Really enjoyed this podcast. Ross Barkan strikes me as very thoughtful and confident enough to not read off a script. Please have him back again to update us northerners about the new Trump presidency.
One of the things that caught my attention was the fact that the Democrats thought that the New York Times and CNN were against them. If they actually thought that, then they are even more out of touch with reality.
Interesting listen. I really hope his rosy appreciation of how the political norms of the past will continue to constrain this and future administrations. Personally I think these norms have already changed with the supreme court decision on the limitations of the presidents legal liability (or lack there of) so basing prognostication on past norms is a a dangerous bet. My personal bias is glass half full.
Your cautions are appreciated .Barken is whistling in the graveyard. Check out the appointees.The latest being Gaetz.Cumon folks.Wake up.Check the vitaes the appointments. What they have said in the past.
Very interesting podcast, but I take real issue with the seemingly casual confidence that the fascist talk need not be entertained. There will be elections, but will they be free and fair?
Trump 1.0 may have had 4 years to go after political enemies with the Justice department and failed to do so, but he was largely surrounded by staff and appointees that still abided by institutional norms. He didn't expect to win the elction in 2016, he wasn't ready. Prokect 2025 disn't exist. The party was not yet wholly owned by Trump and his sycophants. They had a moral compass outside his personal ambitions, and held his worst instincts in check.
He and his people are planning to run a very different administration this time. He has been granted royal impunity for actions he takes as President. He spoke at length about his plans to go after the enemies within. And today, we learned he has tapped loyal henchman Matt Gaetz to be AG.
The thinkers out there sounding all the alarms about the very real threat to American democracy and rule of law have articulated some pretty undeniable arguments for why we should be much more concerned with Trump 2.0.
It is my opinion, humbly given, that the Democratic ticket did everything that any reasonable, honest person could have done. But you have to meet the people where they are, and where they are today is irrational, angry, xenophobic; ready to accept Christian theocracy; ready to roll the dice on crazy. The Republican ticket won fair and square and there isn't anything the Dems could have done about it.
Let's see where America goes from here. Prediction: they will find that the chaos unleashed is counterproductive, and throw the Republicans out, beginning in 2026 at the mid-terms. It's possible that this experiment with protectionism and deportation and deregulation will produce amazing results, or coincide with other forces that in fact make America great; and great, if so; but probably it will be shit.
Americans have to learn this the hard way. Democrats will have to stand by and be ready to once again pick up the pieces.
Sadly, I agree, and hope the damage done is limited and reversible. I thought they learned after eight years of GW Bush and hundreds of thousands of casualties in two multi $trillion wars. I guess not.
Loved your use of the word "bromance". The Tjr/ Grit condemnation of PP for being a "Trumper" will be a big nail in the coming-soon coffin of next weeks' Parliament QPeriod Q/A:- especially with the re-negotiation of the coming-soon US/CDN Trade Deal "update". I'm thinking that it would be best if Poillievre was facing Trump:- rather than the two-faced Tjr:- when he says:- yes; trust me; I'll pay-up soon:- the long overdue NATO $Billions for our self defence; not to mention the 31 other NATO members who were invaded in WW2. PROROGUE is his only option;- and I plan to door-knock/ sell his long overdue, non-elected "departure"; with relish.
I found myself largely agreeing with Mr. Barkan’s takes. If there was anything that I questioned, I think maybe it was his enthusiasm for the Obama presidency. Everyone raves about, but I don’t really get it. I’m clearly a vast distance from the mainstream on this though, so it’s very possible that everyone else is right and I’m just failing to suppress some element of latent contrarianism.
Anyway, though I was aware of Barkan from other publications, I hadn’t tuned in to his Substack presence, so thanks for that exposure, Paul. I’ll subscribe to him.
Not to attribute any of my own views to you, but I've been thinking about your comment and the Barkan piece on the Obama twilight, and wonder if the difference is the result of form vs substance. I'm with Barkan that the Obamas controlled the cultural buzz but in reality theirs was also a careless repudiation of what a huge number of Americans needed to thrive. When you don't actually produce good results, you don't have staying power. And I hope that's not just naive.
Thanks for the boot camp on the US election. I learned the most from the Ross Barkin interview. I enjoyed that. Also the Musa Al-Gharbi statistical analysis. Normally my limited attention span fails while reading stats.
Hey Paul, I'd love to see you do an English interview with Chantal Hebert. I love her work on CBC on the panel with Andrew Coyne (another one to interview?). As a unilingual Canadian, I regret that I'm not able to enjoy the French content, but wish I could.
Thanks for this. I've been reading Barkan recently too, and appreciated your questions as a way to flesh out his ideas as well as to look further into this new world we all find ourselves in. Excellent use of the interview form, I think, in a space where you usually excel in the written. Thanks.
The Democrats lost due to the progressive conceit that Americans outside of their enclave are too ignorant to determine the political leadership that is best for them.
