Rejecting twelve hours with the commoners in coach, Kmele remains stateside while Moynihan and Welch make goyish aliyah in Israel. Wandering from the Egyptian border in the South all the way up to Trump Heights in the North, the lads are introduced to one of Israel’s most famous journalists and big thinkers, Nadav Eyal, author of
The discussion about the differences between US and Israeli Jews made we think of something I read about the founding of Israel several years ago.
There’s a great book about the founding by the Radoshes called “A Safe Haven.” In the book he recounts a meeting between Truman and David Ben-Gurion before the UN vote, when both men knew they would be attacked by the Arabs if the vote when in the Jews favor. Truman questioned the Jews ability to hold the territory, and Ben-Gurion said, “Mr. President, I know your Jews. Your Jews are not like my Jews.”
About the Chappelle thing. I had this theory for a while back after Norm died. The reason I LOVE Norm is because he was through and through a COMIC. He could be no other way. It was almost a disability for him. It is what led to so many shows, and movies and the like falling flat. He just lived for that punchline. The laugh was all that mattered, second place may have been kindness. Had we gotten some more time with him that might have changed. That Larry King interview he did towards the end made me a little misty eyed just at the sheer loveliness of a man we won't ever get to know. Ugh, feelings.
But anywho, my theory is that the bulk of comedians go through a "serious" phase which is kind of the end of their funny period, or at minimum the shark jumping that occurs before they disappear into some other shows/movies/foundations. The most obvious one is prolly Lenny Bruce, but I am prolly biased there because I can't for the life of me find him all that funny. Robin Williams might be the most cringey one (remember his weird special with the wheel chair born-on-the-4th-of-july character at the end?), Bill Cosby went from talking about the hilarity that is family to chastising the community, Steve Martin basically quit to go write write about who he really was. Bill Hicks had some venom for all kinds of societal ills. Even when you look at George Carlin, who THE political comic, he went from a 50/50 split of sugar with the medicine to almost ALL medicine towards the end there. I know there are many more examples but unlike Hitch, I do not find the sweet nothings of Johnny Walker all that conducive to typing. Chappelle has taken that turn after he got back and stable from the whole show debacle, I am worried that Bill Burr will end up there soon. God knows what Louis is really doing these days. Anywho, wtf was I talking about. When comics become commentators! We need comics for this 100%, I have no idea where we would be these days without comics! But at the end of the day you are either a comic that has something to say about society or a societal pundit who can be funny. I prefer the former. Folks like Norm, Rodney, Joan, Richard, Eddie. They wanted to make you laugh, and hopefully think. But they didn't go out of their way to try to "do their part" and correct the world they lived in directly. Boy the train is leaving the station here... I always liked Bob Dylan over John Lennon I guess. Bob just seemed motivated to tell you how shit was before he took a turn preaching for a bit. John was always about telling people to change what was, and browbeating them for doing anything else. Great show as always! I will NOT be rereading this tomorrow, let's all pretend I got hacked.
Good pull by MM re: What’s the Matter With Kansas?”. I’ve always been annoyed with people who ascribe to that trope that people sometimes vote against their interests. In my experience, it’s spouted by lefties who can’t understand why a working class individual would vote against a union or some government program. Meanwhile, the union they are voting against is corrupt and/or outdated, or the government program is ineffectual or will cause jobs to leave. Voting to possibly keep some level of employment in your community versus those jobs moving elsewhere is most certainly not voting against your self interest.
There’s a real paradox at the heart of the guests critique. If it is true that we can’t educate people out of the set of sentiments but if it is also true that the forces they are revolting against are very beneficial relative to most imaginable alternatives, we are left with the problem of how do we avoid giving them the impoverished world they want? Ok you want lower imports and higher prices? You are complaining about 6% inflation and you’d never vote for a 12% VAT to fund healthcare, but you really are going to be happy if that price hike comes but you just see fewer Chinese goods? I can’t shake the feeling that populists feed on an imagined world without tradeoffs. If education about tradeoffs doesn’t work, what’s left? The suggestion seems to be give them what they want so you don’t have to give them what they want.
Eyal’s comments on how political leaders post-WWII acted in part from their historical living memory and not ideology really resonated with me. Thanks in part to Moynihan, I’ve been reading lately a lot of lived through it first-person accounts of life in East Germany, and I can’t help but think of how so many of both my IRL contemporaries and students, as well as what I see represented in the media or say in online circles gabbing about stuff like “libertarian monarchism” (wtf?), have forgotten/don’t know about such things and their cavalier attitudes towards government and its power to coerce behavior and shape belief is frightening to behold
Fantastic episode! Love the guest, going to pick up his book, always great when you guys host someone capable of stepping out of the daily melee and discussing broader trends.
Also great to hear someone air the liberalism/democracy-nationhood connection - something under-appreciated in an anglophone discourse that too often reduces the latter to a cause of the first world war, or something (see Hobsbawm, other goblins).
