Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.
It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):
Now, let’s get to your questions…
Trump is now promising to send $5,000 to every adult American citizen if Republicans hold the House and Senate. This is not just plain bribery, but in-your-face socialism. I thought Trump was supposed to be saving us from socialism (that’s the line anyway). Your take? — Alex D.
Many of my fellow righties hate when I say this, Alex, but it’s demonstrably true: Trump has done more socialist things, as U.S. president, than any other president in my lifetime… all while insisting that he’s saving the country from socialism. It’s pure gaslighting, and it’s been very sad to me how many of my fellow righties — many of whom still self-identify as conservatives — refuse to see through it (and even cheer it on).
This particular bribe (as you properly labeled it) would cost $1.3 trillion that we don’t have, and thus would be added to our national debt (which is currently racing toward $41 trillion). It would also drive inflation back up.
Now, the good news, purely from a fiscal perspective, is that Trump is also chronically dishonest. Since returning to the White House, he has promised $5,000 stimulus checks in the form of a “DOGE dividend," $2,000 stimulus checks in the form of a "tariff dividend," and $1,000 checks in the form of "savings" from expiring ACA subsidies. None of these things ever happened. Plus, he has an ‘out’ this time, because he knows Republicans are going to at least lose the House.
Still, Americans (especially conservatives) should be angered and embarrassed by this stuff.
Do you think the question, “Do you love America?” which on the surface is a pretty straightforward question, is now viewed thru a political lens, as almost everything in our society now is? What I mean is, people now read an underlying intent or agenda into the question, rather than accept it at face value. “Do you love America?” could be interpreted as “Do you love Donald Trump’s America?”, or a couple of years ago, “Do you love Joe Biden’s America?”.
If one has an unqualified love for America, why would one need to “Make America Great Again”? The implication is that America is NOT currently great. — John M.
I’m glad you asked this, John. I certainly don’t view that question through a political lens, by I know that a lot of Americans absolutely do.
A few months ago, I interviewed Kevin Williamson of The Dispatch, and we got into this very topic. He did a great job of explaining why so many Americans view that question differently based on who’s sitting in the Oval Office:
It’s important for Americans to remember that the president isn’t the country. He’s not even the government. He’s just the chief administrator of one branch of one level of the American government.
We have a tendency to have this kind of quasi-monarchist view of our country, in which it’s personified in some mystical way by the president who’s become this increasingly, strangely sacramental and spiritualized figure in American life, which is the root of so much of our political discomfort, I think.
When you have a president that you think of as the personification of your country, then one half of the country is always going to be sort of miserable and unhappy when they’re the ones out of power, because it feels like they don’t have that special connection to their country…
I think he’s absolutely right.
O’Reilly can be a polarizing figure, and I don’t agree with everything he says, but he’s adamant that he is fact based on his reporting, and will not ever use anonymous sources. Also claims he has a staff of over 25 people working for him in vetting anything he reports. So when he said THIS on his show, it grabbed my attention. He was asked why the House Democratic votes under Speaker Pelosi were always unanimous, and he responded that she threatens to take away the campaign funds of any dissenters. Huh? And he also said nobody in the CMS media will ever report it. Have you or Bernie ever heard this? We’ve all heard she ran the House with an iron fist, but this sounds like extortion. And how would she have the authority to even do this. I know one thing, it seems to make sense. Because the Dems, unlike the GOP, always stuck together. Could Speaker Johnson do the same thing to get the votes he needs on critical legislation. Not saying I agree with it.
And one other thing. Unlike Fox News viewers, I’m not outraged by Bernie’s integrity (and yours), I’M THANKFUL FOR IT. It’s why I subscribe. — Rob O.
First of all, Rob, thanks again for the kinds words. We really appreciate them.
Regarding Pelosi, that’s not quite right (though it’s not totally wrong either). Democratic House votes were not unanimous under her. They were certainly highly unified by historical standards, but not unanimous. And the primary reason they were unified is that Pelosi wouldn’t even bring legislation to a vote until she was certain she had enough Democratic votes to get that legislation passed. Some people believe that made her a very effective House leader. I think it was a bad practice, because it stifled open congressional debate on legislation, which is sort of how the legislative process is supposed to work.
That said, there were indeed occasional reports of at least implied threats from Pelosi against fellow Democrats when it came to specific legislation, like the Build Back Better reconciliation package. The Democrats had a slim majority in the House at the time, and there were some Democratic holdouts who were trying to get some extra goodies. Behind closed doors, Pelosi reportedly implied that she would put a hold on their campaign funding if they didn’t fall in line. I don’t think this was standard operating procedure for Pelosi, but it was clearly part of her procedural arsenal.
I'm gobsmacked at this one- Trump posts an AI image of himself holding hands or arms with Dolly Parton after her death while everyone knows she was politically neutral, even refusing awards so as to NOT appear political. Dolly's sister Stella is furious, to say the least. This behavior has hit an all-time high, so, what's next? — Sharon H.
All-time high? In the grand scheme of things, Sharon, I think this is actually very small potatoes. It’s probably not even one of Trump’s top-10 most off-putting responses to a celebrity’s death (the mockery of Rob Reiner’s murder being number one). Heck, it’s probably not even in the top 1000 worst things he’s posted on social media.
Here’s how I broadly look at Trump’s behavior: America chose to send Donald Trump back to the White House after he tried to overturn U.S. democracy, caused a deadly riot/insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, and showed-off stolen top-secret government documents (including nuclear and war plans) to random people at his country club. After that, the sky was the limit. Someone with Trump’s ego could have only interpreted his reelection as societal validation of his actions, and a deeper permission structure to say and do whatever he wanted for the next four years. Any trepidation from his first term (instilled by the much better presidential advisors he had back then) would essentially become nonexistent.
Thus, we’ve gotten mass pardons of criminals (including hundreds of violent ones), the blatant political-weaponization of the DOJ, the unprecedented personal-monetization of the presidency (that has at least quadrupled Trump’s net-worth), central planning of the U.S. economy, a left-wing crackpot in charge of HHS, a Fox News weekend host in charge of the DOD, etc. The list goes on.
So, in comparison, the Dolly Parton post isn’t even a blip on the radar (at least not my radar).
John: A recent poll showed that 92% of Americans - a record number - distrust the U.S. government. But the latest initiatives by both parties want to greatly expand the size and role of government. I'm having a hard time squaring these two seemingly contradictory situations. Can you explain this? — Steve R.
Yes. The explanation is that neither major political party has any interest in building or maintaining the public’s trust.
Republican leaders largely just do whatever Trump wants, and let him get away with all kinds of things they’d never tolerate from a Democratic president. Democratic leaders largely buried their heads in the sand (until they couldn’t any longer) over our previous president’s cognitive incapacity to do the job. Now Americans are watching wacky DSA candidates make inroads in the Democratic Party.
Neither party is taking on our nation’s biggest challenges, and proposing serious solutions to serious problems; they’re much too busy fueling culture battles, stoking grievance, bribing select constituencies, and burying us under mountains of the debt (while claiming it’s entirely the other side’s fault).
But as Bernie has pointed out numerous times, the unindicted co-conspirator in all of this is the American voter (92% of whom currently say they distrust the government). That’s who keeps putting these untrustworthy clowns in power. In most cases, I blame primary voters (and those who don’t bother participating in the primaries) more than I do general-election voters, but nonetheless, elections have consequences. And now… here we are.
