Hi everyone.
Welcome to this week’s Daly Weekly, where I answer whatever questions you throw my way.
Let’s get right to it…
John: I am curious about your thoughts around population movements being the litmus test for culture and public policy. When people vote with their feet, they make a permanent statement about the state of affairs. This begs several questions: If we are a systemically racist nation, why are 91% of immigrants racial minorities? Similarly, if Islamophobia is such a pervasive problem, why have the number of Muslims in New York quadrupled since 9/11? I was just in California, a state rich with natural resources, a temperate climate, beautiful topography, world-class research institutions, and a history of growth and entrepreneurialism. How is their policy so bad that they are now losing population for the first time in the state’s history? No need to answer all those individual questions, but do you agree with my premise, or am I being too simplistic? — Steve R.
I think you bring up some good points, Steve.
California is a perfect example of people being driven away from an otherwise wonderful place to live, due to bad governance and off-putting cultural trends.
Regarding anti-Islamic bigotry in our country, I think it has been highly exaggerated by the Left for a very long time. Does it exist? Sure. Unfortunately, just about every type of bigotry exists in our country. But based on what we saw here after the October 7 attacks, and now what we’re seeing on the political right, I actually think antisemitism in this country is a much bigger problem than Islamophobia.
Note from John: This next question from Aylene is quite long, but since I didn’t get many questions this week, and she rarely submits a question, I’m including it.
Here’s my question: I get the impression that much of the infighting on the Right these days is actually not between MAGA and anti- MAGA, as MAGA basically won that fight, but within MAGA. The negative reactions to Kevin Roberts hostage video, didn’t just come from the usual suspects like, well, you. A lot of people who are actually pro - MAGA, indeed invoked Their Father Trump’s name to condemn Tucker and Fuentes, bringing up Trump’s supposed love for Israel. Meanwhile, MTG has apparently criticized Trump enough to get her a View invite. So, is the MAGA coalition headed for a crack up?
I have also noticed that Trump really hasn’t got into the middle of the Tucker controversy at all, and didn’t address the shutdown until recently. Seems that on any issue that Trump isn’t focusing on, his supporters feel comfortable actually disagreeing and fighting over. This portends more fighting once Trump isn’t around anymore. Do you agree?
Also, Not a question, but I think Kristol likely endorsed Mamdani for the same reason Kathy Hochul and Hakeem Jeffries did. At this point they’re all Democrats who want to be on the winning team. As Bill basically said, we can’t go back to Cuomo, his Brand is stale, and Mamdani won’t wreck NYC *that* much. It was hardly a ringing endorsement.
Yet I still find there’s something to Jonah Goldberg juxtaposing this news with Kevin Roberts bending the knee to the Groypers. In both cases, other political considerations overcame any aversion about anti - Semitism. Arguably, if the ladies of the View invited MTG on hoping she will bash Trump along with them, they also decided her anti - Semitism was acceptable as long as she advanced their cause. It’s so depressing, and quite honestly frightening.
PS: That is, we seem to be at a time in which BOTH sides of the political spectrum see being an anti - Semite as actually within the Overton Window and not something deserving cancellation, but something we can agree to disagree on, as long as we agree with the anti - Semite on either Owning the Libs or Hating Trump.
PPS: Isaac Schorr just said it much better than me. — Aylene W.
Hi Aylene. I agree that, at this moment in time, the political-right’s loudest and most passionate infighting is going on between MAGA types… on the issue of whether or not right-wing antisemites and Nazis should be welcomed (or a least tolerated) in the formation of a larger political coalition against the Left.
It’s unnerving (to say the least) that we’ve gotten to this point in our politics, but when a political movement or broader society decides that all kinds of vile, previously disqualifying conduct is now perfectly acceptable, I guess it shouldn’t be all that surprising that we would one day end up debating whether or not we should welcome evil ideologies into the mix.
The good news, as you pointed out, is that a number of influential righties have, in fact, decided that antisemitism and Nazism are lines that cannot be crossed. For the first time in several years, they’re doing what people like Bernie and I have been doing all along (and taking lots of slings and arrows for our efforts): policing our own side. I applaud and stand with these late bloomers, but I sure wish they would have recognized a need for taking an active role in this earlier — before things got to this point (like they did with the Left after October 7). That said, the Right is at least putting up a better fight against antisemitism than the Left has. The Left largely just came to terms with it, out of political expediency.
You’re right that Trump has largely stayed out of this, which is a shame. He could come out tomorrow and loudly denounce these people, but, as we’ve seen in the past, he has a lot of difficulty doing that. He seems at ease with letting the rest of MAGA-world fight it out, as long as neither side is criticizing him. J.D. Vance has largely been avoiding the issue too, which shouldn’t surprise anyone. He’s very close with Tucker Carlson — one of the people at the center of this controversy. In fact, it was Tucker who talked Trump into making Vance his vice presidential pick in the first place.
I agree with you that this whole thing is depressing and frightening.
Sir John, I keep hearing some sketchy reports about how the FBI busted a group of terrorists in Dearborn, Michigan of all places! They were allegedly plotting an evil terrorist attack on Halloween but Kash Patel’s FBI foiled their dastardly plot and several arrests were made, according to reports. What I find a bit disturbing is the fact that little to no details have been given. Is that because the mainstream media doesn’t wish to cast stones against one of the left’s protected groups? Or is it because Kash Patel and the FBI are waving a false flag to make it look like they’re fighting terror? What are your thoughts and do you have any more details as of Friday’s column? —“Evil Tricks & NO Treats On Halloween” regards from The Emperor
When I do a Google search, Emperor, I see all kinds of reporting on this from the mainstream media, and some of it is fairly detailed. It could be that there weren’t initially a lot of details released by the FBI, but they came out later. I’m sure we’ll get additional questions answered as time goes on.
New Covid related studies have come out showing what earlier studies showed: The risk of myocarditis is higher after Covid infection than after taking the Covid vaccine. Do you think this will once and for all convince those who’ve been sounding the bell on myocarditis being caused by the vaccine that they were wrong. — Alex D.
No, Alex, I don’t. I don’t think any number of scientific studies will overturn preferred political narratives on this topic.
What’s your take on the sandwich-assailant in DC being found not guilty of the charge(s) against him. — Ben G.
The problem seems to be that he was overcharged, Ben. He likely would have been convicted had he been charged properly.
Thanks everyone! You can send me questions for next week by leaving a comment in the comment section.
I like a comment I read about the sandwich thrower. "It was an assault with a deli weapon!"
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?