitt Romney had just foreclosed it. And, and so, you know, we were lamenting the fact that nobody had stepped forward. And he said, I think our ideal candidate failing the, you know, considering the big, big names had not come forward is somebody who's outside of politics from middle America preferably. A post nine eleven veteran and I just ingred with that in principle. Yeah. Sure. Sure. You know you didn't realize that he was. He was pressing the buttons underneath the table saying, okay, we've got him into the next morning. I woke up and my phone was kind of blowing up and he had put written in the weekly standard that, that was the profile lighten that would be somebody like my friend, David French, and he said, I'm not saying he's the ideal person or, or there are many other people like him. And, you know later that day, I believe he said, I know I'm, I'm serious about this. Is this something you'd consider in this is gonna sound like I'm the most insane person history in the world? But at that time, you know, you're sitting there thinking is, and this is before the Republican convention, can somebody do something. And if nobody's gonna do anything should I shit? I and, and so I spent about two to three days, actually really thinking it through. Calling an awful lot of people. And, and at the end of the day, I realized the absolute maximum possible effect that I could have at just peaking would have been to be the Ralph Nader of twenty sixteen. The guy who everyone says, but for you and your meddling ways you know, one of the major party candidates would have won out gore. Yeah. Albert, maybe. Now, you look at it. And it so, yeah, that might not have been such a bad thing. I don't know who knows. I mean, but, you know, then and so and then, especially as the Republican establishment just locked in behind Trump. This was also before Paul Ryan, had endorsed, this was there were, there were a lot of sort of balls still in the air at that point. But it was the right decision. Not to do it. Absolutely. But yeah, it did have the effect obviously, enough of sort of putting a target on your back. So let's get back to this question of cultural catastrophe because there's, there's so many ways to talk about that. And you you. Mentioned before that on the kind of religious, right? Or many parts of the conservative. Right. This idea of catastrophe of, of the decline of America has something to do with the sexual revolution first and foremost. And do you agree with that? And then what are the contours of that decline? Yes. So I, I would say my thinking on this is has changed a little bit over time before I started writing fulltime for national review as a religious liberty constitutional lawyer. And so what that means is, I'm always at the point the flash point some always wear. The censorship is the worst where the problems are the worst, which is one of the ring things, it was ironic about the notion that I don't fight. I'd spent my tire career litigating. Yeah. No. In a response to Amar you said that you had been accused of milk libertarian kind of like. Oh, wow. I gotta get that on a vanity plate for less. And I qualified it with milk. I know enough liver libertarianism is not. So what, what were the types of religious liberty cases taking on codes on college campuses. So when I was president a fire, we had a project to identify what percentage of top universities had speech codes in the US and devoted created a national litigation strategy to try to strike them down on those often involve people being denied the group's being denied the ability to kind of talk about religious tops, sometimes. Yeah, it could be a lot of different things. It's left-wing groups being denied the ability to talk Butch happened actually campus on occasion. So speech codes freedom of a cessation that would be the right of clubs to organize on campus which does focus that issue did focus, a great deal on Christian groups, faculty, intellectual unacademic freedom. One of my last big cases before I joined national review is I represented, a, a professor and what I think, is the first big jury verdict or first jury verdict on behalf of a conservative professor denied a career opportunity to because of. Ideology since who was a Mike Adams, he, he often writes for townhall dot com. He's the university of North Carolina Wilmington. And so that, that was the kind of case, I'm always there at this flash point in the middle of sort of where the illiberal left is at its strongest. So I had a, a more doom and gloom view of the cultural war, as I moved out of doing that exclusively my view of it changed. And I saw the culture wars, a much more mixed bag. I like the way that my, my colleague, Ramesh Pinero has phrased it, he said, over the last generation, or two America has become more pro gun pro life, and pro gay, and we, we had long been taught to believe that these things could not all advance at the same time not possible. So I found it kind of interesting that the argument was being made once again about the catastrophe the cultural catastrophe win more states were passing more pro-life legislation at the same. Time, then literally anytime since row that was happening at this same tied and to be clear, and you see that as a good idea any any kind of restrictions on abortion. Yes is, is to the good. Yes. And so this huge legislative wave is happening at the same time as drag Queen tweet, reading our in Sacramento, public library. And one of the one of the things I've been trying to do in my writing and is to get people to stop catastrophes. Ing their view of politics, and it's stop having this flight ninety three mentality. There are things that you win in. There are things that you lose. But you don't go to progressive gathering and hear them say things like our victory is almost hand they are catastrophes. They are doom and gloom. Ing in one of the things that makes a lot of American culture, conversation toxic is that both sides think they are. This is also. I mean it's I, I was about to say, well, at least the libertarians are optimistic and it's like how we're like. Whereas, you know, I mean there are still people who have gold buried in their backyard. Because we're expecting the run on the banks to happen at any point in time. And hey, I'm an amateur. There is a long tradition. I mean, there's even a school of literary thought that says the jeremiad is the essential genre of American fiction. I mean, going back to the colonial period. So we've always been doom and gloom, and stuff, where, where do you stand that on something, like, you know, in this mixing, your conservative values and religious values? I assume you don't agree that it's, it's a proper Christian understanding of kind of theology to allow gays to marry but then how does that play out in the civil law like should there be marriage equality, though, should should the state treat p to individuals equally view on, on the same sex. Marriage issue is religiously I believe that marriages between a man and a woman, I do not believe the constitution of the United States. I'm originalist in my interpretation of the constitution, I think in originalist reading of the constitution saying that it the fourteenth amendment, protects the right of same sex marriage. I think is. I don't see the foundation for income and legally, my view is that marriage should be defined by the states. And so that was which would open up the possibility of the state. If a state says, you know, same sex marriages. Okay. Crater fine with if the people of Massachusetts, voting, and the people of Massachusetts decided that same sex marriage, you know, that's, that's up to them into their community. One of the core aspects of mind, our political philosophy is we need to push a lot of these really important, questions, down much more to the level and then also leave. And I mean, I think this in, in reading your work in this, I mean is, you know, really, I think central to almost seventeenth century understanding of liberal philosophy or where it began in arguments in England over the right of conscience and whatnot, which is that what the state does is not the state doesn't necessarily give them moral imprimatur on everything. So as the real question, then, or the where you would go to the barracks. Where you would you would get on the plane, and crash it as if the state and said your church has to marry anybody that we say his is right..

