Vivek and Tucker
I haven’t written much about Vivek Ramaswamy yet, but I’ve paid some attention to him and watched short clips of things he’s said. For the most part, I’ve thought he seems pretty smart and – as a political outsider – somewhat different than the rest.
Last night I decided to watch a long video interview of him with Tucker Carlson. Here it is:
I find myself lukewarm about him. I wasn’t as impressed by him as I expected to be. It may have been partly because Tucker Carlson was interviewing him. I have mixed feelings about Carlson, too (I’ve written about that before, for example in this post), mostly disagreeing with him on foreign policy and agreeing with him on many other issues of the domestic variety.
But this post isn’t about Carlson; it’s about Ramaswamy. What was my problem with him? He seemed to – as Carlson often does – oversimplify the problems, especially on foreign policy. My impression is that he sees no reason whatsoever to intervene in a place such a Ukraine, even by arming them, and is perfectly fine with abandoning them to Russia’s tender mercies. Same for Taiwan, once we manage to get our dependence on Taiwan for semiconducters remedied – then it’s bye-bye Taiwan. At least, that’s my impression of his position.
It’s not that those positions are crazy. It’s that they are clean and simple, and don’t take into consideration the possible effects of what would be perceived as weakness and American withdrawal from the international field. Ramaswamy is all for strengthening our nuclear defenses, and I’m in agreement with that.
Tucker and Vivek (especially Carlson) spend some time from minutes 32:47 to 33:30 in snarky laughter at neocons, of whom they use Bill Kristol as an example. Kristol was never a neocon in the classic sense of changing from left to right, although he certainly did (and still does) support armed intervention in various foreign conflicts. But since 2016, Kristol has been no sort of “con” – no sort of conservative, that is – at all. If anything, he’s been a neo-leftist for the past seven years, a changer from right to left. I don’t think he’s an example of much of anything except the mind of Bill Kristol.
The video reminded me that Vivek Ramaswamy is only 38 years old. He’s a man of very high achievement, but that can give a person the idea that he can fix anything and that the solutions are rather simple. That’s the impression I got, anyway – of a certain low-key arrogance. None of this means I wouldn’t vote for Ramaswamy if he was the Republican nominee. I definitely would. But it means I was somewhat disappointed when I got a large dose of him. Your mileage may differ.
Neo:
We part company here. I’ve seen Vivek three times in Iowa and he’s the most impressive candidate I’ve ever seen. Hands down. My main concern about him is that he might not be able to capture the blue-collar crowd that Trump owns. My best friend doesn’t like him because he’s not Christian, but Vivek went to a Jesuit high school and I asked him about it. (I also gave him a “secret” Jesuit book of axioms and maxims that he has in bus. The key to victory!)
The one thing I disliked about the interview was the speculation by Tucker (which Vivek sort of joined) that the neocons get some type of sexual gratification from war.
In defense of Vivek on foreign policy, he’s definitely coming from an American First angle. The defense of Ukraine is not in the national interests of the US. Biden has sent over billions (and taken his cut) but leaves our border open. This war has created a Russia-China alliance that scares the hell out of me. Force a peace deal. I have sources that the total dead on both sides is approaching 1 million. Good military sources.
As to Taiwan, we need to build our own semiconducter industry. For national security purposes, we can’t rely on Tawain alone.
Trump is damaged goods. He will be jailed in 2024. Vivek gives us a fresh start.
I urge everyone to watch the debate next week and judge for yourself. I do like Ron, but he’s not quite in Vivek’s league. Either of them can win the general; Trump can’t.
Cornhead:
Yes, I know you feel that way. That’s why I was expecting to be more impressed by Ramaswamy than I was. And yes, that part you mentioned about the “war porn” was the part I highighted as being especially dislikeable. Juvenile snark, and stupid.
Of course we need to stop relying on Taiwan for semiconductors. But I’ve explained over and over why we do have some interest in Ukraine. I think Vivek ignores the costs of leaving. I don’t think for a moment that our abandoning Ukraine will end Russia’s chumminess with China, and I don’t see why Vivek would think so. You can find a ton of stuff prior to the Ukraine War that indicates the two countries – Russia and China – were already becoming much more lovey-dovey. I suppose if we just said to Russia “take whatever you want and we won’t for a moment stand in your way,” it might help. Is that what Vivek is proposing? Is that perfectly okay with you?
The business of running the country is the ultimate business venture and needs an experienced/successful business person to handle it correctly. The distraction of outside ‘obligations’, something all ‘politicians’ are burdened with, can have no place there, imo.
He’s not really running for president. Trump calls for DeSantis to drop out because he’s so far behind but not Vivek. Why? Because he’s not really running for president.