Sir John — as we remember the terrorist attack from Al-Qaeda on 9/11, I’m hearing that some New Yorkers don’t want Mandani attending any anniversary acknowledgements because of his association with alleged terrorist sympathizers. Your thoughts? — “Never Forget!” regards from The Emperor
I suppose I can understand that point of view, Emperor, but as the mayor of New York City, Mamdani will assuredly be attending 9/11 anniversary events.
For years Trump has been making up stories about his actions and supposedly what he witnessed on 9/11/2001, including taking his “crew” down to Ground Zero and he and them helping with the rescue and recovery efforts. That didn’t happen, and yet he brought it up again this week during a speech, and added some story about two firemen picking him up and rushing him to safety. I’ve seen some people describe this as “stolen valor.” Do you agree? — Ben G.
Yes, I think that’s fair. By falsely claiming that he essentially ran toward the danger at Ground Zero, and participated in the work that actual heroes (who put themselves in real danger) were doing, he absolutely opened himself up for that criticism.
As an acquaintance of mine said the other day: “There was a time when a politician making up a story like Trump did about 9/11 would just totally and irrevocably sink them forever. And it was maybe only 12 years ago.”
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
]]>“It’s being called traffic anarchy, and nowhere is it more blatant than in New York City…”
This isn’t what you’d call a groundbreaking story, but as with many issues of public safety, it was a legitimate one.
In late 1981, for the CBS Evening News, I covered the reckless abandon of traffic laws in big cities, including the Big Apple.
]]>On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about the midterm elections being in full swing, what the Democrats will do if/once they retake the House, and the 25th anniversary of 9/11.
Show Notes:
All 435 House seats, along with 33 seats in the Senate, will be up for grabs in the midterm elections. Donald Trump’s name will not be on any of those ballots. Not a single one.
And yet just about every Democrat will be running against him.
Midterm elections are a report card on how the president is doing — and voters almost always decide the president, any president, isn’t doing a good enough job. That’s why the president’s party almost always loses seats in Congress.
And as the midterms approach, this president’s report card doesn’t look very good. Most Americans give him low marks on just about everything. His approval numbers are under water on foreign policy, on healthcare, on immigration and on the economy, the single most important issue in this and most elections. And then there’s the war the president said would be over in a few weeks.
So 2026 isn’t exactly shaping up to be a banner year for the GOP.
But Democrats have problems of their own.
]]>Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.
It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):
Now, let’s get to your questions…
I have been and still am a fan of Bill O'Reilly but I agree he goes easier on President Trump than on others who display behavior similar to that of our president. My opinion is that to behave differently would hinder his access to information he may otherwise not have. What say you? — Benn H.
Hi Benn. I certainly think access plays a role in it, but speaking in broad terms (because this is an industry-wide issue, and not unique to any one person), the primary consideration for many professional political-media commentators and organizations is audience-share.
I think we can learn a lot from Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott’s “respect the audience” business philosophy. It basically comes down to telling viewers (in this case the Fox audience) what they want to hear… rather than the sometimes hard, fair-and-balanced truths they do not want to hear. Bernie has argued that Scott’s model is actually the opposite of respecting the audience, and he’s absolutely right. If you’re in the news business, respecting your audience means leveling with them, and at least trying to be fair (aka using single-standards) in your coverage.
Honesty, earnestness, and fairness — however — can drive viewers away. Suzanne Scott is well aware of this. In an internal email in the wake of the 2020 election (which later went public thanks to the Dominion Voting Systems’ defamation lawsuit), she infamously complained about (and scolded) Fox hosts and reporters (including Neil Cavuto) who were, on-air, responsibly shooting down Trump’s unsubstantiated “stolen election” claims. Scott was upset because a lot of Fox viewers — who desperately wanted to believe that Trump could only lose if the election was stolen — were turning off Fox in large numbers, and switching over to Newsmax (who was playing faster and looser with the “stolen election” nonsense). She also complained that fact-checking was “bad for business” because “the audience is furious.” That point alone speaks volumes.
Though the 2020 election drama was perhaps an extreme example, her email offered the public a very revealing look at how the right-wing media operates in the era of Trump, including their fears, pressures, motivations, priorities, etc. Those business considerations, by the way, are why Fox News sidelined Bernie a few years earlier. The Fox audience was outraged by Bernie’s honest, fair criticisms of Trump, so the network pulled him off the air (for a year!) until his contract ran out.
But it’s not just Fox. It’s how a large majority of the political-media operates, to varying degrees. Chris Stirewalt (who was famously fired from Fox News for correctly calling the 2020 race for Joe Biden) spelled all of this out in his book, Broken News. These individuals and organizations know what their audience wants, and they know what will keep them coming back for more. So, to stay successful, they give their audience those things good and hard. They’re also keenly aware of how much (and what type of) intra-tribe criticism their audience will tolerate… and they’re careful to stay on the right (aka safe) side of that line.
This is a proven business model for sure (Scott is still Fox News’ CEO, even after the $787.5 million settlement with Dominion). Many people (both talented and untalented) have made a lot of money using it. What it requires, however, are lots of double-standards and a great deal hypocrisy (which, unfortunately, most political consumers don’t care about anymore).
So now James Clyburn has joined Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom and other non-DSA Democrats in jumping on the “pack the Court” bandwagon, or at least being open to it, and at this point I wouldn’t be surprised if supporting Court packing, becomes a litmus test for Democrats running in 2028. (I don’t think Clyburn himself is running, but Buttigieg, Harris and Newsom all are, and his badge of approval obviously would give a big boost to a candidate).
I have also started to see some fringe right-wing pundits stating that Democrats are obviously going to pack the Court as soon as they get the chance, so Republicans should do it first.
I must even admit that I am starting to think the main problem with Court expansion is the obvious incentive for both sides to keep doing it until we wind up with 99 Justices on the Court. But I am starting to wonder, if say, a Constitutional Amendment was passed that fixes the number of Justices at 13, that might eventually make it less politicized because the confirmation of a single Justice would be much less likely to completely change the ideological make up of it.
So, do you expect to see Court packing actually happen in your lifetime? If so, do you think it will be started off by Democrats or Republicans? — Aylene W.
I would be surprised to see court-packing in my lifetime, Aylene, but it’s well within the realm of possibility. It would be perfectly legal, and can be enacted through the regular legislative process.
If it were to happen, I think it would most likely come from the Democratic Party, being that the Supreme Court currently has a conservative tilt, and likely will for the foreseeable future. Also, as you point out, Democratic leaders are the ones making most of the hay about it… though it may well just be a political/electoral ploy to excite the base. People may remember that Biden talked about court packing too, but nothing ever came of it while he was in office.
Personally, I’m against court packing. I think nine justices make sense, and see no reason, beyond political/partisan interests, to change it.
How hard did you laugh at the House passing a resolution officially condemning and denouncing socialism "in all its forms”? — Ben G.
Yeah, I took it about as seriously as O.J. Simpson’s vow to “catch the real killers.”
As I keep arguing, Ben: Between the DSA, and Trump taking government equity stakes in dozens of private companies, both parties have been remarkably accepting of socialism.
Scott Bessent this week blamed Ukraine (not the Iran War) for high gas prices. Do you think he actually believes that? — Alex D.
No, I don’t. And even if one wanted to make a superficial argument that Ukraine targeting Russia’s energy assets, in defense of their country, is contributing to already high gas prices, the blame for that falls on Russia (the unprovoked invader of a sovereign country). Not Ukraine.