America Trump Republican party Bill Kristol United States David French Hillary Massachusetts White House Sears Ralph Nader Paul Ryan Tennessee Pete Buddha Daniels Mitt Romney Evan McMullen Twitter
"claremont review books" Discussed on The Art of Manliness

The Art of Manliness

01:52 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on The Art of Manliness

"And by the way, I think that's a big problem today. We're in a major of deconstruction Postmodernism was the word deconstruction suggests we're taking apart the views and the traditions that we've been taught we're very good at that. But what do we replace it with and someone can easily develop the cynical view that each culture each society, maybe even in each individual has their own views. There's no truth. There's no outside of the cave. If you will. So that negative moment is very dangerous Glock stop too early. He should have continued with Socrates. And I'm convinced that if he had finally come into the presence of the good more closely come into the presence of the goodness at the heart of creation at the heart of the world that he would have he would have had the fulfillment. That's what he's described in the Republic Saturday describes that happiness at the. End of the philosophical quest. I'm convinced that Socrates had it, and it would have been Glock on salvation. But my guess is. He didn't save him then work. Well jacob. This has been a great conversation. Is there some place people go to learn more about the book and your work? Sure. Well, I mean, you can you can I I actually have a a website. I think is called Jacob Helen dot com. I say I think it's called because I don't really look at it a lot, but you can look at my Gluck, my book Glock, cons, fate history. Myth and character in Plato's Republic on Amazon there there is a review coming out in the Claremont review books, and there should be reviewing city journal online in a month or two so check it on Amazon there a couple reviews, you can you can look at it there. And I hope that interested listeners will will buy the book and find out more about this sort of historical mystery, right? Well, Jacob Pailin takes much time. It's been a pleasure. Thank you so much Brad. I really appreciate your talking with me, my guest Jacob pal. And he is.

Socrates Jacob pal jacob Jacob Pailin Amazon Brad Plato Claremont review city journal
"claremont review books" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

The Ben Shapiro Show

02:11 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show

"Democratic Party, it's hard not to feel the same sort of flight ninety three urgency that was expressed by Michael Anton in this famous piece for the Claremont review books back in two thousand sixteen he suggested basically the country's gonna crash anyway, you got vote for Trump because you've got to try to storm the cockpit. The metaphor didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. But if you look at the Democratic Party right now, it does feel like this is a party that is determined to drive America into the ground. This is a party that does not care about constitutional limits or even frankly the limits of decency Bernie Sanders is not intersectional enough for them. He's to socialist did not intersectional enough. So for example, CNN's Bakari sellers. He came out on CNN last night. He said, listen, I know burning marched with Martin Luther King or this is one of the good part of Burmese records. But he says that's not enough burn isn't intersectional enough. He was criticized last time for not connecting effectively with the African American community. Is this part of what he needs to do to get the nomination. I know you're not necessarily root out. I I think think. I think that Bernie Sanders has a long way to go. And I there's a certain part of that believes that ship. All ready said I mean, it's not the fact that Bernie Sanders marched with Dr king in the sixties. I think that was one of the first things that he said the question was where have you been in? What have you done since? Then we're has been whereas your activism been since the sixties. Okay. Well, here's the problem for this. But Cari sellers, does speak the language of the basement he is talking to the democrat base. But the democratic base is not the entire voting population of the United States, nor is it even the voting population of the Democratic Party. There's a poll out of South Carolina today. Here's what chose chose the Joe Biden. And Bernie Sanders are the only two candidates to reach double digits in the democratic primary Biden has thirty seven percent of the vote right now in South Carolina. Followed by Bernie with twenty one percent of the vote Kamla Harris comes in third with nine percents of the vote. Cory Booker has six percent. Beta Aurora, Elizabeth Warren both received five Elizabeth Warren is toast. She has done. She's not a competitor. In this race. Kamala Harris, though is charging really low among black voters. And that's what's so fascinating about this among African. Democratic primary voters Biden has forty-three percent of the vote. Sanders has fifteen percents of the vote Harris at nine so for all the talk about how intersection -ality is going to rule the future. The reality is minority even in the Democratic Party, probably, but it is a minority..