By not running I mean he’s not really trying to win. Only DeSantis of the non Trump candidates is trying to win. The rest are all some variation of Trump suck ups or Trump haters or just nothings floating in the middle.
Neo:
Hate to say it, but I think you are oversimplifying Vivek’s position. Russia has lost about 500k dead. That’s a big number. Supposedly a peace deal was agreed to and Biden (Blinken) wouldn’t go along.
I think Vivek is correct that the main purpose of this war (other than cash to Joe) is to wear out the Russians and cripple Putin. But what good does that really do for America? And, frankly, I’m scared to death that nukes will be used. Watch “Oppenheimer.”
Just watch the debate. It is still early. I see this as a race between Ron and Vivek. I just like Vivek’s America First and Second American Revolution approach. That’s what I think we need.
And everyone needs to appreciate how accomplished Vivek is. The biotech industry is very tough. For a startup to succeed, that’s a giant deal. And his business model was pure genius. I just got crushed in a biotech. But so did Michael Dell.
And, again, I hate to predict this but Trump will be in jail in 2024 for the DC case. As Vivek points out, we don’t have the time and energy to be engaged in this personal drama of Trump’s. IMO, he was an idiot about J6. He walked into a clear trap.
I had to stop and think a bit before commenting.
Tucker is an Isolationist. He does not understand world affairs and how thing interact. Saying we do not have any interest in the Ukraine war is to me short sighted and wrong. If Vivek is the same way then he is wrong. Maybe in 20 yrs when he is 58 he might be more mature in his outlook. I won’t know because I would be 96, which I doubt I will make.
neo:
I heard Vivek being interviewed by Hugh Hewitt about 2 months ago, and only heard about 15 minutes. He answered anearly all the questions intelligently and then Hugh asked bout the state of the of the Triad and national defense. Vivek didn’t know what the Triad is. Hugh was surprised it appeared, as there was “dead air,” and Hugh had to explain nuclear deterrence 101.
So now Viveck says ‘Taiwan, you are on your own, 2028, once we, USA, get free from dependence on you and the CCP for chips. In fact, given sources of rare earths and other essential raw materials I wonder if Vivek would cut Taiwan loose even sooner.
I hadn’t heard about his Ukraine/Russian war positions. Is he one of the “13 minute crowd” or the “I don’t give a flying “f” about Europe” folks?
I’m not impressed with his defense and foreign policy chops at all.
Cornhead:
I watched nearly the entire interview. It’s long, and a great deal of it was about Ukraine. Vivek’s position itself sounded simple to me, as he expressed it. Very simple, actually. I don’t think I’m simplifying it at all, at least not based on the interview. Perhaps he’s expressed it differently at other times.
He impresses me as being very very smart but not wise. That’s not unusual. Wisdom is a rare commodity.
I suggest people listen to the interview and draw their own conclusions.
I’m sure Vivek is smart and accomplished, but he is, like Trump, an outsider who can’t get the Deep State to do anything. He doesn’t have any of Trump’s other negatives but seems not to have any of Trump’s positives either.
When you elect a President you don’t elect just a single man. You also elect all the people that person brings with them: allies, cronies, clients, patrons, followers, toadies… good bad and indifferent, because as an individual a President can do little as we’ve seen in 2016-2020.
Until the Republicans figure out how to harvest ballots I remain convinced they will not win no matter who the candidates end up being. If I’m wrong about that, then I think either Trump or DeSantis is preferable to Vivek, each for different reasons: Trump for being a tribune for people who are dissatisfied with the Establishment, DeSantis for a guy with a chance of being able to get the Establishment to ease up on us a little bit. Vivek seems like the worst of both worlds. I’m sure he’s a decent enough guy, and of course I’d vote for him over any Democrat, but on the R side he’s not in my top 2.
Not that it matters. Presidential elections are not won by appealing to voters, but by getting your side’s ballots counted and getting the other side’s rejected. That’s not changing soon and the Republicans have not yet adapted to reality.
If you reley on Hollywood and “Openheimer” for nuclear war/national defense; lord love a duck.
Oh noes, Russia and the CCP are getting cozy again although now it seems the power positions are reversed. You do remember both were Communist totalitarian empires in the last century? No, the Nixon China card was played to f*ck with the Soviets and in the last 40 years all those businessmen in the USA have been selling everything to China that wasn’t tripple locked down.
}}} Of course we need to stop relying on Taiwan for semiconductors.
I generally agree we can’t have a single-source on things, but it can/should be one where we have the capacity to begin doing anything they do within 90 days of deciding to do so, rather than actually being able to duplicate things at any moment. Or at most having low-level production equality with the ability to ramp-up if needful.