Bessent made that statement on Fox & Friends, which is apparently President Trump’s favorite show. In other words, Bessent was speaking to an audience of one. And because Ukraine is a favorite whipping boy of the president’s, he chose to throw them under the bus instead of telling the truth.
Sir John —recently country / western music star Jelly Roll hosted the Jimmy Kimmel show for the week. While there, he made some rather crude and nasty jokes about President Trump, which enraged much of Jelly Roll’s conservative Christian fan-base (some of whom called for boycotts, while others labeled him a “fake Christian and a hypocrite”).
At first, Jelly Roll was defiant and encouraged the boycott. However by the time his final night of guest hosting rolled around, he gave a much more humble defense about making jokes about presidents who should be “able to take” a few jokes, while he simultaneously reiterated his Christianity and emphasized that mercy should include Democrats and Republicans, emphasizing that everyone is entitled to mercy. Well…okay. Personally I’d never even heard of Jelly Roll until the conservative pundits brought up some clips of his infamous anti-Trump monologue, and I add that I agree philosophically with Jelly Roll’s points, and of course I can’t boycott somebody I never heard of.
What I do question is his sincerity on the final broadcast. If he truly was comfortable with angering his fan-base, then why did he give a semi-apologetic defense of himself on the final show? It never worked for the Dixie Chicks with conservatives, nor did it work for J.K. Rowling with the liberals (although Rowling was never apologetic about her views on the trans culture, she has emphasized that she still leans left politically.). I ask you—- is it brave for artists to crap on their fan base? Is it wise!? Is it cowardly & hypocritical for them to try and half-heartedly justify themselves afterwards? —“Jelly Roll Damage Control” regards from The Emperor
Hi Emperor. Like you, I had never heard of Jelly Roll. I also don’t like Country music, don’t like Jimmy Kimmel (or his show), and am not motivated at all to get on YouTube and seek out the singer’s anti-Trump monologues (or his “humble defense” of those monologues). As I wrote a while back, I stopped caring about celebrities weighing in on politics a long time ago.
I’ll just make a few broad points, to hopefully satisfy your question:
I think organized boycotts over stuff like this are pretty lame. If an individual doesn’t want to support an artist or entertainer, because they object to something that person said, fine. It’s a free country. No one’s forcing anyone to give such people their money. But taking on an activist role over it strikes me as a performative display of self-importance. These aren’t elected leaders, or public policy proposals. They’re entertainers.
If someone wants to question someone else’s Christianity, based on that individual telling some “crude and nasty jokes,” they’re certainly free to do that. But if they go that route, it would be great if they used that same standard for other individuals, who at least claim to be a Christian, when they do the same type of thing. Otherwise, the objection isn’t to the conduct, but rather the specific individual displaying that conduct.
It’s often (but not always) professionally unwise for an entertainer to publicly express his or her political views — especially if those views are sharp and divisive. It can run the risk of costing them money and opportunities. If someone goes that route, I suppose it could be considered “brave” (depending on the circumstance), and “less brave” if they later try and walk back their comments. But — like I said — I can’t bring myself to care about stuff like this anymore.
Til next week, Emperor.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
]]>One of the frustrations of writing from a conservative perspective in the Trump era is having to sometimes remind yourself that the conservative positions you’ve long maintained — which were previously understood (and largely shared) by your fellow righties — have since been forgotten by a significant number of people who still think of themselves as conservatives. In some cases, they may have never truly explored those positions in the first place.
As I wrote in my last column, this really shouldn’t be surprising. Though the views I subscribe to broadly defined the mainstream conservative movement for close to 60 years, they’ve largely gone undefended over the last decade — at least by those with large public platforms. Few Republican leaders seem interested in them now, and the self-described conservatives who funnel outrage to millions every week (on cable news, popular podcasts, and social-media) are mostly focused on Trump sycophancy, culture-war battles, and otherwise owning the libs.
Gone are the days of Charles Krauthammer as a revered thought-leader on the American Right. Now, smug, know-nothing whataboutists like Jesse Watters rule the roost.
Philosophical foundations, including those that have led to sustained periods of great success and prosperity, can only last so long on muscle-memory. Without gatekeepers and others willing to debate and persuade potential converts on conservative ideas, people were bound to forget them, and fall for the allure of personality-based populism — the success of which is measured not by conservation, enduring success, or the betterment of society… but rather grievance, attitude, and tribal solidarity.
Case in point, our national debt recently flew past the $40 trillion mark. The United States is now spending more on interest payments (to service that debt) than on national defense. Our major entitlement programs are just a few years away from insolvency. Our cost of living is through the roof. Executive abuses and federal corruption have become normalized. And seemingly every week, we’re learning more about the poor planning and mismanagement behind the ongoing Iran War (along with the U.S. vulnerabilities it has exposed).
These are serious, substantive issues. And yet a big focus of our president and his loyal defenders, at least at the moment, is finding more ways to further demonize and screw up our relationship with Canada — one of our closest, safest, and most mutually beneficial allies.
No, I’m not talking about the dopey “Lake America” trolling (though the Right’s jubilation over that juvenile nonsense goes to my larger point). I’m referring to the latest round of Trump’s trade war. Despite the economic damage it has caused to our country, much of the effort being deemed illegal, and all of it amounting to an assault on the longtime conservative tenet of free trade, Trump’s appetite for punishing our allies (often at America’s expense) appears as strong as ever.
As we learned a few months ago from our president’s 2025 financial disclosure, Trump, unlike an overwhelming majority of Americans, has personally made a lot of money off his tariffs. But his mistreatment of our allies clearly runs much deeper than a warped view of international trade.
In a recent Q&A, a subscriber to this website asked if Trump’s latest abuse of Canada stemmed from his “failed excursion into Iran,” and the emotional need to “bully” someone who he could do so with “relative impunity.” While I think there may be something to that, the problem (as Ukraine, South Korea, Greenland, Denmark, and other countries can attest to) is much broader.
While Trump treats anti-America dictators like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un with fawning praise and respect, he takes the opposite tact with many of America’s friends and free-world partners, casting them as leeches and ingrates who only take advantage of the United States’ outsized role in the world order.
I recently spoke about this to Bobby Miller, a commentator and foreign policy scholar from Georgetown University.
“President Trump… has a tendency to do this with a lot of our allies,” Miller told me during the interview. “And while this sort of bravado might sound appealing, superficially appealing — you know, ‘We’re the boss’ sort of machismo; ‘We’re telling our allies how to behave, and they better be supplicants of ours…’ I think the fundamental problem, something that President Trump misunderstands, is that one of the keys to American hegemony — one of the reasons why we have achieved so much... is that we don't treat allies like supplicants. We treat them as equals.”
This is one of those positions that I think most conservatives (and probably most Americans) not only used to understand, but also understood the purpose of. It’s more than a matter of honor (though honor is very important too).
Miller was kind enough to lay it out. “There’s something called mutually beneficial exchanges… There doesn’t need to be this adversarial relationship with our allies, where we’re extracting something. We both can benefit.” He also described how “allies allow us to project power into areas of the world where we aren’t always physically present.”
Miller says that the president’s needless disparagement and punishment of our allies has many of them questioning American resolve — a trend he believes started under Obama, and has only gotten worse under Trump. When allies start to view the U.S. as unreliable (or potentially even hostile), Miller argued, their strategic plan changes. They begin to hedge their bets, either by building more amicable relationships with bad actors on the world stage (including sworn enemies of the United States), or by seeking strategic independence.