Bernie Sanders Democratic Party Martin Luther King Joe Biden Kamala Harris CNN Elizabeth Warren South Carolina Michael Anton Cari sellers Cory Booker Claremont review America Trump United States African American community thirty seven percent forty-three percent twenty one percent six percent
"claremont review books" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

77WABC Radio

06:00 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 77WABC Radio

"Back. This is the Ben Shapiro show. So Bernie Sanders an open socialist he may not actually be radical enough for the Democratic Party. This is why unfortunately, I feel like constitutional concerns have gone by the wayside, and we let off with President Trump talking about his emergency declaration. And he says, listen, I know that I may be violating the constitution here. But if you're worried that I'm setting a precedent will Democrats are going to do it. Anyway, because they have no limits when you look at the Democratic Party, it's hard not to feel the same sort of flight ninety three urgency that was expressed by Michael Anton in this famous piece for the Claremont review books back in two thousand sixteen he suggested basically the country's gonna crash anyway, you got to vote for Trump because you got to try to storm the cockpit. The metaphor didn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense. But if you look at the Democratic Party right now, it does feel like this is a party that is determined to drive America into the ground. And this is a party that does not care about constitutional limits or even frankly the limits of decency. Bernie Sanders is not intersectional enough for them to socialist did not intersectional enough. So for example, CNN's Bakari sellers. He came out on CNN last night. He said, listen, I know burning marched with Martin Luther King. This is one of the good part of Burmese records. But he says that's not enough burning isn't intersectional enough. He was criticized last time for not connecting effectively with the African American community is part of what he needs to do to get the nomination. I know you're not necessarily Rudy. I think that Bernie Sanders has a long way to go. And I there's a certain part of me that believe that ship is already said, I mean, it's not the fact that Bernie Sanders marched with Dr king in the sixties. I think that was one of the first things that he said the question was where have you been what have you done since then has been whereas your activism been since the sixties? Okay. Well, here's the problem for this Macari sellers, does speak the language of the basement. He is talking to the democratic base. But the democratic base is not the entire voting population of the United States, nor is it even the voting population of the Democratic Party. There's a poll out of South Carolina today. Here's what it chose chose the Joe Biden. And Bernie Sanders are the only two candidates to reach double digits in the democratic primary Biden has thirty seven percent of the vote right now in South Carolina. Followed by Bernie with twenty one percent of the vote. Kamala Harris comes in third with nine percents of the vote. Cory Booker has six percent beta Iraq, Elizabeth Warren, both received five Elizabeth Warren is toast. She has done. She's not a competitor. In this race. Kamala Harris, though is charging really low among black voters. And that's what's so fascinating about this among. African American democratic primary voters Biden has forty-three percent of the vote. Sanders has fifteen percents of the vote Harris's at nine. So for all the talk about how intersection is going to rule the future. The reality is is a minority even in the Democratic Party, probably, but it is a minority that is now running the party the folks who care so much about race and sex and the intersection thereof. Those people run the heart of the Democratic Party. But the Democratic Party is not relegated to just those people. On the issue of reparations for African Americans. Thirty one percents of respondents among Democrats agree with the policy forty six percents disagree. That issue is not helping Kamla Harris with South Carolina democratic primary voters, according to the poll seventy nine percent of them support reparations, but they are breaking for Joe Biden nearly four to one. By the way, President Trump has a positive approval rating of fifty percents in the state. So in any case, this is sort of the point as the Democratic Party moves ever further to left President Trump's chances get even better as I've said for a long time, if President Trump can just let the Democrats go crazy and continue to go crazy and not go crazy himself. He may be in good shape and good good news for him, the Democrats appear to be going fully crazy. They're now eating their own. So Ilhan Omar continues to be a fresh face of the Democratic Party incredibly fresh as well as face. I mean on the cover of Rolling Stone with Nancy Pelosi who also is a fresh face. Meaning that she's had a chemical peel in the last thirty days in any case Ilhan, Omar. Will not stop at the anti-semitism. I mean legitimately will not stop can't stop won't stop turn down for what age. She incredible she's made three openly anti semitic public statements in the last month and a half and has apologized twice. Not for this latest one, and she's being celebrated by the Democratic Party. So fearful of ticking off their intersectional base. How do you think is going to play with the broader American public? I don't think it's gonna play all that. Well, so over the weekend, Il Il, mar so Nita Lowey tweeted out Nita Lowey Democratic Congress person from New York, and here is sort of what happened. I it's a couple of things Bill Maher last week suggested once again, the Jews were Jews in America and American Israel. Supporters demonstrating tool wilty loyalty to Israel as well as loyalty to America. And then if the two came into conflict, it was really going to be loyalty to Israel that one out then in West Virginia, some idiots at West Virginia GOP wanting L Hanno Marta. Hold their beer. Apparently, they tweeted out or they put up a poster that had a picture of nine eleven and it had never forget you said, and then underneath it was a picture of Ilhan, Omar saying, you forgot is though Ilhan Omar is somehow a member of al-qaeda Ilan Amar is is is terrible in a lot of lay. She's not a member of al-qaeda. That's absurd. It's absurd. And indeed it is quote, unquote, Islam-phobic it's Islam phobic in the sense that not every Muslim is a sense is a member of al-qaeda. Doesn't mean Mars any great shakes. She's not. She's joked about all kinds of before she is she is essentially expressed sympathy for other terrorist groups like Hamas Hezbollah, but is she responsible for now? Of course, she is not, but when she has called on her own, but but the amount of inside the Democratic Party it turned into well, you know, let's do this. This is llama phobia against is truly terrible. But we're just going to ignore the whole thing, nor the fact that she's Nancy semi. I'll explain in just a second. First. Let's talk about your impending doom getting life insurer. Can feel like assembling the world's worst, jigsaw puzzle. It's confusing. It takes forever when you're finally done. It doesn't even look cool. But here is the thing if you have a mortgage or kids or anyone who depends on your income you need to solve that puzzle. You need to make sure that you are prepared in case God forbid, the worst should happen..