Taiwan being THE major source of highest-end electronics is mainly an issue of basic economics, and, on the national level, is a key example of a concept of comparative advantage.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/comparativeadvantage.asp
tl;dr:
Simple, obvious case:
USA makes widget A for US$2. USA makes widget B for US$5
UK makes widget A for US$3. UK makes widget B for US$4
Presume that both have the needed resources to make as many of either as they need for whatever production levels they wish to match.
Clearly, both nations are better off if USA makes widget A and the UK makes widget B and we trade with each other to match our needs for the other widget.
The more complex case, which is mathematically demonstrable and less intuitive, is that
USA — A for $2 and B for $3
UK — A for $3 and B for $4
Surprisingly, it is STILL not better for the USA to make both A and B, but to pick one and specialize in it, while letting the other entity (the UK, in our example) to make the other. I repeat, this can be mathematically demonstrated.
And yes, I’ve greatly simplified the description and there are specifics relevant to the whole scenario, even as simple as the one I’ve made, which can invalidate it.
Reality is far far more complex than this simple example, there are millions of different goods and services available, and a lot of other factors, including cost of trade (shipping and handling, general bureaucratic overhead) and labor costs, and so forth, which can affect various transition points in the optimax solution of the real world problem.
But, in general, it is better for a nation to specialize rather than try to be a jack of all trades because, well, “master of none”. For the USA, at the moment, it’s certainly IP we do best. Taiwan is the world’s master electronics maker. And again, in the Real World, “specialize” is not one single good, but an array of them, with emphasis towards certain associated “verticals”. The USA is large enough to work at several different verticals. I’d suggest that Space Flight ought to be another one.
Electronics manufacture? No. It should be something we do as a secondary industry, not as a primary one.
And yeah, we are working towards that end. Intel has at least two major fabs in the USA, one up in the PacNW and one in Phoenix, AZ (this one can handle processes down to 10nm). And they are building a third world-class one up along the Ohio-KY border. That one should match the capabilities, if not the output levels, of Taiwan.
Neo:
Interesting that you should mention Vivek’s alleged lack of wisdom. The Jesuit book I gave him is, “The Art of Wordly Wisdom” by Baltasar Gracian, S.J.
One thing that I think you are overlooking is that as a matter of persuasion, the rhetoric has to be fairly simple.
And this race is a comparison deal. As between Ron and Vivek, who is better? I like both, but I think Vivek is better. I’d settle for Ron. The others are already out of the race. And, Trump, of course will be convicted in 2024.
How does China attack Taiwan without a huge concentration beforehand of vulnerable and expensive shipping?
The entire world is going to know and be openly discussing it for months in advance before it happens.
And if China does it, it will be because they know nobody intends to do anything about it. Otherwise they can lose the navy it took them decades to build.
And which US leader do we count on to look at a naval concentration off Taiwan building up for weeks who would be willing to strike first if it doesn’t disperse? Because that’s what it would take, a credible threat that those ships will be destroyed before they can land a single soldier, to stop the invasion.
Is there any US leader with that kind of backbone these days?
And if that preemptive attack is launched, is any US leader willing to risk the American lives that will be lost as a consequence? How many American PEOPLE are willing to see those lives lost?
I think we’d all better hope the bluff is never called.
I’ve heard Vivek speak a couple of times and he is an engaging an energetic speaker. He genuinely seems to enjoy engaging with people and debating ideas, which is quite a contrast to DeSantis who often seems like he would rather be doing anything else than campaigning for President.
I agree with Vivek on most issues and he would probably be my second choice among the current crop of candidates. I don’t think he has any chance at getting the nomination primarily due to his youth and lack of experience. He can come off as a bit arrogant at times. I don’t think he believes that he has any chance of getting the nomination but I think his obvious intelligence and drive would make him an excellent addition to any administration and perhaps give him the experience he would need for a future run.
I am with you, Neo, on Vivek. He’s smart, and he is very effective in interviews and campaign appearances. There are some holes in his thinking, which you point to. If he were nominated, I would certainly vote for him, and hope that some more politically experienced people would join his administration if elected.
This was a major problem in the first Trump administration, and would be in a second one. Responsible, experienced people just wouldn’t work with him — not just RINOs like Ryan, but all of them. Such a lost opportunity! Since he’s been insulting most elected Republicans this time around, I fail to see how he could build an effective team in office.
Neo, I saw him in a townhall meeting on Newsnation a few nights ago. Like you, I was not turned off but slightly underwhelmed. You were able to put into words what I felt but wouldn’t have been able to express myself. Also, your take on what he said about Taiwan and semiconductor dependency matched his town hall response. I am sorry in that I don’t remember his exact words, but his response to a question about his religion was one of his high points. Something along the line of “yes I’m Hindu, but my ideals coincide very well with a conservative Christian”. One of his low points was when asked for one word to describe Zelensky, he came up with “fraud”.
