That video of Batya talking about tariffs is absolutely brutal, and it is, in the greatest irony, something that is as paternalistic as the "Professional Managerial Class" and Elites that Batya rails so hard against. Raising prices on consumer goods bought by the working class (who she still talks about in Noble Savage terms like their straight out of a James Fenimore Cooper novel) unilaterally through executive action, exhibiting control over their purchasing power and, thereby, their decision making is as bad as anything the Ivy League Elites have done to randos in southern Indiana.
Unfortunately, Scott Lincicome, Bryan Caplan, and the host of economists are not great at making the case to the average person and they certainly have no broad support amount politicians because a lot of these arguments are from the left. The people talking about combating Trump's narratives on the left that I've seen are about just sweetening the handouts more than Trump has.
Also, the 1970s GDP going primarily to the middle class has a causal link to manufacturing is absolutely bananas. No evidence has been given for that at all.
I don't know what messaging needs to be done or maybe who the messenger might need to be, but this is a problem and, unfortunately, I think it's going to get worse until we see rough inflation, significant interest rate increases to deal with increased debt with the goal of shifting government revenue to tariffs from income tax, and a general attack on everyone's retirement savings.
Maybe I am missing something. Why are SL and BC bad at making the case? Is the topic too inherently complicated for normies attention span/interest. Or do they just not get enough exposure?
I think both get a bit lost in the sauce in terms of acknowledging the fears and desires of the people that have a knee jerk reaction to support protectionist policy. Scott, God bless him because I do think he's great, very much does not suffer these people patiently. I think that might be necessary. Maybe with more panache? It is hard to convince people out of positions they didn't really reason themselves into. It requires evocative communication to break them out of it.
Thanks so much for your tribute to Kevin Drum. He was a dose of rationality in a fraught moment, and he suffered some significant slings and arrows for that. I was always happy his brand of rational, data driven response to the world attracted a decent sized audience. Much like the popularity of The Fifth Column itself, it gives me a little hope that there might be a way to steer to a more rational place.
Gotta say she looked closer to being hot on Maher than she ever has on TFP, so...maybe a little more sympathy for Moynihan's crush. That said, the quality of her thinking is...consistent, for better or worse.
I don't think Batya's all that unusual in the political sphere. She is just representative of a phenomena that the mainstream media does not to talk about all that much. Not only is she one of the "I left the left" types because the left abandoned the working poor because most of them had the wrong sex and color; but she saw in Trump someone who was willing to at least talk the talk on supporting the lower class, and there are a lot more lefties sympathetic to that position than we are told. Trump is in many ways going after the traditional dens of power that at one time the Left also told us to never trust, but now implicitly trust because they have control of them. How many on the old Left won't shed a tear for Trump gutting the FBI because of the FBI's decades long attempt to infiltrate them? Politics is indeed making for strange bedfellows these days. And of course having Batya as a bedfellow naturally brings the topic back to Moynihan.
Drum's lead poisoning theory of aggression seemed goofy to me in 2002, but within a decade had completely persuaded me that it explained >70% of not only domestic crime but global terrorism, the fall of Rome, and the popularity of the Friday the 13th franchise.
I don't think I have much of a problem with Khalil's green card revocation and deportation. Had he informed the State Dept during the student or residency visa application process of his intent to join a group whose stated goal was the eradication of Western civilization, it's difficult to imagine them having approved him. Beyond that, said group seized control of buildings on Columbia's campus on multiple occasions and he sought concessions from university administrators on its behalf. Both his ideology and actions reflect a stance that seems inherently incompatible with abiding by the principles of an egalitarian, multi-cultural society.
I have a permanent residency visa (green card) in the country where I live. My wife is a citizen. The law affords me the right to express my opinions on whatever topic I'd like, including political ones. What I'm NOT free to do is participate in political activities or protests until I have citizenship. This seems reasonable to me given the potential harm a relatively small number of bad actors can inflict on a society.