Democratic Party Bernie Sanders President Trump Joe Biden Kamala Harris Ilhan Omar South Carolina Martin Luther King America CNN Ben Shapiro Israel al-qaeda Elizabeth Warren Nancy Pelosi African American community Claremont review Cory Booker Nita Lowey
"claremont review books" Discussed on Talk 650 KSTE

Talk 650 KSTE

14:32 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on Talk 650 KSTE

"Four nine zero zero buck that's eight four four nine zero zero two eight two five or we've talked a lot this evening in particular an hour. One about the deficiency is on the democratic side, both ideologically and tactically. But at the same time the world is in some ways also going their way now in January Tucker Carlson said the Republican intellectual world ablaze by our ticketing in a sense. Why Trump won namely that he called out a failed into intellectual elite a failed ruling class starting with Mitt Romney. And this was in response in part to Mitt Romney is anti-trump editorial in the Washington Post, and what Tucker rays were many failings of the starting with the fact that they're not really ruling for the common. Good anymore so much as the good of third world nations or feel good. Policies that make them feel as if they're virtuous and compassionate people, regardless of the outcomes for their supposed beneficiaries while they continue to enrich themselves and accrue more power. Dr Matt Peterson has written extensively about this. He's the vice president of education at the Claremont institute and editor of the American minds. And he wrote the peace at that new website. The American mind where argues Tucker Carlson is right now for two scores are before we jump in. I'm a pavilion at the Kremlin institute. And I continue to work with them. Because I think they're a great institution that's doing God's work in trying to restore America's founding principles Dr Peterson thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much that introduction. Ben. Thanks. What's it's my pleasure. And thank you for writing. This piece wet start at the highest level, which is how in your view have our elites found us. Oh, gosh. There's so many ways I would start though with a misunderstanding of American principles and purpose. The first failing you'd have to talk about is that the education of our elites of sales to understand and distinguish what is distinctive about America. And what Merican the American principles of government aren't there for what we ought to be aiming at what's the purpose? And so what you have what you see in lead society is a willingness or an aura a culture that is very reluctant to embrace something distinctly American, and it's much more apt to say what's wrong with America. Right. And it's the suspicious of patriotism, I would start there. And then the problem is that outside of that. If you don't have a way to to to be a patriotic elite, or you're not taught what the principles and purposes of your government, are you then descend to self interest, right? The only other thing you have in the academy is self interest or some form of Ben's social Justice woke doctrine, right? So this this is an enormous problem. It's been going on for a long time. It's been building for a long time. But what you see now or people like Tucker talking about it explicitly on the right in ways that really annoying house for some time. There's a political element, of course. But if you believe that politics is downstream from the culture part of what comes out of our elites are sort of norms governing practices for how to live your life. And that comes well before we talk about policies Charles Murray, whose work I'm sure you're very well familiar with talks about in one of his books. The idea that the Elliott's don't preach what they practice. In other words, they sort of promote an anything goes progressive utopic sorta worldview where they reject the traditional values and principles on which our entire civilization is based but then in their own lives. They live. Very conventionally, and they really do a disservice when they exhibit certain behavior in their rhetoric and other behavior in their private life. Do you think that factors into the sort of Tucker and your view as well? Absolutely. I think Tucker is a hundred percent right about this. Obviously Charles Marie has spearheaded the proof of this in in very real and damning social science. So what you see is that when you are a member of the elite, you're reluctant to adopt any policy that actively promotes the health of the family at the same time that you know, because of your station, you know, that getting married is a good idea. Stay married is a good idea. Marriage is much healthier among elites than it is among the rest of society. And so this is where Tucker really made his Mark. This is why Tucker's monologue resonated throughout the country. What he said was quote, co culture economics are inseparably intertwined certain economic systems allow families to thrive and thriving families make market economies possible. That's what he said. And so what he did is is do something. Different. He said, no, no, no. You can't just treat policy is it separate from the promotion or the denigration of the family. I can is it used to be called as is used to call political economy economics is necessarily tied to to to morality and to promoting certain kinds of behavior and rewarding and punishing other kinds of behavior. Discouraging it, and I don't really should be controversial. But unfortunately, a lot of rhetoric on the right were just used to. We have adopted over the last few decades makes it controversial to say these things I think it's kind of a truism that an economy derives from a culture and embedded in that to your point is the idea that morality matters, and it clearly functions in a free market and a capitalist system doesn't just arise out of nowhere. Otherwise, the people who had claimed that China, for example, would become economic would become politically liberal and socially liberal. Because it's economically liberal. They would have been proven, right? If it was that economics decided, but actually it's the other way around and it starts with people and their own voluntary actions. Now, the criticism of Tucker's PS, and you deal with this in European as well is that if the free market, we it's to certain disasters in society, creative destruction implies both not only creation, but also destruction. And there's real societal cost to that. Then is Tucker arguing and our folks like you who support his argument than arguing that we should sort of rebel against the free market in some ways because there are societal losses in free market systems as well. I think it's a matter of priority. I think I think the best way to understand it is that. Sure does desire a free market in the sense that we we do have a drive within us right to be creative to take initiative to buy and sell things among amongst ourselves forth, and so on but in order to do that we need a governmental structure around it some way. But the stylish is kind of rules of the game and points us in certain directions as opposed others. So let me give an example because