That latter may sound good to some, ceded Miller, but he believes that view is short-sighted. He says that if U.S. allies go their own way, their strategic autonomy may well run contrary to U.S. interests.
“Having this vast alliance network,” he added, “has been of immense benefit to the United States… A lot of Americans have taken this world order for granted, and how beneficial the post-1945 arrangement has been for the United States.”
He’s right. And if the Trump era has proven anything, it’s that millions of Americans have taken all kinds of things for granted. Our next president, if he or she has any sense at all, will invest a lot of time in rebuilding our strategic alliances.
]]>“For farmers it is a constant battle, keeping birds away from their rice seed.”
In 1981, approximately 100 waterfowl — mostly ducks and geese — were found dead or dying in ua rice field near Sweet Lake in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana. They’d been poisoned by the illegal use of a pesticide called Azodrin.
I covered the story for the CBS Evening News, including worries over how humans might be affected by the poison.
Let me know what you think about my farmer attire for the piece. 😉
On a side note, all uses of Azodrin were discontinued in the United States by the late 1980s.
]]>In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at the loss of Dolly Parton, and what she meant to our country.
]]>Remember when Republicans used to trash Democrats for playing the victim card? Remember when the very word “victim” was practically synonymous with whiny and weak?
Women were victims of toxic masculinity, we were told. People of color were victims of systemic racism. Left-wing college kids were victims of words and ideas that made them feel threatened.
Republicans wanted no part of that.
They weren’t whiny and weak like those sensitive lefties. Republicans didn’t wilt because somebody said something they didn’t like. Republicans weren’t crybabies.
At least that was the theory.
]]>Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.
It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):
Now, let’s get to your questions…
John: I am reading the interesting book, “Suicidal Empathy” by Gad Saad. Early in the book, Saad describes four key principles of an ethical journalist as described by The Society of Professional Journalists. Two of these are “Seek Truth and Report It”, and “Minimize Harm.” But what if the truth harms a particular group? Should you refrain from sharing it or obfuscate key features to “minimize harm”? No sooner did I read this than the story of black Cambridge University professor Jason Arday’s suicide made the news. Arday was under heavy scrutiny for rampant plagiarism, a very suspect back story, and other aspects of his life that did not pass basic fact checking. Cambridge University held a vigil for Arday, and the participants mostly blamed the British press for racistly noticing Arday’s suspect personal and academic record. I’m pretty much a free speech absolutist, but you’re the professional writer. Where do you stand? — Steve R.
Hi Steve. Again, I apologize for not seeing this question last week, when you originally asked it.
I haven’t read “Suicidal Empathy,” but the “minimize harm” part you describe does strike me as odd, at least in the journalistic sense. I can think of many scenarios in which attempting to minimize the harm of a story could prevent the necessary truth from coming out.
As for Arday, it’s a tragic story for sure. I can think of certain instances of suicide, in which I do place some partial blame on others, but this isn’t one of them. Revealing that someone in a position of public trust is a fraud isn’t unethical. I’m sure there are better comparisons, but when journalist Brian Williams was exposed for his many false accounts, pretty much no one felt he should be shielded from hard criticism and professional accountability. Unfortunately, Arday handled the fallout much differently than Williams did.
Any thoughts on the passing of Dolly Parton and Tim Curry this week. — Alex D.
Only that both were pop-culture icons, and that Parton was widely beloved for her kindness, generosity, and charitable giving. Unlike lots of people, I never had any particular fan-affection for either of them. Their movies weren’t really my thing, and I was never into Country music, but my sympathy certainly goes out to their families and friends.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, Trump’s trade war has resulted in the United States now paying 75% more for aluminum than the rest of the world. Why are we still doing this crap? The tariffs have done nothing but hurt our country. — Ben G.
We’re still doing this, Ben, because Trump thinks tariffs are super cool, and he loves treating our allies like dirt (even at the expense of our own country). We also know now that he personally makes a good amount of money through stock trades, as a result of his tariff announcements and other central-planning efforts. One more possible explanation, at least in regard to Canada, is covered in the next question…
Questions for the Friday Q&A:
Do you attribute Trump’s newly revised bullying of Canada and South Korea a return to “Trump’s Greatest Hits” after his failed excursion into Iran? In other words, like a classic bully, he backed down (while continuing to talk tough) when someone (Iran) stood up to him, and then returned to someone he could bully with relative impunity (Canada, and to a lesser degree, South Korea)? I’m expecting him to bring out the “we need to control Greenland” screed next week.
Do you and Bernie think the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by nominating DSA candidates in competitive districts/states, thus making the GOP candidate come across as the more reasonable choice?
How concerned are you that Trump will try to thwart the results of the mid-terms if things don’t go his way, for example declaring a National Emergency, seizing voting machines, etc... ?
— John M.
Hi John. I’ll answer one question at a time…
Bullying our allies
You’re broadly right about Trump’s treatment of U.S. allies. He loves to publicly humiliate them, treat them like ingrates, and needlessly punish them economically and/or through the denial of previously pledged support. He thinks it makes him look tough and strong. In reality, it hurts our country (both economically and geopolitically), and compels good foreign actors to build or strengthen ties with bad foreign actors. I can’t emphasize how damaging this has been to the United States, while Trump flatters, fawns over, and makes unbelievable concessions to sworn enemies of America (like Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un).
As for whether this latest round of bullying Canada, and now South Korea, stems from Trump trying to revitalize his “tough and strong” persona after ending up in an embarrassing stalemate with Iran, I think it’s entirely possible. Trump’s ego and self-interest dictates almost every decision he makes.
The Democrats snatching defeat from victory with DSA nominees
I assume, John, that you’re referring to 2028, since I don’t think any DSA candidates have been nominated in swing districts/states this year (unless you count Abdul El-Sayed, who isn’t technically a DSA candidate).
So, do I think that DSA candidates can lose winnable seats for Democrats in 2028? Yes, I do. I think we might also see some saner GOP candidates in 2028, with Trump on his way out (and less interested in purging non-conformists from the party). Then again, voters may be so sick of Trump and the GOP by November of 2028 that there could be an electoral bloodbath-victory for the Dems… no matter what.
Trump trying to thwart the midterms
I’m not terribly concerned about it, John, mainly because Trump’s name isn’t on the ballot. As I’ve argued a number of times, I don’t think Trump really cares about the GOP Congress, and whether Republicans hold a majority. In fact, I think he sort of likes the (false) narrative that other Republicans can’t win unless he’s on the ballot.
Trump has proven that he’s more than willing to try and overturn a U.S. election when he loses one. But I very much doubt he’d bother to put forth the effort for other Republicans. Then again, when I give Trump the benefit of the doubt on something, he often proves me wrong.
Sir John — apparently there is some backlash over “a secret meeting” between Hakim Jeffries and Jared Kushner. Any idea what this meeting was about? Are there some shenanigans going on politically? — “Behind Closed Door” regards from The Emperor
I think the most likely explanation, as suggested by the reporting, is that Trump knows the GOP will lose the House in the midterm elections, and his administration is trying to gauge what kind of relationship he may have with the Democratic Congress at that time.
That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump was interested in trying to work some backdoor deals with the Democrats — perhaps something along the lines of vowing to sign big bills they want passed in exchange for minimizing congressional investigations into him and his partners/allies.