I have to say that I’m impressed that he says “reactive” where most people use “reactionary.”
OK. I’m not wowed. But I’d happily vote for him.
I do wish people would realize that there are distinctions between cases like Ukraine and Taiwan. It’s not the same “spread freedom around the world” or “defend only our obvious national interest” that is convincing in every case.
Yes. If I had the control board in Tucker’s studio there are times when I’d turn the “Tucker Carlsoning” down a little.
I’m still considering Ramaswami and keeping an open mind.
“Kristol was never a neocon in the classic sense of changing from left to right”
__________
I have to question that as a defining characteristic of neoconservatism. If that were true, there would be few left of the old guard, and of course the older NR gang – guys like Burnham and Meyer – would qualify.
Surely it refers to people who have moved from left to right while still retaining some of the outlook they formerly had. This would apply well to the elder Kristol and Podhoretz, for instance, or to Neihaus. (I don’t know of anyone who has described Hanson as a neocon, but he would qualify.)
Another confusion seems to come from a conflation of true neocons with the fusionists. The latter came to take over NR, but it simply was not true that Frank Meyer’s outlook actually dominated the Buckley-run NR. That could be called “fusionist” only in the very limited and pragmatic sense that it was a big tent. It never meant to much of anyone but Meyer himself an actual theory.
The truth of the matter is that the right is, as it was when the word was coined, a very motley movement, including all sorts of views, often incompatible. The gap between Russell Kirk and Ayn Rand was vast in the 50s, and remains so between their descendants.
I agree with Frederick about the risks to China of invading Taiwan. Believe me, Taiwan is not a sitting duck. They have been expecting an invasion since they left the mainland all those years ago. They are prepared.
China has dams that are vulnerable. Long range missiles and or sabotage could take them down.
An amphibious operation across the Taiwan Straits would have to be telegraphed by the troop and equipment build up.
The war in Ukraine has shown the difficulty of moving troops, tanks, and artillery over hostile ground against the current level of smart weapons. As long as other free nations like the U.S., Japan, and South Korea make it plain that they would help Taiwan defend itself, it’s going to give China a lot to think about.
China depends on Taiwan for a lot of their technology and investment. They’re trying to make political inroads and probably would prefer it if they can affect a takeover from within.
Anyway, I think the threat of invasion of Taiwan is many years away, if we stay engaged.
I like Vivek. I think he’s smart and thinks well on his feet. However, I’m a bit disturbed by his foreign policy ideas. Looking forward to the debate to learn more. My mind is open.
Jailing Trump would make him into a martyr, I can’t even imagine the fallout.
It would discredit so many institutions.
If Trump had been reelected in 2020 there would have been no Russian invasion of Ukraine. Trump has used economics to maneuver countries into positions that don’t require war. The Abraham Accords is only one example. Biden has waded right into war, maybe because there is something in it for him or maybe because he is senile and senility can manifest as rage at minor things, I like Ramaswamy a lot. His interview with Jordan Peterson is better than the Tucker one. Tucker is largely correct on Ukraine. We are far too close to nuclear war and for no good reason.
The PLA would have to establish air superiority over the Tiawan Straits before anybody gets their feet wet. That may take some time. They will have to clear minefields. They will have to neutralize Tiawan’s ground based missile systems. They have to be completely sure that Tiawan does not possess any nukes. Once those things are done they can get their amphibious ships a moving. Which they have, see cdrsalamander.
Mike K:
Brandon is indefensible, but try not to forget an essential fact about the Russo/Ukraine war: it is a war of Putin’s choice. It wasn’t forced on him by Ukraine, the USA, NATO, Davos/WEF, or UFOs.
Raiding the US treasury to give untold billions to the Money Laundering Land of Hunter and Other Children of American Elite’s No-Show Jobs is exactly what we expect from the head of the Biden crime syndicate.
We might feel sympathy for such a land if not for all the corruption. Without the corruption, however, it’s an open question whether it would be at war. Then again, without the corruption, it wouldn’t be Ukraine.
Believe me, Taiwan is not a sitting duck. They have been expecting an invasion since they left the mainland all those years ago. They are prepared.
China has dams that are vulnerable. Long range missiles and or sabotage could take them down.
An amphibious operation across the Taiwan Straits would have to be telegraphed by the troop and equipment build up.
–JJ
Quite so. China may rattle sabers to unify it’s increasingly disillusioned population, but attacking Taiwan across an 140 mile wide moat with no advantage of surprise and many Chinese targets of terrible vulnerability is another matter.
Peter Zeihan is pointing cautiously to the current economic numbers indicating deflation in China — which means overproduced goods for an underdemanding market — could well be the first serious harbinger of the Chinese economy unraveling.