I understand absolutely why many people might be listening saying, I'm not sure what this guy's talking about. Well, I don't know if I acquired a Greeley sounds like, you know, some kind of socialism. Great society type doctor, and this is not what we're talking about. It's not what Tucker Carlson said that our leaders should speak out against the ugliest parts of our franchise system because not all commerce is good. Commerce is inside harmful. And so what are the questions? He asked was why why is it defensible alone people money for people money that they can't possibly repay so take payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods. Right. Four hundred percent annual interest at this is this is this is a practice where you might raise. The question. Mark may say why is this commerce? Good. And in fact, in American history ABRAHAM LINCOLN when he first ran for office said, you know, loaning money to poor people at exorbitant rates of interest in idea, no Webster during the ratification debates said, look, you can't separate the morals of the people from the influence of money on men sense of Justice and more obligation. The law influences are habit, and we should restrict credit to people who won't be able to pay money back in order to encourage them to to save and be responsible. Now, I think that's a matter of common sense. But, but when you when you have a kind of a brittle conservative rhetoric really is libertarian in a way, right? That says well, there's no connection. That's why people are upset with what? Tucker was saying. But I think no Webster was right, right? Lost credit for four people be helping courage. Good bad. So that leads to a fundamental question. Which is is it government's job in some way to promote virtue people instantly sort of recoil when you talk about should government be promoting certain moral values and principles and not others. Do you believe that it is the fundamental job of government to do? So. I think that the first instinctual reaction of many older conservatives would be to say, what are you talking about the Taliban had a department of virtue, and vice last thing, we do is we last thing we want is to increase the power of district stink. And there's certainly a lot of truth to that. In a way, I agree with that hundred percent the same time, we can't neglect. What law is and here the American founders can help us out because they did not promote it kind of great society where government interfered in every part of people's lives on the other hand. There's not lied to themselves and think that law and policy on matters of numbers. I dunno matters of economic policy. We're just kind of morally neutral, they knew that law either encourages or discourages certain kinds of habit and certain kinds of kinds of behavior and they didn't pretend otherwise so. So the way I put it is. Of course, government and lock can't reach inside people and make them virtuous that that certainly is not something that law can do directly. In fact, other solutions to be doing that much more directly than government. I mean. Reward certain kinds of behavior and encourage it right, certain kinds of habits and ways of life and discourage other kinds of habits and ways of life and to pretend otherwise I think is very dangerous where does Trump factor in in this thesis, I mentioned in my open that in some sense what Tucker was explaining why Trump won while the Elliott's failed. He called them out on it. What is the takeaway in terms of what the future of conservatism looks like is there something within Trump that recognizes the problem, and you can say here are the sorts of policies that we might wanna push for based upon what he saw on the electorate, so I guess one question. What does the future of conservatism, look like to whether Republican rank and file simply reject this out of hand and take the sort of you that? Well, look this was a blip in US history. This president actually rejected everything that we show it and our twenty twelve autopsy of why Mitt Romney lost and the status. Will ultimately, prevail. Again. Well, I am certainly view that even though there are many people in Washington and elsewhere in power. Who've been always President Trump. I mean, they they think that once President Trump leaves the scene, and of course, they hope to force him out off the scene force him off the stage. They hope that things will go back to the way they were. And I think this is a dangerous delusion as well. I don't think things are going to go back to the way they were. I think that what we're having is what we should be. Having is a very serious debate about what is a matter of principle. What's a matter of policy so principles should be the things that don't change. Right. That dictate what kind of policy we should propose given the circumstances but policy changes over time because we find ourselves in different circumstances. So you know, to give an example of of I think what Trump understands what Trump can actually teach us. Federal's papers. Let's go all the way back to the, you know, the ratification of the US constitution. Our founders are very clear about this Justice is the end of government and Charles kesler editor the Claremont review books warned of this twenty years ago. You said conservatives avoid arguing about questions of Justice whenever possible. And by that, I think he meant, you know, they like to argue about numbers and GDP, and and utilitarian kind of arguments efficiency, and they didn't want to argue about Justice. In the meantime, the last talked about Justice all the time, right? Social Justice is their mantra. And so we avoid arguing about questions of arguing about political questions and talking about Justice. We really are student politics Kessler said essential issue is Justice. And that's the problem. So the example, I would give as a matter of rhetoric when it comes to economic policy, whatever the policy should be. We can debate about we can debate about right with evidence. If we if we tariffs as an example will this lead to the ends that we? Think about the the the arguments that are gonna win that resonate with people. Trump's argument 'economics over and over again is I care about our people. My purpose is to make their lives better. And he's very clear about that. He's in very simple and stark language, whereas conservatives are still in a way, fighting the Cold War in their mind, the other fighting the Soviet Union, and they'll say things like, well, you know, this is good because it's it leads the freedom, and it's part of the free market. Well, freedom is good, right? But freedom needs to be justified because ultimately Justice is the end of government. The name of the piece is Tucker Carlson is right. You can find it at the American mind, and we've been speaking with its author, my friend, Dr Matt Peterson vice president of the institute and also the editor of the new website, the American mind Dr Peterson thanks so much for joining us. Thank you so much for having me, and we'll be right back. This is Ben winegarden in for Buck Sexton on the Buck Sexton show, eight four four nine zero zero buck that's eight four four nine zero.