People forget that when the Dems won back the House during Trump’s first term, Trump caved to their wishes multiple times, just to avoid a fight. (Like the Dems, Trump’s a big-government guy, and couldn’t care less about restraining spending). This time, he’d have even more motivation to give them what they want: self-preservation.
Editor’s Note: The below question from Bob H. was trimmed for length (though it’s still fairly long):
Last week Bill O’Reilly ranted against Sen. Ossoff for an off-color remark he made about a WH aide. O’Reilly called him a guttersnipe at least twice. He said Sen. Ossoff was a despicable human being. He looked into the camera and raged with obvious vitriol “Is this who you want representing you?,” presumably addressing Georgia voters. Not an exact quote, but close enough. O’Reilly then said he’d vote for Putin if he were running against Sen. Ossoff. Days later, when Chris Cuomo, called O’Reilly out for this, he said maybe he’d stay home if Putin ran against Sen. Ossoff. Really?
On his Monday show, O’Reilly again ranted against Ossoff, again calling him a guttersnipe and a despicable person. O’Reilly said character matters. Over the last 10 days, O’Reilly must have devoted at least 30 minutes on his show, on Cuomo’s show, and on Leland Vitter’s show to angrily tear into Sen. Ossoff for supposedly being a guttersnipe and a despicable person.
When O’Reilly went on Chris Cuomo’s show, Cuomo rebuked O’Reilly for going bonkers against Sen. Ossoff but saying nothing about President Trump, who does the same thing on a regular basis. Cuomo’s point was that O’Reilly, who claims to be a fair-minded journalist who doesn’t play favorites while claiming that almost every other commentator is dishonest, O’Reilly was being hypocritical by spending so much time angrily tearing into Sen. Ossoff, calling him a guttersnipe and a despicable person and putting him in league with Putin, but not doing anything near comparable with Trump.
Cuomo said that O’Reilly “says nothing” about President Trump frequently demeaning women for just doing their jobs. Here, he was wrong. Actually, O’Reilly says VERY LITTLE about President Trump frequently demeaning women for just doing their jobs. In one segment he said “Why bother with that” (almost an exact quote) implying that such talk obscures his message, in another segment he said if he wants to protect his legacy he must stop doing that, in another segment he said he must put stop to it or it’ll harm him. In other words, O’Reilly NEVER angrily lambastes Trump him for demeaning women for just doing their jobs. O’Reilly said this with NO vitriol as with Sen. Ossoff ‘s singular comment. Rather, O’Reilly was giving Pres. Trump advice to help him.
President Trump demeans women regularly for just doing their job. As two examples, he told a female reporter “Shut up Piggy,” and he repeatedly demeans reporter Kaitlyn Collins at press conferences and once at the WH Correspondence dinner. Did Mr. O’Reilly rant on and on against President Trump about this? Did he call President Trump a guttersnipe even once? Did O’Reilly tear into President Trump with vitriol for being a despicable person? Did he put him in a league with Putin?
O’Reilly emphasizes that Ossoff is a sitting U. S. Senator. But Trump is a sitting U. S. President!
In fact, on one occasion O’Reilly said that President Trump’s bombast doesn’t bother him, “maybe it should, but it doesn’t.” Almost an exact quote. On another occasion O’Reilly essentially told viewers that they should focus on his policies, NOT on the “crazy things” he says. O’Reilly has NEVER angrily torn into President Trump, not by ANY stretch.
In a later episode, O’Reilly tried to patch his hypocrisy by saying that he said these personal attacks “on both sides” must stop. But this is not what O’Reilly said. And he claims to be an honest broker? — Bob H.
Hi Bob. I think your analysis is largely (or even entirely) correct. In fact, earlier this week, I happened to see a heated News Nation debate on this very topic between Cuomo and O’Reilly. I’m not a fan of Cuomo (nor O’Reilly) but Cuomo correctly pointed out, as you just did, that O’Reilly is being an enormous hypocrite on Ossoff’s comments.
Like I said last week, what Ossoff said was cheap, needless, and absolutely worthy of criticism. He was clearly implying that Trump and Natalie Harp were having an affair. O’Reilly, as you described, went absolutely ballistic over it. But as you and Cuomo pointed out, O’Reilly never takes that same tact (or anything close to it) when Trump says or does far worse (which happens on a regular basis). Instead, on those occasions when O’Reilly decides to weigh in on Trump’s bad behavior, he very calmly argues that it’s not in Trump’s political interest to conduct himself in such a manner. No strong condemnation. No anger. No vitriol. Just polite advice from a chum and admirer.
O’Reilly has never held Trump to the standards he holds Democrats, media-liberals, and other Trump critics to (nowhere close), despite Trump being the leader of a major political-party and the president of the United States. The notion that he’s a fair arbiter when it comes to Trump is patently absurd.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
]]>“I believe that you should do everything possible for someone you love — not because they can hear you or see you, but because you love them.”
In April 1975, shortly after she turned 21, Karen Ann Quinlan fell into a coma she would never wake up from. Doctors initially refused her parents’ request to have her disconnected from her ventilator, leading to a lawsuit by her parents, and high-profile legal, moral, and cultural debates over the “right to die” controversy in the United States.
There was even a TV-movie on the family’s story, starring Brian Keith.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that Quinlan’s ventilator could be removed. But to the surprise of everyone, Quinlan continued to breathe on her own. She remained, however, in a persistent vegetative state — kept alive by a feeding tube.
I covered the ongoing story for the CBS Evening News in 1981, which included an interview with her family, and a summary of ongoing court challenges.
Quinlan would pass away a little over four years later, from complications from pneumonia.
]]>On today’s episode, Bernie Goldberg and John Daly talk about journalists who fear covering stories on trans athletes, the GOP’s continued movement leftward, and whether President Trump should campaign for Republicans in the midterms.
Show Notes:
Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.
If you want to know how illiberal liberals can be and how cowardly liberal journalists can be, consider the plight of Seattle Times sports columnist Matt Calkins.
Calkins recently wrote a column from the point of view of two female athletes who were opposed to competing against biological males. He was trying to make the point, he says, “that supporting the separation of biological females and males doesn’t automatically make you transphobic, so let’s stop throwing those labels around.”
In a progressive place like Seattle, suggesting that biological males should not compete against girls and young women, is considered controversial.
“I spoke to people attending a rally in support of Sophie Cunningham,” Calkins writes. [The WNBA] Fever guard had recently taken a stance against biological males competing in women’s/girls sports, and a few dozen folks showed up to express their gratitude for her position.”
The column never saw the light of day. Editors spiked it. That’s journalistic lingo for … they killed. They refused to run it.
It wasn’t the first time editors at the Seattle Times refused to run a column Calkins wrote challenging liberal orthodoxies in the world of sports.
He had had enough, so he quit.
I have a special fondness and a special respect for Matt Calkins because what he went through I also had gone through, a few years earlier. When I was a correspondent on the HBO program “Real Sports” I also had a story spiked. It also was about trans athletes.
The story was about a trans woman college student who ran in long-distance races. Everybody in the “Real Sports” chain of command had approved the story: I did all the interviews; the producer signed off on it; the executive producer approved it; and Bryant Gumbel, the host of “Real Sports” who has the final say on everything, saw the story and gave it a green light.
The story was fair, objective and conveyed opinions from both sides of the issue. There was no in-house controversy. That apparently wasn’t good enough.