–Peter Zeihan, “The Chinese Slide Into Deflation (The Final Straw?)”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9-wfHgjTB8
I have been impressed by Vivek what little I have heard first hand. I did not watch the Carlson interview because—Carlson.
There is certainly an isolationist sentiment; and I lean that way at times. The problem is that if you let a Putin, or one of the Asian Imperial wannabes run amok, you can’t predict where they will stop.
It is a tough situation when tyrants jump the fence. Prudence suggests that they should be put back in the box as soon as possible.
It may be distasteful, but there has to be certain “do not cross” lines. Any place in Europe certainly qualifies. S. Korea qualifies. Taiwan, in my opinion, qualifies.
As to United States national interests, they are much more complex than most of us would like; or maybe even comprehend. It takes a very discerning statesman, with a broad view, to keep them in focus. Would that we had someone like that.
I don’t know if Carlson is naive; or whether he just likes to play his little
“stir the pot” game. Putin is not even as circumspect as Hitler was about his ultimate intentions. So, people who think like Carlson are willing to let him rebuild the Soviet Empire?
Most strangely, people who oppose aid to Ukraine most vociferously, greatly applauded Reagan’s defeat of the Soviet Union. Well, he defeated them by outspending them until they approached national poverty trying to keep up. Would it not be in the United State’s interest to do the same to Putin? Yes. Just as the Soviet collapse brought about an extended period of peace, and mostly one-sided faux cooperation, the defeat of Putin’s aggression would have a similar effect. His successor, regardless of ambitions, would lack the internal support or wherewithal for mischief. The Russian focus would turn inward.
The outcome in Ukraine will also send a message to such as Li and Jong Un.
Thanks for the Zeihan video, huxley. Interesting, but one month of data? I’ve seen too many predictions of the downfall of China in the last twenty-five years. 🙂
I hope he’s right about the supply chains and our inflation. Get the supply chains working again and increase oil production – it might blunt inflation. Not much hope of that as long as the climate cult is in charge. 🙁
I used to be a believer in the “Pentagon’s New Map.” The way the U.S. was going to build a world of cooperating nations who trade amicably and prosper
together. It was hung on the idea that all the world’s people want to have what Ammericans have. What’s missing from so many nations and cultures is the institutional knowledge and customs that make democracy and free enterprise possible. Exporting those institutions and customs is, as we have learned from Russia, Ukraine, Iraq, and Afghanistan (to name a few) is that there is resistance to those things both culturally and religiously. In other words, the enlightened world order envisioned by “TPNM” is much harder to achieve than Thomas P. M. Barnett dreamed.
So, I’m not an isolationist, but I do think we need to be very careful about getting involved in other nations’ affairs unless it’s clearly in our interest. And when we do, we need to have a plan to win as quickly as possible. Gradualism and mission creep are the hallmarks of our diplomatic and military involvement for far too many years.
@ OBloodyHell > “But, in general, it is better for a nation to specialize rather than try to be a jack of all trades because, well, “master of none”. ”
Comparison of Taiwan to USA.
https://www.worlddata.info/country-comparison.php?country1=TWN & country2=USA
AREA 35,980 km² to 9,831,510 km²
POPULATION 23,581,000 333,288,000
Taiwan is a bit larger than Maryland (32,131 km²).
It’s population is roughly equivalent to Texas in 2022 (30,029,572).
The USA is the equivalent of 50 or more Taiwans, or United Kingdoms, or Germanys, or — .
If each state specializes in something we want or need, we don’t require a “comparative advantage” with any outside country.
Change my mind.
😉
@ huxley > “deflation in China — which means overproduced goods for an underdemanding market — could well be the first serious harbinger of the Chinese economy unraveling.”
Is it possible that inflicting Covid on the world was an “own goal” for China, by (a) reducing the demand for their goods for an extended period; and (b) inspiring other countries to start making things they used to buy from China, and not going back after the pandemic restrictions ended.
Boned Looser doesn’t realize that the Russian Federation is the Gold Standard (oligarch standard) for national corruption. But of course that is one of his distractions – Ukraine corruption, to ignore Russian aggression. A tool’s argument.
Perun had a Sunday episode all about corruption and how a national culture of corruption can destroy a nation’s military. Which has been manifested for over 500 days by the Russian military; the second best military in Ukraine.
@ Ray SoCa > “It would discredit so many institutions.”
I refer you to a Federalist post that Abraxas linked on the open thread, and encourage the reading of the references quoted therein.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/08/16/the-purpose-of-the-trump-indictments-is-to-demonstrate-the-lefts-power/
The “discredit” is only in the eyes of the Right.
For the Left, it’s a desirable feature.