If the Democrat establishment continues to account their loss to the moral and intellectual inferiority of the more than half on Americans who endorsed Trump - rather than looking inwards at their own lack of political common sense - they are going to have very difficult time regaining control of the White House.
This element of American society has rejected the neo-Marxist agenda that has pushed the country further to the left than they can tolerate and, until genuine liberalism displaces progressive orthodoxy in the Democrat party, they will continue to embrace conservatism.
A deluge of words in your essay here about a fairly simple situation. Wokeness is a decadent, perverted form of old fashioned feudalism. Wokeness inspires similar emotions among the peasants to those the Feudal System inspired. Maybe you should spend more time talking to us peasants about the recent voters' veto than talking to all your "symbolic" people about abstruse notions.
Ezra Klein of the New York Times is offering very thoughtful analysis of the Democratic party, of progressive parties. Today’s discussion with Michael Lind looks at party structure, in particular the role now played by single issue advocacy groups in staffing and policy. Worth a read if we want to understand how the Trudeau Liberal government differs from its predecessors.
It all seems to come back to Biden not backing away sooner, and giving new candidates a chance to show themselves to the American public. And yea, they did blow it on being elitist in their handling of media. She should have at least done Rogan's show, for better or for worse. That's not playing well at all. Regardless of how they feel about it, bombastic podcasts are part of the American media landscape, and learning how to play it will always be better than avoiding it.
As I think about things, I realize there are two general types in politics, and also in everything else: overwhelming personalities, and people who are not overwhelming personalities. Barry Harris, the great Detroit-born jazz pianist, used to say that the problem with most younger musicians was that they were "half-playing motherf***ers." Most people are in any field. And it's hard for them to make a mark. Clinton, Obama, LBJ, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher — show them the door to a lion's den and they would dive right through. "Hi, I'm here!" Staffs *hate* overwhelming personalities, with their whims and their appetites. Staffs greatly prefer half-playing motherf***ers, and they have become better and better at producing them. Which is why the current crop of Liberal leadership pretenders, for instance, look like kids at a day care who can't find the rope they're supposed to hang onto, even though of course they're all superbly educated.
Really enjoyed this podcast. Ross Barkan strikes me as very thoughtful and confident enough to not read off a script. Please have him back again to update us northerners about the new Trump presidency.
thank you, I appreciate that!
One of the things that caught my attention was the fact that the Democrats thought that the New York Times and CNN were against them. If they actually thought that, then they are even more out of touch with reality.
Both treated Trump’s lunacy as if it were normal, so they can be forgiven for believing they were biased.
That is false. They absolutely did not.
Interesting listen. I really hope his rosy appreciation of how the political norms of the past will continue to constrain this and future administrations. Personally I think these norms have already changed with the supreme court decision on the limitations of the presidents legal liability (or lack there of) so basing prognostication on past norms is a a dangerous bet. My personal bias is glass half full.
Your cautions are appreciated .Barken is whistling in the graveyard. Check out the appointees.The latest being Gaetz.Cumon folks.Wake up.Check the vitaes the appointments. What they have said in the past.
Very interesting podcast, but I take real issue with the seemingly casual confidence that the fascist talk need not be entertained. There will be elections, but will they be free and fair?
Trump 1.0 may have had 4 years to go after political enemies with the Justice department and failed to do so, but he was largely surrounded by staff and appointees that still abided by institutional norms. He didn't expect to win the elction in 2016, he wasn't ready. Prokect 2025 disn't exist. The party was not yet wholly owned by Trump and his sycophants. They had a moral compass outside his personal ambitions, and held his worst instincts in check.
He and his people are planning to run a very different administration this time. He has been granted royal impunity for actions he takes as President. He spoke at length about his plans to go after the enemies within. And today, we learned he has tapped loyal henchman Matt Gaetz to be AG.
The thinkers out there sounding all the alarms about the very real threat to American democracy and rule of law have articulated some pretty undeniable arguments for why we should be much more concerned with Trump 2.0.
I noticed that too... Speaker casually dismisses fascism and then proceeds to describe the very conditions that define fascism 🤦♀️
It is my opinion, humbly given, that the Democratic ticket did everything that any reasonable, honest person could have done. But you have to meet the people where they are, and where they are today is irrational, angry, xenophobic; ready to accept Christian theocracy; ready to roll the dice on crazy. The Republican ticket won fair and square and there isn't anything the Dems could have done about it.
Let's see where America goes from here. Prediction: they will find that the chaos unleashed is counterproductive, and throw the Republicans out, beginning in 2026 at the mid-terms. It's possible that this experiment with protectionism and deportation and deregulation will produce amazing results, or coincide with other forces that in fact make America great; and great, if so; but probably it will be shit.
Americans have to learn this the hard way. Democrats will have to stand by and be ready to once again pick up the pieces.