One day before the story was to air we got an email from the trans athlete saying she had changed her mind, that she didn’t want to be part of the story, and that if we ran it, with her in it, she would sue us.
This prompted more than a little urgency. The story was scheduled to run the next day. In a hastily organized conference call with Gumbel, the executive producer and me, Gumbel said: Normally I would say fuck off, we’ll see you in court — but we have new corporate owners and we don’t know how they’ll react (to a controversy involving trans athletes).
And he didn’t want to take any chances.
So over my very strong objection, Gumbel and his executive producer said let’s hold off on running the story — for now. They left me with the distinct impression that some version of the story would run on our next show, one month later.
It never did. They spiked it … out of fear.
What made their decision so disheartening was that “Real Sports” was a courageous show that took on the most powerful institutions in the world of sports. We did tough stories on the International Olympic Committee, on the NCAA, and on the NFL.
But we were afraid to run a story about a young trans woman who ran long-distance races in college.
Back to Seattle: In his farewell column, Matt Calkins says that, “I’ve always thought that it was a columnist’s duty to generate discussion on the most hot-button issues. To avoid such topics was to leave the reader shortchanged. I guess in the end, I just didn’t feel like I could do my job properly anymore.”
I thought the same thing about the role of journalism. We shouldn’t be afraid to run stories on controversial issues. That was the essence of “Real Sports.”
Not long after Gumbel and his executive producer demonstrated what I saw then, and still see now, as timidity, as cowardice … I quit, after 22 years working there.
]]>Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.
It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):
Now, let’s get to your questions…
John, Just say Pres. Trump does not complete his term due to medical reasons and JD Vance is sworn in as president. Who do you see as Vance's choice of VP? I can envision this scenario truly happening next year. Trump's health is tanking. — Sharon H.
Hi Sharon. If Trump is unable to finish this term, and JD Vance takes over as president, Vance would get to nominate his successor. However, that individual could only assume office after confirmation by a majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In other words, if Trump’s hypothetical early-departure comes after January of 2027, Vance’s nomination would need confirmation votes from Democrats, in addition to Republicans (since the Dems will hold the House and possibly even the Senate at that time).
For that reason, Vance couldn’t get away with nominating one of his half-baked postliberal buddies like Tucker Carlson or Kevin Roberts. He’d have to instead choose someone who could get enough Democratic votes, like Marco Rubio (who’s still widely respected in Congress), though I’m not sure Rubio would want the job. Regardless, because of the need for bipartisan support, Vance’s theoretical vice president would have to be of higher quality than Trump’s current one.
All this extreme far left Socialist nonsense makes great news. Eliminating prisons, abolishing ICE, eliminating the Senate, open borders, eliminating the Electoral College, etc. Does anybody rationally really think for one second that any of these policies would get legislated into actual law. It’s like “Medicare for All”. Estimates are that would cost 4 trillion dollars. Politicians will say anything, but nobody ever asks them hard questions on HOW they are going to do it. I’m not sure the people that vote for them even care. — Rob O.
You bring up a very good point, Rob. While I have little doubt that the DSA crowd would love to get all of the things you listed legislated into law, there are a number of obstacles standing in their way, including public opinion, the separation of powers, and divided government (which, by the way, is another reason why the Senate filibuster should be preserved).
My bigger concern is with a U.S. president abusing his or her executive power, sidestepping Congress, and making radical changes that cause lots of damage until the Supreme Court eventually has to step in to deal with the mess. We saw this with Biden’s student-loan forgiveness venture, and Trump’s sweeping tariffs (which our country is still feeling the pain from). I’m assuming the courts will also eventually have to deal with Trump taking government equity stakes in dozens of private companies, which — as I keep pointing out — is far closer to textbook socialism than anything the DSA crowd has thus far been able to pull off.
I think your last sentence, Rob, is particularly important: “I’m not sure the people that vote for them even care.” I think that by and large, today’s voters care a lot less about policies and competence than they do grievance, attitude, culture-war stuff, and personalities… which is why so many of them are willing to vote for unfit loons who peddle terrible ideas.
Greetings Sir John—well it looks the residents of Seattle are circulating a recall petition for Mayor Katie Wilson. I seriously do wonder how many of them voted for her. I also wonder what the hell they expected when she didn’t hide what she is. I also wonder if they’ll be foolish enough to put somebody else in there similar after she’s gone. Your thoughts? Sing along with me. — “The dumbest mayor you’ll ever see is in Seattle… and the voters the bluest fools in Seattle… like a whiny spoiled child… acting dumb, fool… and wild…”. Perry Como Regards from The Emperor
I haven’t followed this story at all, Emperor, but I think that the last part of my response to Rob above probably applies to your point as well.
What are your thoughts on Ron DeSantis' political aspirations after Florida's election for Governor takes place? — Sharon H.
I have no idea what he plans on doing, Sharon, but few political analysts are bullish on him running for president again. He apparently did a lot of political damage to himself with Republican voters by challenging Trump last time… despite it not being much of a “challenge” (he could barely bring himself to criticize Trump until the eleventh hour of the primary, and then immediately fell in line behind him after dropping out).
My guess is that DeSantis will end up in a future Republican presidential administration, or possibly even the current administration before all is said and done (now that he’s re-prostrated himself for Trump). He’d honestly be an asset, because, like Rubio (and few others in this administration), he’s a smart, competent leader who takes his public responsibility seriously.
What’s your take on the whole Jon Ossoff blowup over his “Trump wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie” comment? — Alex D.
Interesting you should ask this, Alex. The other day, I weighed in on this topic on Twitter/X, and the post went a little viral:
I received hundreds of responses to it. Some people blindly accused me of defending Trump, ignoring Trump’s bad behavior, and being a MAGA guy … which makes absolutely no sense if you actually read the entire tweet… or pretty much anything else I’ve written about Trump over the last eleven years. There are plenty of hypocrites out there when it comes to Trump’s conduct (I addressed them in my tweet), but I’m not one of them.
Many others (and several of the same people) insisted there was nothing cheap or needless about what Ossoff said. They claimed he was making a general statement about Trump and his inner circle of sycophants. I very much disagree with that take. Ossoff was clearly implying that Trump and his staffer, Natalie Harp, are having an affair.
Nick Catoggio of The Dispatch (who isn’t a Trump defender either) mirrored my thinking in a recent column:
…if Ossoff wanted to make a point about Trump being surrounded by sycophants, there are scores of names he might have dropped that are more prominent than [Harp’s]. We’ve all watched those Cabinet meetings where the president goes around the table to receive North Korean-style fealty from the likes of Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth. Why not mention them instead?
The senator knew what he was doing. (He’s reportedly quite mindful about the online “virality” of his speeches.) Harp is young, blond, pretty, and constantly by the president’s side. And Trump is a known philanderer with a well-earned reputation for lechery. Ossoff didn’t explicitly accuse the two of having an affair, but he didn’t need to, as his audience’s boisterous reaction to her name proved. The insinuation was clear enough.
…
Ossoff’s jab was sexist, implying that Harp’s boss keeps her around for extracurricular reasons rather than for her impressive talent at curating the paranoid disinformation he consumes. To accuse a woman of sleeping with her superior is to invite the world not to take her seriously, which is unfair when there are so many better reasons not to take Natalie Harp seriously. The fact is that there’s no evidence of a sexual relationship between her and Trump.