Tucker Carlson President Trump Mitt Romney Dr Matt Peterson editor America vice president Dr Peterson US Ben winegarden Claremont institute Trump Webster Kremlin institute Washington Post Elliott Justice
"claremont review books" Discussed on Talk 650 KSTE

Talk 650 KSTE

09:21 min | 2 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on Talk 650 KSTE

"Am a Claremont institute Lincoln fellow. I can't speak highly enough about the Claremont institute's. I'm delighted to have Ryan Williams. Joining us now, not least because Ryan was instrumental in a a new obstacle coming up on a climate institute website American mind dot org. I suggest you all take a look at this slightly spicy. I think it's called our house divided multiculturalism versus America spy Thomas de clinging stain. And it's a fascinating article. Ryan, thanks for joining us to discuss this. I guess I guess there's always trepidation when when publishing something like this, especially you know, in August institution led claim on institute. Waiting into into the debate surrounding multiculturalism. I mean, I personally don't have an issue doing it myself. But you know, what kind of rocks get thrown by the establishment media when something like this happen? So just like, let's let's talk through this article a little bit. Let's talk about it's it's it's a prognosis over multiculturalism. And then and then perhaps you can talk us through a little bit of the thought process behind this. Sure. Yeah. Thanks for having me. Well, Tom Clinger's seen is full disclosure clermont's board chairman, which of course, is in his byline, but he wanted to update this term multiculturalism, which a lot of us. Probably haven't heard since the nineties and tie it to identity, politics, and political correctness and really to to lay the blame for for the some of our path allergies, and our identity politics pass allergies and our current political pass at the feet of the academy and the project that it's been been going about for the last fifty years. It's pretty it's it's pretty in depth. I mean, it doesn't it doesn't pull any punches hair. I mean, you know, looking at looking at both the the establishments perspective on multiculturalism is what is the rights perspective on multi-culturalism? What do you think that the key takeaways from from docks can stay off? Well, his his one of his his lead point was really that. A lot of conservatives didn't understand what Trump was doing team draws the provocative analogy between Trump and Lincoln and his point is that in know in the slavery crisis knee team, fifties Lincoln oriented, his whole political project around getting rid of slavery and making sure that the principle that it was right didn't spread which was the principal of the south. And that all the means that were asked his disposal were interested of that goal. So Tom's analogy is to try to unite conservatives these days behind Trump because he gets one thing right at least at the very least, and that's insanity of political correctness in its nature. So Tom Tom thinks that we have to keep that in view, and you know, that ought to orient us and. Trump and context and put the larger project of what should be the larger project of conservatism these days within focus. So it might mean that set of policy priorities that that conservative ink is not used to it might mean a lying behind the man that they're uncomfortable with the main goal should be kept inside. Because really if we allow multiculturalism and identity politics to become the dominant way of thinking in American national political life than the games up. Yeah. I'm just going to quote from this article a little bit. And then and then we'll come back and discuss more of it quote. Trump's and talk campaign was the defense of America. The election was fault. Not so much over policies. Character Email service James Comey as it was over the meaning of America. Trump's wall was not say much about keeping foreigners out as it was keeping a commitment to a distinctive country immigration free trade and foreign policy about protecting our own in these policies Trumpers, raising the question who are we as a nation. He owns it by being Trump a man made in America unmistakably, an unapologetically American and like most of his fellow citizens one who does not give a hoot what Europeans or intellectuals think I picked that. I picked that paragraph Obama's because they'll only do I host one might argue the European intellectual. Yeah. We give you a Passover favorite, European intellectual. I mean, that's that makes it pretty quick. And and I suppose maybe we can reflect on on the impending midterm elections using that as well. I mean when you've looked at this and you'll typically out in in California, right? When you've looked at the last couple of months of campaigning. Whether it's been Abernathy in stormy Daniels. Whether it's been brick Cavanaugh, whether it's been migrant caravans, it all seems to be coming back to what someone Thomas things done is written