Sadly, I agree, and hope the damage done is limited and reversible. I thought they learned after eight years of GW Bush and hundreds of thousands of casualties in two multi $trillion wars. I guess not.
Loved your use of the word "bromance". The Tjr/ Grit condemnation of PP for being a "Trumper" will be a big nail in the coming-soon coffin of next weeks' Parliament QPeriod Q/A:- especially with the re-negotiation of the coming-soon US/CDN Trade Deal "update". I'm thinking that it would be best if Poillievre was facing Trump:- rather than the two-faced Tjr:- when he says:- yes; trust me; I'll pay-up soon:- the long overdue NATO $Billions for our self defence; not to mention the 31 other NATO members who were invaded in WW2. PROROGUE is his only option;- and I plan to door-knock/ sell his long overdue, non-elected "departure"; with relish.
Peter Marshall, Oakville
Pee Pee is more like Vance.
I found myself largely agreeing with Mr. Barkan’s takes. If there was anything that I questioned, I think maybe it was his enthusiasm for the Obama presidency. Everyone raves about, but I don’t really get it. I’m clearly a vast distance from the mainstream on this though, so it’s very possible that everyone else is right and I’m just failing to suppress some element of latent contrarianism.
Anyway, though I was aware of Barkan from other publications, I hadn’t tuned in to his Substack presence, so thanks for that exposure, Paul. I’ll subscribe to him.
Not to attribute any of my own views to you, but I've been thinking about your comment and the Barkan piece on the Obama twilight, and wonder if the difference is the result of form vs substance. I'm with Barkan that the Obamas controlled the cultural buzz but in reality theirs was also a careless repudiation of what a huge number of Americans needed to thrive. When you don't actually produce good results, you don't have staying power. And I hope that's not just naive.
Thanks for the boot camp on the US election. I learned the most from the Ross Barkin interview. I enjoyed that. Also the Musa Al-Gharbi statistical analysis. Normally my limited attention span fails while reading stats.
Hey Paul, I'd love to see you do an English interview with Chantal Hebert. I love her work on CBC on the panel with Andrew Coyne (another one to interview?). As a unilingual Canadian, I regret that I'm not able to enjoy the French content, but wish I could.
Will tuck this suggestion away for future use. Of course she’s a star. Will find a moment to make this happen.
A Carville with class! Well done!
Thanks for this. I've been reading Barkan recently too, and appreciated your questions as a way to flesh out his ideas as well as to look further into this new world we all find ourselves in. Excellent use of the interview form, I think, in a space where you usually excel in the written. Thanks.
The Democrats lost due to the progressive conceit that Americans outside of their enclave are too ignorant to determine the political leadership that is best for them.
If the Democrat establishment continues to account their loss to the moral and intellectual inferiority of the more than half on Americans who endorsed Trump - rather than looking inwards at their own lack of political common sense - they are going to have very difficult time regaining control of the White House.
This element of American society has rejected the neo-Marxist agenda that has pushed the country further to the left than they can tolerate and, until genuine liberalism displaces progressive orthodoxy in the Democrat party, they will continue to embrace conservatism.
It’s nice to Barry Harris introduced into a political conversation
A deluge of words in your essay here about a fairly simple situation. Wokeness is a decadent, perverted form of old fashioned feudalism. Wokeness inspires similar emotions among the peasants to those the Feudal System inspired. Maybe you should spend more time talking to us peasants about the recent voters' veto than talking to all your "symbolic" people about abstruse notions.
Ezra Klein of the New York Times is offering very thoughtful analysis of the Democratic party, of progressive parties. Today’s discussion with Michael Lind looks at party structure, in particular the role now played by single issue advocacy groups in staffing and policy. Worth a read if we want to understand how the Trudeau Liberal government differs from its predecessors.
It all seems to come back to Biden not backing away sooner, and giving new candidates a chance to show themselves to the American public. And yea, they did blow it on being elitist in their handling of media. She should have at least done Rogan's show, for better or for worse. That's not playing well at all. Regardless of how they feel about it, bombastic podcasts are part of the American media landscape, and learning how to play it will always be better than avoiding it.
As I think about things, I realize there are two general types in politics, and also in everything else: overwhelming personalities, and people who are not overwhelming personalities. Barry Harris, the great Detroit-born jazz pianist, used to say that the problem with most younger musicians was that they were "half-playing motherf***ers." Most people are in any field. And it's hard for them to make a mark. Clinton, Obama, LBJ, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher — show them the door to a lion's den and they would dive right through. "Hi, I'm here!" Staffs *hate* overwhelming personalities, with their whims and their appetites. Staffs greatly prefer half-playing motherf***ers, and they have become better and better at producing them. Which is why the current crop of Liberal leadership pretenders, for instance, look like kids at a day care who can't find the rope they're supposed to hang onto, even though of course they're all superbly educated.
I'd love to read more of your observations on the role and effect of staffs.
In short, charisma, and not afraid to use it. Trump exemplifies that. The medium is the message.