(P.S. More Israelis probably a good idea: If you haven't already, maybe harangue some of these Jews - or maybe a Druze, if available - for a special dispatch.)
Now that I've actually listened to the whole episode: Nadav's discussion of the Israeli judicial system completely misrepresents the proposed reforms and the nature of Israel's system. In a blatant act of judicial activism, Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak completely invented a system of judicial oversight (in 1995! After Rabin's assassination) which had no legal or legislative precedent. As a result of Barak's decision, the Court in Israel has veto power over judicial appointments and is not responsible in any way to the legislature *because* there is no process for passing constitutional amendments (no Constitution), so Barak basically arrogated all legal authority in the country. People on both sides of the aisle recognize that the current system is both undemocratic and untenable, the left-wing at the moment is just making a lot of noise because they think that it'll reflect poorly on the right, as with liberal media in America preaching "the end of democracy"
I highly recommend reading "Where We Are" by Roger Scruton, or listening to this fantastic Econtalk episode with Megan McCardle in which she and Russ Roberts discuss the book.
The book is about Brexit but I think it's very complementary to this discussion. The most relevant takeaway is Scruton's distinction between "somewheres" and "anywheres" (he borrowed the idea from someone else).
Somewheres are people who feel a strong sense of connection to a particular place and the people and culture that go with it, while anywheres are the "globalized" class, who can and often do move around from place to place without forming deep roots.
A somewhere who feels like their home is decaying because globalization is funneling away all of the local resources (including people who leave to become anywheres) are going to naturally and understandably resent the anywheres that benefit. That's true even for the somewheres who might personally still be thriving financially, because for a somewhere, community can be more important than personal financial success.
I think some interesting added info to Chappelle situation is: in one of his latest episodes of his very good podcast The Midnight Miracle, he talks with Mos Def and Talib Kwali, and they speak pretty forcefully of record execs -> rappers as a modern day slavery relationship. They didn't mention Jews, but in that context, I would be shocked if those rappers didn't have very similar views to kanye, and Chappelle obviously has had is own issues with media execs.
This conversation made me think of Peter Zeihan's book The End of the World is Just the Beginning, though his looks at it more from a geographic and demographic angle. If you guys could get him on the podcast, that would be a really cool conversation.
The Fifth Golem
Fifth Birthright trip!
Thanks for posting right as shabbat ends. You guys clearly drank the Kool-Aid
Main takeaways:
1. The world is f**ked.
2. Combo wine/coffee drinking is our only hope.
The discussion about the differences between US and Israeli Jews made we think of something I read about the founding of Israel several years ago.
There’s a great book about the founding by the Radoshes called “A Safe Haven.” In the book he recounts a meeting between Truman and David Ben-Gurion before the UN vote, when both men knew they would be attacked by the Arabs if the vote when in the Jews favor. Truman questioned the Jews ability to hold the territory, and Ben-Gurion said, “Mr. President, I know your Jews. Your Jews are not like my Jews.”
About the Chappelle thing. I had this theory for a while back after Norm died. The reason I LOVE Norm is because he was through and through a COMIC. He could be no other way. It was almost a disability for him. It is what led to so many shows, and movies and the like falling flat. He just lived for that punchline. The laugh was all that mattered, second place may have been kindness. Had we gotten some more time with him that might have changed. That Larry King interview he did towards the end made me a little misty eyed just at the sheer loveliness of a man we won't ever get to know. Ugh, feelings.
But anywho, my theory is that the bulk of comedians go through a "serious" phase which is kind of the end of their funny period, or at minimum the shark jumping that occurs before they disappear into some other shows/movies/foundations. The most obvious one is prolly Lenny Bruce, but I am prolly biased there because I can't for the life of me find him all that funny. Robin Williams might be the most cringey one (remember his weird special with the wheel chair born-on-the-4th-of-july character at the end?), Bill Cosby went from talking about the hilarity that is family to chastising the community, Steve Martin basically quit to go write write about who he really was. Bill Hicks had some venom for all kinds of societal ills. Even when you look at George Carlin, who THE political comic, he went from a 50/50 split of sugar with the medicine to almost ALL medicine towards the end there. I know there are many more examples but unlike Hitch, I do not find the sweet nothings of Johnny Walker all that conducive to typing. Chappelle has taken that turn after he got back and stable from the whole show debacle, I am worried that Bill Burr will end up there soon. God knows what Louis is really doing these days. Anywho, wtf was I talking about. When comics become commentators! We need comics for this 100%, I have no idea where we would be these days without comics! But at the end of the day you are either a comic that has something to say about society or a societal pundit who can be funny. I prefer the former. Folks like Norm, Rodney, Joan, Richard, Eddie. They wanted to make you laugh, and hopefully think. But they didn't go out of their way to try to "do their part" and correct the world they lived in directly. Boy the train is leaving the station here... I always liked Bob Dylan over John Lennon I guess. Bob just seemed motivated to tell you how shit was before he took a turn preaching for a bit. John was always about telling people to change what was, and browbeating them for doing anything else. Great show as always! I will NOT be rereading this tomorrow, let's all pretend I got hacked.