"The law affords me the right to express my opinions on whatever topic I'd like, including political ones. What I'm NOT free to do is participate in political activities or protests until I have citizenship."
I'm free to hold and express opinions about political issues. I'm not free to engage in activities aimed at effecting political change. For example, I can tell anyone I'd like how much I disagree with bullfighting being legal here. I can't attend a protest against it nor donate money to a group working to make it illegal.
Actually, let me approach this a different way. Under your framework - where green card holders cannot 'engage in activities aimed at effecting political change' - can they:
1. Wear a t-shirt reading "Make abortion illegal again"
2. Hold a sign alone on a public sidewalk saying "Make abortion illegal again"
3. Walk in a March for Life rally sponsored by their church
4. Make a donation to a religious organization dedicated to repealing abortion laws
5. Organize a bake sale to raise money to support a local ballot measure that would create a public park in their neighborhood
6. Attend public school board meetings where policy is discussed/voted on (assuming they have a kid in the district)
How do these various examples align with the distinction you're drawing?
Surely you acknowledge there's a gap between "organize a bake-sale" and "organize the forceful commandeering of college buildings, disruption of classes, and harassment of disagreeing students," right?
"organize the forceful commandeering of college buildings"
I was directly addressing the distinction this person was making between speech to an individual and speech 'designed to effect political change.' You should try to read what you're responding to.
"Commandeering a building" isn't speech at all. And if he personally did that, he should be charged and they should put up or shut up.
You're asking me about my situation as a green card holder? If you have very specific questions about the law in Mexico, I guess you should probably hire a Mexican attorney. I already gave you the example about the bullfighting. If that just left you with more questions than before, I bet Google could help you find some answers. Some of those articles Matt linked up above discuss the legal aspects of Khalil's situation if the fountain of your curiosity lies in how things work in the US.
Why would I be speaking about any place other than the US? Why would the green card laws in Mexico be relevant to the Khalil situation?
And I wasn't giving you those examples for my own edification. I was pointing out that the distinction you're making isn't practicable, at least not in the US.
You didn't point anything out. You asked me 50 questions and misconstrued the simple explanations I gave you without ever being so bold as to make your own claims. That's pretty obviously a dishonest attempt and discussing the issue. I still don't think you read the above linked articles on the situation, which explain the legal grey area. You took things I said about my situation as a foreign green card golder and acted as if I was claiming that's the situation in the US. I don't mean to offend you, but you're boring to interact with. Maybe next time, let's interact with different people instead.
So you can tell one person how you feel but you cannot do the same while in a group of like-minded individuals?
This doesn't have any basis in law or the constitution; free speech and association are both protected by the 1st Amendment. Why would permanent residents have some 1st Amendment rights but not others?
Would this extend to participation in a religious group? Could the administration deport people for being Muslim? Or atheist? If not, why not?
I generally agreed with you guys on Mahmoud Khalil. I would just offer two comments:
1) this is maybe a me thing but so much of the (sane) right-of-center discussion around this has focused on the legality of the issue - does Marco Rubio have the power to wave a magic wand and say this guy is "supporting" terrorism and deport him? That's an important question and maybe a difficult one to answer and we should talk about. But I just wish these people spent a little more time on the normative question: *should* the secretary of state or the president or anyone have that right? Or at the very least what safeguards are there to prevent abuses, which on a moral level this absolutely appears to qualify. It is absolutely sickening that the supposed free speech guys are doing this. But of course unsurprising because these people believe in nothing and I hope they have to answer to their creator one day is there is any justice in the next life (because there sure as hell doesn't appear to be any in this world)
2) a lot of the (sane) right-leaning debate seems to begin this conversation with "of course this guy is a piece of shit but..." and then proceeds to provide no concrete evidence whatsoever to substantiate that claim beyond the fact that he was involved in these protests. The only piece I saw that bothered to actually quote Khalil at length has him sounding entirely reasonable (CNN - https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/11/us/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-ice-green-card-hnk/index.html) talking about how he wants equal rights for both Palestinians and Jews in Israel, how antisemitism is unacceptable, etc. Listen, maybe he then said and did things that run exactly counter to that - but then show it to me before just flatly stating that he's "pro-Hamas" or a terrible person. We have to allow room for people of good faith who are advocating for the Palestinian people. Maybe that's a form you don't like - for example, by arguing that there should be a single state with equal rights for Muslims and Jews - but that idea in itself should not put you in the "bad guys" category. Again, maybe that's not Mahmoud Khalil, but before being presented concrete evidence to the contrary, we should at the very least withhold our judgment
Randomly click to part of "The Independents" episode of a young Ben Shapiro saying of libertarians "oh they're absolute statists, except on drugs." Simpler, straw manny times.