Side note: the way Davidson and Scarry describe the hierarchy of today’s political / social / economic elites, and N. S. Lyons describes Class A and Class B, I venture the speculation that some disagreements over the existence or not of a “Uniparty” that mostly follows Democrat priorities at the expense of Conservative ones (I hesitate to ascribe a unified set of priorities to the Republican party) is really a misapprehension of the fact that Class A is comprised of lots of Democrats and some Republicans, and Class B is mostly Republicans.
It’s not a uniparty but a uniclass.
And we aren’t in it.
Frederick: “Until the Republicans figure out how to harvest ballots I remain convinced they will not win no matter who the candidates end up being.”
That isn’t the problem. The problem is that the Left has been spending $200 millions in recent years to register over 5 million people to vote in the key swing states, and then getting them (or their ballots) out.
AND while the Left marshalls dark money and funnels it through tax exempt “non-partisan” partisan selection, the IRS will not police this endemic violation of the non-partisan requirement of the tax code.
THUS, they play chess – Rs play checkers and do nothing.
WE’RE SCREWED.
See a read through of this damning report from the CapitolResearch Center, HERE. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uAxwYDVYKA
because it’s quite clear, those who were on the soviet side, kerry panetta, biden, are now in on this crusade, we have funded the deaths of tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, they will not forget this, putin or whichever siloviki replaces him,
for many reasons I thought this adventure was ill considered, but they could smell the weakness of the capitulation in Afghanistan, they knew they had active agents like the ones who have purged our top war fighters, who shut down our pipelines, giving putin a rich stream of revenue,
Vivek takes “America First” literally, but not seriously. Not to reprise the old domino theory, but China is building a navy and actual islands to project its power outward. Taiwan is an obstacle, and if China is able to take over, the intoxicating feeling of victory may go to its head and tempt it to more assertions of its power. The conquest of Taiwan would be taken as a sign that China has nothing to fear from the American paper tiger.
American leaders are forever saying things like Vivek said and getting the country into trouble for it. Dean Acheson excluding South Korea from our defense zone. April Glasbie saying that Iraq’s claims on Kuwait weren’t our business. Biden saying that the US wouldn’t object to a Russian minor incursion into Ukraine.
If the PRC were able to annex Taiwan without firing a shot that ,would still be a boost for China’s prestige and a blow to ours, but there’s little or nothing a US president could do about it.
Maybe I posted this someplace else:
I don’t recall that giving away Czechoslovakia in 1938 prevented WW II. As Churchill more or less said; fifty trained divisions, mountain fastnesses, the Skoda works. By implication taking a heck of a chunk out of the Wehrmacht, and that’s before the French and British got going on the subject.
Czechoslovia’s history over the preceding, say, seventy-five years (sometimes it wasn’t even a country) would have allowed far more Bad Stuff to be said about it than there is about Ukraine whose only fault seems to be being as corrupt as pretty much any country with a decent disposable income.
Can we back up fast enough to keep Putin from being angry at us? We are treated to assertions effectively engraved on titanium from people who know his mind that removing the remnants on National Socialism from Ukraine is Putin’s only goal. I exaggerate, but only slightly, for effect.
Are there any arguments for bailing on Ukraine which wouldn’t apply to, say, Finland? Or Rhode Island?
Hello Neo. I haven’t commented here for a long time, but I follow you regularly and like and agree with your takes most of the time. This time, though, I disagree re: foreign policy, and thought it important enough to say why:
I think the mistake you make about Ukraine is the same one made by people still stuck in the Cold War — that Russia is the ideological enemy determined to dominate the world or at least the West. But this is just not the current reality, and it feeds into a belief in an existential and endless struggle of good against evil. Putin himself is certainly a bad guy, and his invasion of Ukraine was and is certainly wrong, but the great preponderance of evidence is that this war is local in focus, and complicated by many factors, including ethnicity, recent and older in the history in the region, and policies of the West. In these kind of circumstances, the sort of response to ideologies like fascism or communism is not only unwarranted but dangerous, all the more so in the nuclear era. It remains to be seen, of course, how wise Vivek Ramaswamy is, but I think he’s on the right track on Ukraine at least.
try not to forget an essential fact about the Russo/Ukraine war: it is a war of Putin’s choice. It wasn’t forced on him by Ukraine, the USA, NATO, Davos/WEF, or UFOs.
Temptation is a sort of choice. Biden practically invited Putin in. Then he offered Zelensky an easy exit. Trump had, after Obama stiffed them, supplied Ukraine with defensive weapons. Trump had a practice of using economic manipulation to influence possible enemies. Obama and Biden did the opposite, encouraging enemies and opposing friends.
Ukraine is not a national crisis for us, only if we make it so. Biden’s previous activities with Ukraine make me very suspicious.
Mike K:
Biden’s previous activities with Ukraine make me very suspicious.