Good pull by MM re: What’s the Matter With Kansas?”. I’ve always been annoyed with people who ascribe to that trope that people sometimes vote against their interests. In my experience, it’s spouted by lefties who can’t understand why a working class individual would vote against a union or some government program. Meanwhile, the union they are voting against is corrupt and/or outdated, or the government program is ineffectual or will cause jobs to leave. Voting to possibly keep some level of employment in your community versus those jobs moving elsewhere is most certainly not voting against your self interest.
There’s a real paradox at the heart of the guests critique. If it is true that we can’t educate people out of the set of sentiments but if it is also true that the forces they are revolting against are very beneficial relative to most imaginable alternatives, we are left with the problem of how do we avoid giving them the impoverished world they want? Ok you want lower imports and higher prices? You are complaining about 6% inflation and you’d never vote for a 12% VAT to fund healthcare, but you really are going to be happy if that price hike comes but you just see fewer Chinese goods? I can’t shake the feeling that populists feed on an imagined world without tradeoffs. If education about tradeoffs doesn’t work, what’s left? The suggestion seems to be give them what they want so you don’t have to give them what they want.
Anti-globalization predates WW1 so I’m not on board with some of the “this unique time” narrative. There’s a very predictable return to the median.
Eyal’s comments on how political leaders post-WWII acted in part from their historical living memory and not ideology really resonated with me. Thanks in part to Moynihan, I’ve been reading lately a lot of lived through it first-person accounts of life in East Germany, and I can’t help but think of how so many of both my IRL contemporaries and students, as well as what I see represented in the media or say in online circles gabbing about stuff like “libertarian monarchism” (wtf?), have forgotten/don’t know about such things and their cavalier attitudes towards government and its power to coerce behavior and shape belief is frightening to behold
Fantastic episode! Love the guest, going to pick up his book, always great when you guys host someone capable of stepping out of the daily melee and discussing broader trends.
Also great to hear someone air the liberalism/democracy-nationhood connection - something under-appreciated in an anglophone discourse that too often reduces the latter to a cause of the first world war, or something (see Hobsbawm, other goblins).
(P.S. More Israelis probably a good idea: If you haven't already, maybe harangue some of these Jews - or maybe a Druze, if available - for a special dispatch.)
Now that I've actually listened to the whole episode: Nadav's discussion of the Israeli judicial system completely misrepresents the proposed reforms and the nature of Israel's system. In a blatant act of judicial activism, Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak completely invented a system of judicial oversight (in 1995! After Rabin's assassination) which had no legal or legislative precedent. As a result of Barak's decision, the Court in Israel has veto power over judicial appointments and is not responsible in any way to the legislature *because* there is no process for passing constitutional amendments (no Constitution), so Barak basically arrogated all legal authority in the country. People on both sides of the aisle recognize that the current system is both undemocratic and untenable, the left-wing at the moment is just making a lot of noise because they think that it'll reflect poorly on the right, as with liberal media in America preaching "the end of democracy"
I highly recommend reading "Where We Are" by Roger Scruton, or listening to this fantastic Econtalk episode with Megan McCardle in which she and Russ Roberts discuss the book.
https://www.econtalk.org/megan-mcardle-on-belonging-home-and-national-identity/
The book is about Brexit but I think it's very complementary to this discussion. The most relevant takeaway is Scruton's distinction between "somewheres" and "anywheres" (he borrowed the idea from someone else).
Somewheres are people who feel a strong sense of connection to a particular place and the people and culture that go with it, while anywheres are the "globalized" class, who can and often do move around from place to place without forming deep roots.
A somewhere who feels like their home is decaying because globalization is funneling away all of the local resources (including people who leave to become anywheres) are going to naturally and understandably resent the anywheres that benefit. That's true even for the somewheres who might personally still be thriving financially, because for a somewhere, community can be more important than personal financial success.
Well, now you all have me hooked on Eli Lake. I don't have enough housework to use up all these pods!
I think some interesting added info to Chappelle situation is: in one of his latest episodes of his very good podcast The Midnight Miracle, he talks with Mos Def and Talib Kwali, and they speak pretty forcefully of record execs -> rappers as a modern day slavery relationship. They didn't mention Jews, but in that context, I would be shocked if those rappers didn't have very similar views to kanye, and Chappelle obviously has had is own issues with media execs.
This conversation made me think of Peter Zeihan's book The End of the World is Just the Beginning, though his looks at it more from a geographic and demographic angle. If you guys could get him on the podcast, that would be a really cool conversation.