Matt, why do you do this? I actually skipped through a huge chunk of that The Independents episode. You mocked Nancy Pelosi's suggestion upon the passing of Obamacare that it would create jobs. Citing CBO (!) you suggested that "there will be 2.5 million fewer jobs 10 years from now than there are today."
Today's jobs numbers, in aggregate, are only minimally affected by Obamacare. That said, there are currently 16.7 million MORE jobs today than there were in 2014.
I suspect that there will be even more jobs ten years from now. In 2014, I would have predicted that there would be more jobs ten years in the future. What (other than Obama derangement syndrome) might have inspired you to provide us with such a silly soundbyte?
I linked to it for the reason stated, and have not re-watched. I will defend ridiculing Obamacare being about jobs; I will condemn Earlier Matt if he did something so foolish as to make such a bold prediction.
Thank you for putting in the work on these Matt. 🫡
That video of Batya talking about tariffs is absolutely brutal, and it is, in the greatest irony, something that is as paternalistic as the "Professional Managerial Class" and Elites that Batya rails so hard against. Raising prices on consumer goods bought by the working class (who she still talks about in Noble Savage terms like their straight out of a James Fenimore Cooper novel) unilaterally through executive action, exhibiting control over their purchasing power and, thereby, their decision making is as bad as anything the Ivy League Elites have done to randos in southern Indiana.
Unfortunately, Scott Lincicome, Bryan Caplan, and the host of economists are not great at making the case to the average person and they certainly have no broad support amount politicians because a lot of these arguments are from the left. The people talking about combating Trump's narratives on the left that I've seen are about just sweetening the handouts more than Trump has.
Also, the 1970s GDP going primarily to the middle class has a causal link to manufacturing is absolutely bananas. No evidence has been given for that at all.
I don't know what messaging needs to be done or maybe who the messenger might need to be, but this is a problem and, unfortunately, I think it's going to get worse until we see rough inflation, significant interest rate increases to deal with increased debt with the goal of shifting government revenue to tariffs from income tax, and a general attack on everyone's retirement savings.
Maybe I am missing something. Why are SL and BC bad at making the case? Is the topic too inherently complicated for normies attention span/interest. Or do they just not get enough exposure?
I think both get a bit lost in the sauce in terms of acknowledging the fears and desires of the people that have a knee jerk reaction to support protectionist policy. Scott, God bless him because I do think he's great, very much does not suffer these people patiently. I think that might be necessary. Maybe with more panache? It is hard to convince people out of positions they didn't really reason themselves into. It requires evocative communication to break them out of it.
Wow, Rommelmann's peace really got to me.
She does that
Ilya on Ilya violence in the links, oy gevalt what contentious times we live in
Thanks so much for your tribute to Kevin Drum. He was a dose of rationality in a fraught moment, and he suffered some significant slings and arrows for that. I was always happy his brand of rational, data driven response to the world attracted a decent sized audience. Much like the popularity of The Fifth Column itself, it gives me a little hope that there might be a way to steer to a more rational place.