Ya think? Similarly, and equally obvious, Ukraine’s involvement with Biden and other uniparty corruptopublicrats should make us suspicious of Ukraine.
I’ve noticed that the contextual definition of the term “neocon” has changed somewhat over the years in conservative cirlcles. As Neo said, it used to simply refer to a person who changed from left to right, literally a “new conservative”. But in more recent years the term seems to be used in a somewhat reductive and derogatory way meaning anyone who is an advocate for supposed “forever wars” or just a more hawkish and interventionist foreign policy regardless of what that person’s political history might actually be. Such people are often caricatured and mocked by people like Tucker as lusting for blood and war.
And on the other side, people who are perhaps angered by people like Tucker’s nasty, reductive characterizations will often respond by accusing Tucker and others of being “isolationist” when in reality it’s more accurate to call such people non-interventionists. True isolationalists are actually pretty rare.
But I can understand the anger that some people feel toward Tucker and his ilk. Personally I dislike all the name calling and mocking that is often Tucker’s bread and butter. I recognize that it’s extremely effective at times in persuading certain people and making certain points. But it’s imprecise and often creates divisions and misunderstandings as well.
considering what had happened 20 years earlier on the fields of flanders, and verdun, its not surprising the British political class was unwilling to really confront Germany,
now that we’ve emptied our arsenals, and our strategic reserve, in the last year and a half, are we in the position to confront China or any of our adversaries like Iran, not to mention Al Queda, which we have made a minor power in the right
so gilday in navy colors and brown in air force whites, all are at war with America’s essence and less concerned with adversaries,
vivek groks the crux of the matter, more ably then our own governor,
you know i’m cynical but I can’t keep up,
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/08/18/germany-dropping-nato-spending-pledge/
Lots of talk that Trump will be jailed here. BUT it will all be done by Democrats, who also compose the vast majority of our Federales.
So Trump is being persecuted, that is all.
the charges are garbage but so was fairfax (yes that guy) and smith’s charge against mcdonnell, the crew against stevens, the ones against delay, against
conrad black et al,
well tuberville has been horatio at the gate
https://twitter.com/JMichaelWaller/status/1692872601553469716
Nonapod:
Yes, correct.
If you look at the category “neocons” on this blog, I’ve written pretty extensively about the different uses of the word.
the word is often used too fragrantly, neocons used to understand that military action was the last bolt in the quiver, along with propaganda and political action
victorian nuland is not one, even she was married to one, and was the daughter in law, to the great donald kagan, and yet didn’t learn any of the applicable lessons of his scholarship,
for someone who had read as much commentary as national review in college, I was shocked at edward hoaglands screed against marion magid in esquire, this was in the early 90s because she was not ‘down’ with all of wonderful third world revolutionaries, they had been in a relationship at some point, but this was the reaction many leftists had toward anyone who had been on standard deviation portside,
I don’t buy any of the meanings offered of “neoconservatism”. Certainly the association with hawkishness and interventionism is, at best, an oversimplification.
But treating as just meaning “someone who moved from the left to the right” is obviously wrong. That has been happening long before Kristol, Podhoretz, et al moved over, and hasn’t stopped. (Is anyone going to claim Taibbi or Gabbard are “neocons”?) It also really means there were no distinctive ideas and approaches associated with them.
I would point out that:
1. When the shift came there was AT LEAST as much emphasis on the failure of Great Society programs to improve the lives of those they were supposed to help. Quite the opposite. But note that Thomas Sowell, who fits the description people are using above, was never so described.
2. There was a decided social science emphasis, which was not really characteristic of the older “new conservatism” of the Buckley era. At least, except for Robert Nisbet. Charles Murray was a particularly significant figure here. But Michael Novack was too, as well as Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was semi-neoconservative. (He was often associated with them.)
3. It was surely, so far as foreign policy goes, a reaction against the growing pro-Soviet (and anti-Israel) shift of the left. That’s a point Michael Medved used to make.
4. Back in the 70s, and well into the 80s, it was the Spectator, rather than NR, that was friendlier to them. That has changed. At NR, not only Buchanan, but George Will was hostile. As were others. (Yes, he was. Many think of him as classically neocon. Actually, he’s always been off on his own planet.)
I just believe the reality is a lot more complex than anyone here has described it. But it was always so. The model of “the 3-legged stool” was never really apt, but just when it came into vogue in the Reagan years, it had become obviously out of synch with conservatism.
Eeyore:
Read my old posts on the subject. I didn’t say it was just that, but initially it was primarily that and then the meaning changed utterly till today it means something quite different.
And by the way, Taibbi and Gabbard wouldn’t be neocons even under the old definition. They are NOT on the right even today. They are simply able to see both sides and to apply principles equally to both sides.
