May 8, 2019 | Politics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEXL5USuDGIFrom the video description:"How did blue-collar voters connect with a millionaire from Queens in the 2016 election? Martin and Illie Anderson Senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson addresses that question and more in his newly released book, The Case for Trump. He sits down with Peter Robinson to chat about his motivation to write a book making a rational case for those voters who chose Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Hanson and Robinson, the Murdoch Distinguished Policy Fellow, discuss how voters connected with Trump’s “personal authenticity” during the campaign and how the media has a “historical amnesia” of the bad behavior of past presidents when talking about President Trump. The president, Hanson argues, was always an outsider from elite society in Manhattan, which helped him to better to connect with voters who felt like outsiders. He analyzes President Trump’s platform agenda, which was composed 80% of traditionally conservative views with the remaining 20% being radical ideas that fit with many of the views of the midwestern states. He breaks down why, in the end, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich didn’t appeal to voters in the way that Trump managed to. Hanson turns to talk about his background and life growing up in California’s Central Valley and how different the area feels now compared to when he was younger...."
Hanson argues that the political "outsider" Trump is not merely the lessor of two evils, but putting aside his anti-intellectuality, pettyiness and crudeness, in some policy areas he is good. For a contrasting view see Onkar Ghate: Why Ayn Rand Would Have Despised a President Trump. The era of the Trump Presidency is an interesting test for America's constitutional republic and rule of law.Related:
Apr 30, 2019 | Politics
The Soho Forum hosted a debate about the Israeli - Palestinian conflict and whether the Palestinian movement has a right to exist. Israeli author Elan Journo, the Ayn Rand Institute’s research director, debated U.S. Army Strategist Major Danny Sjursen at the Subculture Theater in New York City.
Comments Elan Journo at New Ideal:
The debate vividly brought out an important contrast between my opponent’s approach to the issue and mine. In my own remarks, I highlighted my book’s distinctive approach to the conflict: a secular, individualist moral framework. I take the principle of individual freedom as a standard for evaluating the adversaries. Central to my view is that we must evaluate the nature of the Palestinian movement. The evidence shows that this movement is hostile to freedom; its main factions strive to establish militant authoritarian and theocratic regimes. To resolve the conflict, then, we must start by taking seriously this movement’s ideological aims. My opponent, by contrast, challenged the premise that there’s any coherence to the “Palestinian movement,” denied the importance of its ideological outlook, and urged a return to solutions that have demonstrably made matters worse.
Link: Soho Forum Debate on Israeli-Palestinian Conflict | C-SPAN.orgFor further reading: What Justice Demands
Apr 24, 2019 | Politics
Writes Matthew Walther on Obstruction is the new collusion inThe Week:
"Obstruction of justice is the new, even lamer sequel to collusion."
[...]
"Instead we have moved in the space of about five minutes from theorizing about Trump's 30-plus years of experience working for the KGB to arguing that his unwillingness to pretend that he really enjoyed having his presidency undermined for half of his first term was a pleasant experience makes him guilty of something called 'obstruction of justice.' "
"What kind of person do you have to be to spend two years insisting on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that a crime occurred and then, virtually the minute your baseless assertions are proven false, start banging on about how the suspect's attempts to prove himself innocent are themselves criminal?"
Mar 20, 2019 | Business, Politics
Economist Steven Kates speaks with Tom Woods on why the Keynesian attack on Say's Law is the truly fundamental error in the Keynesian system.A wonderful listen for fans of pro-capitalist economics.For a more comprehensive coverage of all of these issues and why they matter, read Kate's Free Market Economics: an Introduction for the General Reader.