The walkoff song is a good match for the comment of the week 🚿 🔪
Oh oh, seems Matt is on to the Batya hate in the comments. And everyone thought they were being so surreptitious about it,
Gotta say she looked closer to being hot on Maher than she ever has on TFP, so...maybe a little more sympathy for Moynihan's crush. That said, the quality of her thinking is...consistent, for better or worse.
I don't think Batya's all that unusual in the political sphere. She is just representative of a phenomena that the mainstream media does not to talk about all that much. Not only is she one of the "I left the left" types because the left abandoned the working poor because most of them had the wrong sex and color; but she saw in Trump someone who was willing to at least talk the talk on supporting the lower class, and there are a lot more lefties sympathetic to that position than we are told. Trump is in many ways going after the traditional dens of power that at one time the Left also told us to never trust, but now implicitly trust because they have control of them. How many on the old Left won't shed a tear for Trump gutting the FBI because of the FBI's decades long attempt to infiltrate them? Politics is indeed making for strange bedfellows these days. And of course having Batya as a bedfellow naturally brings the topic back to Moynihan.
Drum's lead poisoning theory of aggression seemed goofy to me in 2002, but within a decade had completely persuaded me that it explained >70% of not only domestic crime but global terrorism, the fall of Rome, and the popularity of the Friday the 13th franchise.
I really wish it was that simple, but there's since been more scholarship which casts significant doubt on the size of the effect - https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/332830/1/332830.pdf
I don't think I have much of a problem with Khalil's green card revocation and deportation. Had he informed the State Dept during the student or residency visa application process of his intent to join a group whose stated goal was the eradication of Western civilization, it's difficult to imagine them having approved him. Beyond that, said group seized control of buildings on Columbia's campus on multiple occasions and he sought concessions from university administrators on its behalf. Both his ideology and actions reflect a stance that seems inherently incompatible with abiding by the principles of an egalitarian, multi-cultural society.
I have a permanent residency visa (green card) in the country where I live. My wife is a citizen. The law affords me the right to express my opinions on whatever topic I'd like, including political ones. What I'm NOT free to do is participate in political activities or protests until I have citizenship. This seems reasonable to me given the potential harm a relatively small number of bad actors can inflict on a society.
"The law affords me the right to express my opinions on whatever topic I'd like, including political ones. What I'm NOT free to do is participate in political activities or protests until I have citizenship."
What's the distinction?
I'm free to hold and express opinions about political issues. I'm not free to engage in activities aimed at effecting political change. For example, I can tell anyone I'd like how much I disagree with bullfighting being legal here. I can't attend a protest against it nor donate money to a group working to make it illegal.
Actually, let me approach this a different way. Under your framework - where green card holders cannot 'engage in activities aimed at effecting political change' - can they:
1. Wear a t-shirt reading "Make abortion illegal again"
2. Hold a sign alone on a public sidewalk saying "Make abortion illegal again"
3. Walk in a March for Life rally sponsored by their church
4. Make a donation to a religious organization dedicated to repealing abortion laws
5. Organize a bake sale to raise money to support a local ballot measure that would create a public park in their neighborhood
6. Attend public school board meetings where policy is discussed/voted on (assuming they have a kid in the district)
How do these various examples align with the distinction you're drawing?
Surely you acknowledge there's a gap between "organize a bake-sale" and "organize the forceful commandeering of college buildings, disruption of classes, and harassment of disagreeing students," right?
"organize the forceful commandeering of college buildings"
I was directly addressing the distinction this person was making between speech to an individual and speech 'designed to effect political change.' You should try to read what you're responding to.
"Commandeering a building" isn't speech at all. And if he personally did that, he should be charged and they should put up or shut up.
You're asking me about my situation as a green card holder? If you have very specific questions about the law in Mexico, I guess you should probably hire a Mexican attorney. I already gave you the example about the bullfighting. If that just left you with more questions than before, I bet Google could help you find some answers. Some of those articles Matt linked up above discuss the legal aspects of Khalil's situation if the fountain of your curiosity lies in how things work in the US.