in this article, right? What it means to be America? What America not just allows? But what also would it taller rates and does it really tolerate having its commander in chief? You know, having his genitalia rolls up in in news articles, having you know, blow up Dole's of him like dressed as a rat. Now, tolerates it in the sense of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. But I think to to borrow the website name of yours. I think the American mind rejects that, right? I think they don't see as fair play. They don't see it as fair. Game. Whereas the whereas the presidential campaign as as this article suggests it did come down to it. I said at the beginning of this radio show today, I quoted Lincoln in indifference of this president, which is why I wanted to have you on it comes down to what's you know, what this country looks like. And I think that's why of course, the migrant caravan issue is is is is looming. So large as an issue, right? Yeah. Yeah. I think so, you know, Trump's critics see criticism of migrant caravan or criticism of foreigners who might not be suitable for Republican government is simply racist or white nationalist or other some other absurd. Ad hominem attack. Whereas think Tom likes to point out in the article, and I think you can find it in many of Trump's speeches as well that what we're really talking about is a a common citizenry sharing with shared borders, which has every right to determine the. Who who knew citizens ought to be a criteria for admitting people who want to join this political community. So in that sense. It's it's thoroughly American and goes back all the way to our theory of constitutionalism, the declaration, and the idea that we all consent together to form a government that doesn't have anything to do with whiteness, or or the nastier strains of modern nationalist politics of the European ready. Now, you guys are no strangers to publishing controversial articles in September of two thousand sixteen you publish the Michael Anton essay the flight ninety three election. I just want to quote from that because it was really one of those articles that left an indelible Mark on on me. And I think the the American intellectual mind that was trying to analyze what was going on there. I quote from from Mike lenton who who wrote at the time under a pseudonym and went on to serve on the national Security Council. He said in the opening of this article twenty sixteen is a flight ninety three election charged the cockpit. Or you die. You may die. Anyway, you will the leader of your party may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees except one. If you don't try death is certain to compound, the metaphor, a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian roulette with a semi also with Trump at least you can spend the cylinder and take your chances. Ryan, you guys you guys are really putting putting the cat amongst the pigeons with this sort of thing, so say just talk us through. I mean, Clermont is a is a fantastic institution of think tank and comes up with. I mean, I've got to tell you some of the fellows and board members and so on and so forth. I mean, one of my favorites being professor John Marini, who I believe has a book coming out shortly about the administrative state, which I'm sort of obsessed by but but, but when you do these things I mean, do you sort of bulk you think, oh, we're going to be attacked by the weekly standard or national review? Like, he's a conservative ink is going to round on us. Yeah. That's always a concern. Of course. But I think there's a lot of us have realized. You know, Trump is a symptom not a cause of the scrambling of our modern post, Cold War politics. I think this was a. And you know, the fusion ISM that emerged that sustained clear conservatives in through the mid century and beyond had kind of stopped making some in the post Cold War world. So this this this intermediation to use a fancy word that matinees used before wasn't evitable. And we're just trying to think our way through it at times. You know, the body politic needs a little bit of shocking Plymouth's rather than just another scholarly books. So when the time calls for we thought it was prudent to pursue a little more of. Heartache ICS you called the spicy. Absolutely. I honestly Ryan I really appreciate it. And I really appreciate the the American mind dot org. It's a it's a relatively new publication that you guys have started out of the Claremont institute's. And it's just some fantastic articles. I just wanted to have you on plug that. And thank you for all your efforts. I appreciate it for him. And I encourage everyone check out, of course, are classic Claremont review books as well. Which is absolutely a must read Ryan Williams. Thank you so much for.

Trump America Ryan Williams Claremont institute Tom Tom Claremont Lincoln Tom Clinger Claremont review James Comey California Obama Hillary Clinton Dole chairman Cavanaugh
"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