…you should frown upon a U.S. senator from the Party of Norms doing his part to normalize a stereotype about attractive young female aides who work in politics. Ossoff might limit his own insinuations to Harp, but not everyone who watched the clip of him speaking will. Some will find moral license in his bad example to demean other professional women toward whom they bear a grudge.
In a recent GOP Senate primary debate, Darline Graham (Lindsey’s sister) admitted that she doesn’t really know anything about foreign policy. Shouldn’t that be a basic requirement for running for the U.S. Senate? — Ben G.
Yes, it should. I had no real problem with Darline Graham being appointed to finish out her late brother’s term, but her actually running for a full 6-year term (with Trump’s support) is ludicrous. She has neither a clue nor interest in what the job entails. As conservative commentator Brad Polumbo argued, this is the “emotional equivalent of a DEI pick for Republicans”.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
]]>Editor’s note: The volume on today’s clip is a little low, so you might need raise it on your device.
“What’s the reality, and what’s the myth?”
In my 2001 book, Bias, some of you may remember that I wrote about how many in the media heavily sensationalized and misrepresented the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s. The inclination of a number of journalists was to exaggerate the threat to heterosexuals and non-drug users, in order to draw more mainstream attention, sympathy, and funding to the crisis.
It wasn’t the first time that I explored this topic. I covered it, years earlier, in this 1992 segment of 48 Hours.
]]>In today’s “Off the Cuff” audio commentary, I look at a recent poll validating a troubling theme.
]]>Last week, I co-interviewed Reason magazine’s Stephanie Slade about her new book, Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Right. For those unfamiliar with the term fusionism in the context of American politics, it refers to a conservative philosophical synthesis that combines traditionalist/social conservatism (which emphasizes virtue, moral order, and inherited traditions) with classical liberal or right-libertarian principles (which emphasize individual liberty, free markets, and limited government).
This philosophy is perhaps most commonly associated with Ronald Reagan and Reaganism, which defined the Republican Party in the 1980s. Its origins, however, go back decades earlier to Frank Meyer, William F. Buckley, and National Review magazine in the 1950s.
Unfortunately, one would be hard-pressed to now find anything more than remnants of fusionism on the American Right. Today’s GOP largely defines itself by personal allegiance to President Trump (and whatever he decides to do or say on any given day).
Historically speaking, however, Slade argues that fusionism’s decline began decades before Trump arrived on the political scene.
“I think Reagan was sort of the apotheosis moment,” Slade told me. “… In America, the conservatives are trying to conserve the principles and institutions of the American founding… And that meant a commitment within the conservative movement to this sort of classical liberalism — the separation of powers, the rule of law, limited government, free markets.”
Slade explained that Reagan’s espousal of these principles, and his landslide electoral victories, pulled the GOP into alignment with fusionism. However, after the end of the Cold War, she argues, there was a decline of interest in talking about and promoting fusionistic principles, along with liberty and virtue.
“That kind of all goes away,” said Slade, “and you end up with a Republican Party and a conservative movement that is really mostly focused on just acquiring political power, winning elections, getting our guys into office, and beating the left.”
Slade called it an “understandable mistake,” adding, “There was this sense after Reagan and after the fall of the Soviet Union that ‘Our ideas have been so clearly vindicated that surely we don’t have to spend all this time thinking and talking and debating and persuading of that. Who could possibly doubt this liberty/virtue synthesis is the recipe for a successful society?’ But it turns out over time that if you don’t do the hard work of tending to that philosophical foundation, it will erode.”
I think Slade is largely right, though I also think she’s being a little hard on the post-Reagan, pre-Trump conservative movement. After all, I was only 16 years old when Reagan left office, and I couldn’t have told anyone at that time, other than in very abstract terms, what principles Reagan stood for. That wasn’t Reagan’s fault, of course; he was a brilliant communicator. I just couldn’t have cared less about politics in my youth, and took many things (including American prosperity) for granted.
Like many kids in the 1980s, I was raised with generally conservative sensibilities, but my political conversion to Reagan conservatism (or fusionism, if you will) didn’t really take shape until I was close to the age of 30. It came with the help of Republican and conservative thought leaders of the post-Clinton era — the types of people who used to be welcome on Fox News. I found their ideas, passed on from decades earlier, persuasive and aligned with historical success.
In other words, the torch was still being carried… at least at that time.
That said, if I hadn’t become a news junkie after 9/11, I may have never opened myself up to the conservative principles and voices that ultimately resonated with me on an intellectual level. As the president of the United States, Reagan spoke to the entire country from their living room (though a small number of widely watched television networks), and sold a large majority of Americans on his vision. Conversely, a dozen years after he left office, I had to go looking for well-articulated conservative wisdom. Thankfully, I found it.
Regardless, what was left of Reagan conservatism by 2016 took a sharp nosedive with the election of Donald Trump. Though two-thirds of Republican voters wanted a different presidential nominee that year, enough ended up supporting Trump in the general election to get him across the finish line. At which point, Republican and conservative advocates of things like moral character and decency, inherited traditions (including our constitutional order), limited government, free trade, and the rule of law found themselves increasingly at odds with the party that used to defend all of the above.
Over the years that followed, if Reaganites didn’t surrender their principles and positions for Trump, and play the role of his unconditional defender, they were considered turncoats and pariahs. They were called “liberals” and “progressives,” and purged from their positions of influence, including public office and prominent right-wing media platforms.
We’re now a decade into the Trump era, and the effects of the American Right’s unwillingness to stand up for fusionistic principles — in favor of grievance and personality-fueled populism — are on daily display.
Yes, daily. And if you don’t believe me, just look at some things that happened over the weekend…
Capitulation to North Korea
President Trump announced that he ordered Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “substantially reduce” the United States’ joint military exercises with longtime ally South Korea, citing his “very good relationship” with North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Un. Trump argued that military exercises with South Korea are “totally inappropriate and hostile” to North Korea — who Trump called “unthreatening and respectful.”
The reality, of course, couldn’t be further from the truth. Just days ago, North Korea (who has long run concentration camps the size of Los Angeles, and routinely tortures and executes its own citizens) launched ballistic missiles at our allies, with no stated reason, and then threatened both the United States and South Korea. Pyongyang is actively aiding Russia in its war on Ukraine with missiles, ammunition, and even troops. Kim Jong Un has refused diplomatic talks with Trump and United States, while proceeding with his country’s nuclear weapons program.
It’s crazy that we’ve gone from boldly calling the communist Soviet Union an “evil empire,” and pushing strong policies to precipitate its collapse, to making life easier for perhaps the most brutal dictator on the planet, just because he found a way to personally charm Donald Trump.
But sadly, few on the Right seem to care.
Most Republicans now favor government price controls
54% of Republicans in a new CBS/YouGov poll said they approve of the socialist practice of government price controls. They join 62% of independents and 75% of Democrats.
“We have become economic illiterates,” remarked conservative commentator, Erick Erickson.
The Dispatch’s Stephen Hayes lamented, “Supporters of free markets have a lot of work to do...”
“There is a crisis in economics and history education,” wrote economist Jessica Riedl. “People hear this question and think ‘yes I'd like lower prices’ with no understanding of basic supply and demand, 1970s gas lines, life in central planning systems, etc. Even GOP voters no longer understand how markets work.”
Suffice to say, they “no longer understand” because no one’s reminding them.
In fact, President Trump has done just the opposite, advocating for price controls on prescription drugs and gasoline, and a cap on credit card interest rates — a sharp deviation from the pre-Trump, free-market-friendly, GOP platform.
