The Daly Weekly (11/14)

Kevin Roberts, JD Vance, controversy at the BBC, and more!

Hi everyone.

Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.

Let’s get right to it…

---

Are you surprised that Kevin Roberts hasn’t resigned from The Heritage Foundation yet? — Ben G.

No, Ben. He’s apparently been getting paid a million dollars a year to watch sports and destroy the reputation of a once-respected, once-conservative think tank. Unless he’s somehow forced out, he has no reason to leave a sweet gig like that — not of his own accord.

John, a question for you. Would VP Vance follow the footsteps of Pres Trump’s agenda if for some reason he does not (Trump) finish his term, or would he be more of a moderate? — Sharon H.

Hi Sharon. If Trump were truly out of the picture, I do think there’d be some differences in agendas… mainly part because I don’t think Trump has much of a political agenda, beyond going after political rivals, impulsively interfering with free markets and free trade, and finding new, creative ways to honor himself. Most of the rest has either been reactionary, or has been handed off to subordinates to come up with their own agendas.

That said, I’m not sure Vance would be more “moderate” unless you just mean temperamentally and rhetorically (which he certainly is). I’ve said a few times now that I think Donald Trump’s political sensibilities are closer to Bernie Sanders’ than Ronald Reagan’s. Similarly, I think Vance’s are closer to Tucker Carlson’s than Donald Trump’s. Sure, as vice president, Vance is faithfully serving as the current president’s loyal fawner and yes-man. But if he were leading the executive branch, I believe (from his expressed positions outside of his role as vice president) that he’d be:

• more protectionist and less interventionist than Trump on foreign policy (which would include being less of an ally to Israel, even more disdainful of Ukraine).

• more expansive of entitlement programs, which could potentially make him even less fiscally responsible than Trump.

• potentially increasing the role of government in people’s lives, and being more hostile toward free-market capitalism. I don’t think he’d be as crazy with the tariffs, but he definitely believes in a government-heavy economy.

I realize these categorizations may surprise some people, but they aren’t surprising to those who’ve been paying attention to Vance for the last few years. He’s not the rhetorical bomb-thrower that Trump is, and I certainly don’t think he’s as personally vindictive, but except on social issues, he’s no more conservative than Trump.

I’m glad you wrote that piece this week on the upcoming elections. I agree that Trump probably won’t try to stay in office after his second term, and that (as you said) it wouldn’t work anyway. But I don’t see how anyone can blow off the possibility of such an effort. It already happened once! And as you said: everyone who was part of the last effort to overturn the 2020 election has been pardoned. That sends the signal that he’d do the same for others in the future, under similar circumstances. Does it not? — Alex D.

You summarized my argument quite well, Alex. Yes, again, I don’t think he’ll try. And if he does try, he would ultimately fail (like last time). But as I wrote in that piece, after what we saw in November of 2020, and everything since then (including amnesty granted by Trump to every bad actor involved in trying to overturn the election), it’s “borderline irresponsible not to even consider the possibility of such an effort.”

John Bolton is correct in saying Presidents expect loyalty, but Trump demands fealty! — Scott K.

It’s an important distinction, Scott. When I think of loyalty to a president, I think of subordinates carrying out the lawful orders of the president, not leaking private conversations to press, not trying to secretly undermine the president, etc.

Trump, however, expects people (including his administration, all Republican office-holders, judges he’s nominated or appointed, members of our military, law-enforcement officials, the right-wing media, etc.) to unquestioningly say or do whatever he wants, regardless of whether it’s immoral, unethical, breaks the law, or violates the Constitution — all while telling him he’s right about everything, and how great he is.

John: I heard on a podcast this week that public trust in the U.S. government has gone from over 80% in the early 1960’s to less than 30% today (I did not verify these numbers, but it sounds about right). The only blips in this downward slide were the 1980’s, when Reagan cut regulations and opened up the economy, and during Bill Clinton’s presidency, when he put limitations on welfare payments and briefly balanced the budget. In other words, when government is limited, we trust it more. So why does the public keep expecting more, only to be slapped down with the limits of government competence during periods of huge expansion? — Steve R.

Steve, as a small-government conservative, the sentence “when government is limited, we trust it more” is music to my ears. And you’re absolutely right. But politicians have stoked so much victimhood, and such an entitlement mentality over the years, that most of the American public has come to expect (and want) more and more government in their lives. For decades, the Democrats were the main culprit in all of this, but Republicans (despite their rhetoric and counterproductive gimmicks like DOGE) have just about pulled even over the last decade, abandoning any semblance of fiscal conservatism, fueling the growth of our national debt by trillions and trillions, and refusing to reform major entitlement programs. The trade war and central planning of our economy has made matters even worse.

It is obscene how much power, and how expensive, our largely incompetent federal government is. And yet, millions and millions of Americans remain convinced that government is the answer to their problems. And as you say, it’s not.

Greetings Sir John —what are your thoughts on the BBC heads stepping down because they deliberately edited footage to make Trump look bad? —“BBC Means British Boobs Collapse” regards from The Emperor

I haven’t followed this story much, Emperor, but from what I’ve read, the footage in their documentary last year was indeed deceptively edited to make Trump’s remarks sound even worse than they actually were on January 6 (they were plenty bad on their own). It’s not clear to me whether the BBC executives were forced out, if they left in protest of the unprofessionalism of their news-organization (for letting the edit happen), or something else. It’s possible that question has been answered, and that I just haven’t seen it.

---

Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.

---

Looking for a Christmas gift that keeps giving all year long?

From now until the end of November, you can gift an annual subscription to a friend or family member for just $37.50 (25% off the regular price). That’s a full year of Bernie’s weekly columns, audio and video commentaries, time-machine trips, access to the comment section, and more! And you can schedule the subscription to be delivered on the date of your choosing!

Don’t miss out on this sale!