860AM The Answer

08:15 min | 3 years ago

"claremont review books" Discussed on 860AM The Answer

"Accusing you gang rape. All of those are crimes or they're not. They are never going to get my reputation back. It's my my wife is totally. Permanently. Authored would you just don't give up? I'm not giving up the American people. The American people are listening to this and they will make their decision. And I think you'll come out on the right side of that. I will always be a good person. And try to be a good judge. Whatever happens. This is not a job interview. You've been accused of a crime. If you lied to the committee and the investigators that is a crime in and of itself. Correct. That is correct. Larry Arnn, your reaction bet exchange saying that we've come to McCarthyism we have come to the low point of despicable process. So. General point about this. First of all, what does it take to have constitutional government? Among the things is the people who operate in that budget in that government to have respect for the system in which they operate and the first thing to note about this thing, let me give you counterexample. I in nineteen Forty-five socialist got their first majority against Winston Churchill, and he had warned all his life that if you went that way you'd end up with. Stop. Oh. With some kind of government in the forty five Gestapo. And so then there arose immediately in his caucus. He was the leader of the opposition the outcry that they got forty eight percent of the popular vote did these socialist. But they got more than sixty percent of the seats and Churchill said, we're not going to complain about that this is the constitutional system that we have. And so we will get a chance to take their place under this system to a sale the system that elected him is to undercut everything. Right. So that's a spirit, right? That's how you go about it. Now, the trouble with with this thing is. How people in the Senate knew about this thing for a long time. And they brought it up very late. They say unwillingly, but never mind, and the point is there isn't any way to verify this thing fully, you're never gonna first of all if you had a year and our ten years, and you had prosecutors all over it. How would you reconstruct these facts from high school and thirty seven years ago? That's right. And yeah, that's more than half these people's lives. And so, and so the point would be wouldn't you draw back from this on the ground that this just because somebody said something, which is all you're ever going to know is is not the way. And especially doesn't was if you've got. You know in the hopper then get it investigated because what what are your on the left or the right? If you're an elected officer, the Costas United States, you've taken an oath to uphold the process of the constitution and everything else about it. So that part of it is just. Stashing to me, and it's sort of pitiful replay of what happened to Clarence Thomas. Let me play Orrin Hatch cut number thirty one Marazion emphasis yesterday that we have before us today to human beings. Dr Ford Judge Kevin they deserve deserve to be treated fairly and respectfully. Hard to do that with Dr Florida earlier, and I think we succeeded. It's important that we trick jugs cavenaugh fairly now and seeing how that's gonna work out. Judge Canada spent a federal judge for twelve years. And it's been a great federal judge on the second highest court in the nation. He's earned a reputation for fairness. Teaches us in Moscow. Colleagues. Love him. This man is not a monster. Nowhere to see what has been represented here and these hearings. We're talking today about judge Kavanagh's conduct high school. And even then and as a freshman in college, I guess as well. Serious allegations have been raised if judge Cavanaugh committed sexual assault. It should not serve on the supreme court. I think we'd all agree with that. But the circus atmosphere that has been created since my democratic colleagues, I Dr forts allegations to the media two weeks ago after sitting on them for six weeks. I might add has brought us the worst in our politics. It certainly has brought us closer to the truth anonymous letters with no name and no return address or not being treated as national knows. Cornstarch or lawyers with facially implausible claims are driving the news cycle. I hate to say this. But this is worse than Robert Bork. And I didn't think I could get any worse than that. This is worse than Clarence Thomas. I didn't think I could get any worse than that. This is a national disgrace the way you're being created. So Larry Arnn, you just had the context from a man, he's a gentleman. He's retiring with great honor and dignity and the respect of everyone making an appeal for decency, inciting the two occasions, Bork and Thomas when it was most absent from the chamber to have a prayer of being resurrected. That's right. Right. And and see the larger point here is we as has happened in the past in the worst crises in American history. You heard a really good talk from Charles can start. I sat here at Hillsdale College. He's the editor of the Claremont review books, and he made the point that we're in a cold civil war, and like in those days right in in the eighteen fifties because we're not willing to subordinate are positioned to the requirements of functioning under the constitution. Whatever you think. Right. I mean, first of all what I've learned about judge. Kevin I in this in this last episode is this guy's got a lotta spitting fire in him. You know, he he he didn't see that before, you know. He's very careful, man. He's very methodical, man. Little boring. You know and turns out he's not like that at all. He's indignant about this thing. And he's he's good at saying. So he rose in my estimation. And the point about the charges is if the charges are true there. Terrible. Although mitigated by the youthfulness of the of the person who committed it even. That would be taken into account. He's a minor. But on the other hand, the point is the charges cannot be corroborated in this timeframe. After this much time has passed if I believe for a moment, they were true, I would vote against him. And I would urge everyone to do. So I don't believe them. And I believe the righteous indignation. The outrage voiced by the judge is the best evidence that whatever happened to Dr Ford and clearly traumatized by something though. It took thirty years for the surface. And in those thirty years stuff happens to memory as you, and I both know I just don't believe any any decent person can say that they will not vote for him on the basis of that. It's decent. Oh my gosh. It's a manipulation of the process. There's a big constitutional reason in my estimation, not to cooperate with this. But there's what you're saying is there's also a party reason not to cooperate with this. Because you can't you know. The American people have given the majority to the party of the president who nominated this man, they were all inclined to vote for him before this thing happened..

Clarence Thomas Larry Arnn Dr Ford Winston Churchill judge Kavanagh Judge Canada Kevin Robert Bork rape Orrin Hatch Senate supreme court Hillsdale College Dr Florida United States Moscow Charles Cavanaugh officer president