Why would I be speaking about any place other than the US? Why would the green card laws in Mexico be relevant to the Khalil situation?
And I wasn't giving you those examples for my own edification. I was pointing out that the distinction you're making isn't practicable, at least not in the US.
You didn't point anything out. You asked me 50 questions and misconstrued the simple explanations I gave you without ever being so bold as to make your own claims. That's pretty obviously a dishonest attempt and discussing the issue. I still don't think you read the above linked articles on the situation, which explain the legal grey area. You took things I said about my situation as a foreign green card golder and acted as if I was claiming that's the situation in the US. I don't mean to offend you, but you're boring to interact with. Maybe next time, let's interact with different people instead.
So you can tell one person how you feel but you cannot do the same while in a group of like-minded individuals?
This doesn't have any basis in law or the constitution; free speech and association are both protected by the 1st Amendment. Why would permanent residents have some 1st Amendment rights but not others?
Would this extend to participation in a religious group? Could the administration deport people for being Muslim? Or atheist? If not, why not?
I generally agreed with you guys on Mahmoud Khalil. I would just offer two comments:
1) this is maybe a me thing but so much of the (sane) right-of-center discussion around this has focused on the legality of the issue - does Marco Rubio have the power to wave a magic wand and say this guy is "supporting" terrorism and deport him? That's an important question and maybe a difficult one to answer and we should talk about. But I just wish these people spent a little more time on the normative question: *should* the secretary of state or the president or anyone have that right? Or at the very least what safeguards are there to prevent abuses, which on a moral level this absolutely appears to qualify. It is absolutely sickening that the supposed free speech guys are doing this. But of course unsurprising because these people believe in nothing and I hope they have to answer to their creator one day is there is any justice in the next life (because there sure as hell doesn't appear to be any in this world)
2) a lot of the (sane) right-leaning debate seems to begin this conversation with "of course this guy is a piece of shit but..." and then proceeds to provide no concrete evidence whatsoever to substantiate that claim beyond the fact that he was involved in these protests. The only piece I saw that bothered to actually quote Khalil at length has him sounding entirely reasonable (CNN - https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/11/us/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-ice-green-card-hnk/index.html) talking about how he wants equal rights for both Palestinians and Jews in Israel, how antisemitism is unacceptable, etc. Listen, maybe he then said and did things that run exactly counter to that - but then show it to me before just flatly stating that he's "pro-Hamas" or a terrible person. We have to allow room for people of good faith who are advocating for the Palestinian people. Maybe that's a form you don't like - for example, by arguing that there should be a single state with equal rights for Muslims and Jews - but that idea in itself should not put you in the "bad guys" category. Again, maybe that's not Mahmoud Khalil, but before being presented concrete evidence to the contrary, we should at the very least withhold our judgment
Ok the app narrating voice pronouncing “douchebags” must be heard to be believed
Shots fired @ the chat/comments section, stay frosty 😎
... what is: "in the swamp." Next I'll take Dylan Acoustic for $800, Alex...
Randomly click to part of "The Independents" episode of a young Ben Shapiro saying of libertarians "oh they're absolute statists, except on drugs." Simpler, straw manny times.
Matt, why do you do this? I actually skipped through a huge chunk of that The Independents episode. You mocked Nancy Pelosi's suggestion upon the passing of Obamacare that it would create jobs. Citing CBO (!) you suggested that "there will be 2.5 million fewer jobs 10 years from now than there are today."
Today's jobs numbers, in aggregate, are only minimally affected by Obamacare. That said, there are currently 16.7 million MORE jobs today than there were in 2014.
I suspect that there will be even more jobs ten years from now. In 2014, I would have predicted that there would be more jobs ten years in the future. What (other than Obama derangement syndrome) might have inspired you to provide us with such a silly soundbyte?
And why would you be linking us to that today?
I linked to it for the reason stated, and have not re-watched. I will defend ridiculing Obamacare being about jobs; I will condemn Earlier Matt if he did something so foolish as to make such a bold prediction.