I think too many people here are listening only to the sounds of their own voices. VR identifies the root problem – a void in the perception of what it means to be an American – and presents a solution. If that is too simple for you, I humbly suggest that you take a long look in the mirror and try to figure out why.
Mike K:
Brandon is indefensible.
Full stop.
Putin was an idiot to start this war especially if he considered what Brandon would or wouldn’t do as part of his plan. Brandon “ducks
up” everything he touches. Was Putin so stupid not to know that?
Putin started this war and hasn’t stopped his aggression.
Full stop.
That which is rewarded is repeated.
tim ferrell:
Funny thing, I didn’t hear him offering a solution to that particular problem in that video, simple or otherwise. Nor would any such solution be simple, anyway.
well last time in 2014, he met mild resistance, remember the special consideration obama made to medvedev,
if he hadn’t paid off biden and co through gazprom, to shut down drilling, and
‘phase out fossil fuels’ putin wouldn’t have had the revenue to pull this off,
again you have to look at how putin sees himself, in the guise of a czar, xi sees himself as an emperor, erdogan as a sultan
I skimmed through chadwick moore’s bio of tucker, he was an iconoclast even going back to when he was at trinity college, which he didn’t get the degree, unlike
chuck todd, he knows what he’s talking about
America is about an idea, trump thinks economics and manufacturing is key to the self identity of america, vivek is more ideological in same ways, desantis somewhere in the middle,
I thought VS did at least suggest a solution to tim ferrell’s problem at the end of the interview. It’s admittedly not simple, but simply broaching it is in itself is one of the things that distinguish him as a candidate.
which seems a trite way of putting it, but the American dream is an idea not only about abundance but independence from other power centers, marxist is the most persistence strain of mental malware but it’s not the only one,
miguel. Ref yours of 230.
I can’t imagine trying to sell war to the French or Brits in 1938.
But the results are what they are: Additional year for the Wehrmacht to prepare, without casualties. German people have one more Counter that Hitler is a genius and can be trusted to make the right decisions. And the enemy will fold.
If each state specializes in something we want or need, we don’t require a “comparative advantage” with any outside country.
Change my mind.
And yet that strategy has been tried by large countries, and failed.
To make high end materials you need a well educated workforce. To make clothes you need a cheap (so under-educated) workforce. That’s why basically no-one does both. No-one will set up a sweat-shop making sweatshirts in the US, your labour costs would make it impossible.
If you have a lively financial sector, like New York, then the cost of money is high. So investment in long-term bulk operations like mining never happens — it costs too much. Countries with large financial sectors are largely out of the mining business (except as legacies from previous times).
And this is before we get down to issues of labour laws. Rich countries demand high standards, but that won’t allow cheap manufacturers to flourish.
If someone in the US could set up a semi-conductor plant and out-price the Taiwanese they would already have done so. Same goes for making clothes. Same for mining.
The US doesn’t even have high unemployment, so how are you going to get these people to make these things that aren’t currently profitable? You have to take them from things that are currently profitable.
Trying to beat the laws of economics is the sort of nonsense that Marx tried. It doesn’t work, because the real world isn’t run in some arbitrary fashion. You can’t just wish away awkward realities like competitive advantage by hand-waving that the US is big.
@ Chester Draws – thanks for your explanation; I knew there had to be one, but couldn’t pull it together as you did.
It looks like one of the factors is the fact that our “50 countries” really are a single “nation” — and thus all of them are restricted by the same employment and financial laws and regulations.
Were it not so, the “laboratory of democracy” could also be more of a “laboratory of economy” than it is now.
“And this is before we get down to issues of labour laws. Rich countries demand high standards, but that won’t allow cheap manufacturers to flourish.”
However, the cheap manufacturers here DO flourish (although perhaps more in the service and physical labor sectors than in the factories) because the people who have enacted all of those high-standard labor laws are also the ones circumventing them with illegal immigrants.
With the second generation of neocons, the meaning of the term changed. They hadn’t usually moved from left to right and were often the children of prominent neoconservatives. They weren’t talking so much about social policy, but about foreign policy. George W. Bush brought foreign policy neocons into his administration and the new meaning stuck.
Someone could make an interesting study of what became of that earlier critique of social policy. To some extent it became standard among Republicans and conservatives (and for a time, even moderate Democrats). To some extent it seems to have dried up or retreated back into think tanks. It took courage to take on the prevailing social policy consensus of the day, but with time the failures of the Great Society became common knowledge.
Doing something about them is a different matter and more difficult. American political movements tend to end up preoccupied with foreign policy, because it is so hard to change things domestically (and there can also be more glory and national unity in foreign and military actions). Sometimes foreign conflicts forced us to take notice. Sometimes we got in to trouble ourselves.
Vivek Ramaswamy is a Putnista which for me means that he is out of his league.