And few on the Right seem to care.
A closer look at Trump’s billion-dollar ballroom
Thanks in large part to a Washington Post investigation into President Trump’s White House Ballroom expenditures, we now know the price-tag of the massive project: about one billion dollars.
Contrary to the president’s longtime contention that it would be paid for entirely by private donors, U.S. taxpayers are flipping most of the bill — roughly $500 million of it — without Congressional authorization. Those funds were diverted from the White House Military Office and the Secret Service. And since the construction has yet to be completed (due in part to a legal concerns surrounding Trump’s sidestepping of Congress), it’s possible the construction costs will continue to grow.
“Set aside the law for a moment,” responded Gregg Nunziata of the Society of the Rule of Law. “Does it seem right to you that a president should be able to tear down a wing of the White House, build a massive new structure forever changing the executive mansion, while spending a billion dollars of taxpayers funds, just on his own whim?”
The optics of the story have always been bad — a ruling-class vanity project at a time when average Americans have been struggling, for years, with high living costs. But between the violation of the separation of powers, possible illegality, lying to the public about who was flipping the bill, and what some (understandably) consider a desecration of The People's House, this fiasco would seem uniquely symbolic of what conservatives used to refer to as “runaway government.”
And yet… few on today’s Right care.
Now consider, again, that these were just weekend developments — essentially footnotes in the context of the much broader, persistent, foreign and domestic challenges we face as a nation — most of which are being ignored or exasperated at our top levels of government.
It’s neither “TDS” nor “leftist” to care about such things. In fact, it’s just the opposite.
But the problem is even worse than that. Former Reagan conservatives who’ve thrown in the towel — to, in their eyes, remain politically “relevant” or be a team player — are just part of the story. Another big part is the future of the American Right.
“You’ll have generations of young conservatives coming up who have never engaged with these ideas, and don’t really understand the philosophy that they’re supposed to be defending,” Stephanie Slade said during our interview. “They think all that matters is winning elections and owning the left. And that’s kind of how we ended up with the movement we have today.”
It’s a scary thought, and it should be far more concerning to the Right than the viral-video culture battles and tribal loyalties we invest an extraordinary amount of our time and passion in.
Our country would be best served by us actually caring again — caring and informing fellow Americans about big-picture issues that have political solutions… and thankfully blueprints for success.
I think we owe our nation and future generations that.
]]>Reminder: For a limited time, free and monthly subscribers can upgrade to an annual premium membership for just $25! That’s 50% off our regular price for a year’s worth of honest, irreverent commentary that challenges partisan narratives.
Let’s face it — the Democratic Party’s leadership is moribund. The party’s energy, it’s excitement, is on the progressive left. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, and Hakeem Jeffries, his counterpart in the House, produce as much energy and excitement as nap time in a nursing home.
Van Jones, the CNN commentator, nailed it when he said that “The Democratic Party is now Blockbuster” — and referring to the young social democrats who have been winning recently, he said: “These kids are Netflix.”
The “Netflix” gang wants to fundamentally change America. By now you know their whacky, pie-in-the-sky laundry list: open borders, no prisons, defund the police and the defense department, abolish ICE, allow the federal government to take over major corporations. As for capitalism: They want to put a stake in its heart and bury it.
Despite all that, a Gallup poll found that while only 42 percent of Democrats view capitalism favorably — 66 percent have a favorable view of socialism.
I’m guessing that a lot of voters who support democratic socialists — especially younger voters — never heard of Margaret Thatcher, and have no idea that she said the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
]]>Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Before we get started this week, I’d like to invite you all to Reagan Caucus Action’s new Substack. I co-host their weekly podcast, on which we feature a different guest every week to discuss numerous issues from a Reaganite perspective.
It’s totally free, and you can sign up here (I hope you do):
Now, let’s get to your questions…
I can’t help but notice that Republicans, by and large, are far more resistant to the word “socialism” than actual socialism. As you’ve written before, Trump’s federal governance has taken our country closer to socialism than any president in our lifetime, and Republicans seem fine with it. You’ve complained that many on right have forgotten what “conservatism” and “liberalism” mean. Isn’t the same true for socialism? — Ben G.
I think it’s demonstrably true, Ben. Many of my fellow righties hate when I point this out, but it’s important to look at what Trump’s done:
He’s taken government equity stakes in at least 20 private companies now (some of those arrangements include the power to make business decisions in these private companies). That alone is closer to textbook socialism than ANYTHING Biden (and arguably Obama) ever did. Yet, Republicans largely shrug their shoulders at it.
There was no Republican backlash against Trump directing price controls for prescription drugs. He’s also advocated for credit card fee controls in the past, with little pushback.
His central planning efforts, and his extreme intervention in the U.S. economy with his tariff leveraging and manipulation, are other examples. And despite the tariffs producing terrible results (including driving up consumer prices), most Republicans still approve of them (according to the polls anyway).
So yeah, I’m not convinced either party-base really understands what socialism is anymore, because both are FAR too accepting of it. One side (the Dems) is just much more comfortable with the term “socialism.”
I don’t understand why people are making fun of Trump for being taken out of Air Force One in a catering truck, and transferred to a different plane, because of a security threat in Turkey. Do you understand it? — Alex D.
No, I don’t — not that part of it, anyway. To me, it seemed like a smart move by the Secret Service. What I found amusing was that people in Trump’s administration (including Marco Rubio) and members of the press were left on Air Force One, and took off in it, despite the threat being serious. I’m sure they were subject to an appropriate risk assessment and everything, but I at least get why people think that part of it is kind of funny (and maybe even symbolic).
Greetings Sir John — now that Francesca Hong got shellacked in the primaries, is there even the slightest chance that a lot of the corporate Democrats might be willing to stand up against the socialists in their party? Could the conservatives do the same against the diehard MAGA people that excuse the bad things that Trump does, such as being wishy-washy on dealing with the Iranian Mullahs? —“Will They or Won’t They?” regards from The Emperor
Hi Emperor.
To answer your first question, I think what we saw in Wisconsin was the Democratic base standing up to democratic socialism. And because it worked in this case, I do think there’s reason to believe Democratic leaders might grow a little courage and become more emboldened to speak up against the DSA crowd. I don’t have high hopes of that happening, but they’re slightly higher than before Hong lost.
As for the Republicans, I think it’s too late for that now. The midterm primaries are almost over, and while I’m glad Minnesota Republicans shut down Mike Lindell, the party advanced a lot of MAGA nutters elsewhere (like Ken Paxton). MAGA has been the GOP establishment for a decade now, and that won’t change until Trump leaves office for the last time. As we head into the 2028 election cycle, conservatives will have another opportunity to reclaim the Republican Party, but I don’t think Trump will make it easy for them.
You’ve written that Bill Cassidy has become a major disappointment. Which sitting member of congress (Senate or House) do you respect the most, if any? — Jen R.
Rep. Don Bacon. He’s a Reaganite conservative (perhaps the last one in Congress), and a rare adult in the room. He seems to have the right position on virtually every issue.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
]]>“It can be easily mocked, by the way. All of it can be easily made fun of, but we’re not afraid of that.”
In 1992 for 48 Hours, I covered the New Men’s Movement — specifically a support group in Chicago where men voiced their life-frustrations, including with women, the modern feminist movement, and unfair male stereotypes.
As you’ll probably notice, some of the arguments made in this piece are still being made today.
]]>