Power Line

As if to put an exclamation point to the crazy story of the week about the Trump national security team adding a hostile journalist to their Signal group chat about bombing Houthi and the Blowups, Steve accidentally texted the Zoom link to this week's taping to John Eastman (who was otherwise pre-occupied). In any case, after reviewing the completely out of whack signal-to-noise ratio of Signalgate, and the latest machinations in the lawfare against Trump, we take up as our main subject the question of whether the burst of enthusiasm among a few liberal thinkers to build stuff again—like liberalism used to in the New Deal—has much prospect of success. As Steve notes, Ezra Klein has called for "supply-side progressivism," but notes that the newfangled "abundance liberals" don't have a napkin or a curve, and if you don't have a napkin or a curve, it's just sparkling neoliberalism. Needless to say, John is mostly oblivious, and Lucretia is unimpressed. But maybe the movement can start with making their own blue hats, "Make Liberalism Great Again!" Of course, the acronym this generates sounds like a mumble, but isn't another mumble a perfect fit for Democrats right now?

Trump does more consequential things in a day that most presidents do in a month, so we may need to measure his tenure in office in dog years. It must certainly seem like dog days for the left, which is lying prostrate on the ground much of the time, panting and out of breath, gnawing on a bare bone. After ticking through a number of happy stories this week—the end of DEI at Berkeley; Greenpeace getting nicked for $667 million dollars, Columbia University capitulating to Trump—we get down the the week's new frontiers of lawfare. Is this moment a "constitutional crisis," as the left claims, or is it a long overdue moment of constitutional challenge, with the aim being the restoration of the proper dimensions and functions of our republic? We marhc brisky through four aspects of the issue, including nationwide injunctions, oral orders from the bench, the autopen question for a president (Biden) who was on autopilot for four years, and Trump's retaliation against private law firms that allowed themselves to be adjuncts to the Democratic Party. All this, and a discussion of what we think is the first-ever judicial opinion rendered by video, by Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence Van Dyke, in a gun case.

The only truly functioning high-speed rail in America today is the Trump Train, and not even the prospect of a 200% tariff on the core commodity of this podcast—single malt scotch whiskies—can dampen the 180-proof spirits of Lucretia, host of this week's episode. But we still manage to get in some disagreements about how to understand what is going on, especially with the Ukraine War endgame. In fact, we got John Yoo to out himself as the OGNC ("original gangsta neo-con") on the question of whether American foreign policy has been overly dominated by Wilsonian internationalism for the last century, or whether it has been more realist. John was responding to my two Substack articles (here and here) on different aspects how idealism and realism play out in the Ukraine matter, disliking both. Lucretia responded with a great harumph. There was much less harumphing and more huzzahing for the humiliation and confusion of the Democrats this week, culminating in the Dem surrender over the budget continuing resolution. About the confusion of federal judges (this is putting the matter charitably) trying to block some of Trump's moves, John sees hope for optimism that these roadblocks will be overcome, while debunking the claim that Trump is causing a "constitutional crisis." (Link coming when his latest article goes live.) Steve merely longs for the good old days of Watergate.

The whole gang is finally back together behind the bar this week, with John Yoo in the host chair skillfully leading our unruly gang in a round-robin three-subject format that we're alternating this year. Steve leads off wondering if Gavin Newsom, and Senate Democrats, are at last having their "Sister Souljah" moment about the transgender millstone around their neck, though Steve points out that Democrats will have great difficulty pulling this off, and lays down two additional markers to judge whether Democrats will really make a serious move to the center. The underlying thesis is that the success of a political realignment is not merely changing your own party and assembling a new majority coalition, as Trump has largely accomplished, but the extent to which it compels the opposition party to change some of its core positions, as Democrats had to do after three landslide losses to Reagan and Bush in the 1980s, and the Labour Party had to do after Thatcher kept crushing them in England at the same time. Lucretia then flags for us James Piereson's New Criterion article out Friday, "Too Many Democrats," and discuss whether faithfulness to the original intent of the Pendleton Act that set up a supposedly "neutral" civil service requires mass firings of Democrats in the bureaucracy, as well as voters waking up to the destructive incompetence of Democrat-run cities. And this leads to John's closing segment, drawing on his Fox News article up this morning, "Supreme Court's USAID move has a surprise benefit for Trump," in which ahe argues the Supreme Court's ruling mid-week on disbursement of AID funds was not the defeat people first thought. And we also debate just how to think about Justice Amy Coney Barrett's concurrence in this decision, about which our gang is divided.

Why let our frenemies at the Commentary podcast (frenemies since they dissed the sacred McRib recently) have all the fun with their emergency podcasts: after today's errant Supreme Court rulings, it was necessary for the 3WHH bartenders —well two of us at least—to jump to our mics to express our outrage, but also to celebrate briefly Trump's tour de force speech before Congress last night. And not to mention the second installment of our conversation with Richard Epstein, this time on his slim, commendable, and highly readable short book, How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution. So sit back and enjoy your midweek dram of neat single malt with us.

John Yoo is away this week, so the 3WHH has brought in a 180-proof guest in John's place—the great Richard Epstein, who speaks at an average rate of 125 words a minute, with occasional gusts of 200 words per minute. We discuss two of his many extraordinary books, the first being his 1992 title Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws, which is newly salient in the aftermath of recent Supreme Court decisions like the Harvard/UNC case. Is it time to repeal (or substantially amend) the Civil Rights Act of 1964? From there we take up his shorter book How Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (only 137 pages, which is Richard writes before breakfast most days). While Lucretia and I concentrate on large philosophical currents that drove the progressive counter-revolution against the American Founding, Richard lays out some of the specific step-by-step erosions of the rule of law that are central to the saga. But as Lucretia and I began our taping mid-day Friday we caught the news that the newest front in the Ukraine-Russia War had suddenly broken out in . . . the Oval Office, so we share a few preliminary thoughts on what it all means.

Our long-running intramural argument on this podcast over the Ukraine War has become just like the Ukraine War itself—lots of casualties on both sides, but very little movement from week to week. But is Trump actually on the cusp of a breakout? There's one thing Trump did this week that is surely causing Putin to wipe the smile off his face, and no one seems to have figured it out. It's all part of Trump's Great Reset. There is more unanimity amongst the 3WHH bartenders about Gaza, and once again Trump's seemingly outrageous or whimsical ideas of making Gaza into Atlantic City doesn't just move the Overton Window in the Middle East—it remodels the whole structure. Forget the two-state solution. Finally, we have a moment of silence for the passing of the inventor of the McRib and chicken nuggets. John Yoo is going into 40 days of mourning.

With Lucretia hosting both the episode and the bar this week (with three different whiskies just for herself), we manage to keep John Yoo from excessive gloating about the Eagles win in the Super Bowl by distracting him with his favorite subject—executive power, about which he seldom thinks there can be excessive use. But maybe we found some limits this time? The intensifying pace of President Trump's exertions of executive power look to be the most serious attempt to contain spending, reorganize the executive branch, and discipline Congress since Nixon in 1973, and we know how that ended. We also give three cheers and host a glass in celebration of Vice President Vance's throwdown at the Munich Security Conference. And it will probably come as no surprise that we even talk about the Constitution, and manage the rare feat of discussing the EOA without mentioning a Certain Statute that we are not allowed to mention in John's presence.

We're only 19 days into Trump's term, but it seems like 19 months have passed already since January 20. When Alexander Hamilton wrote of "energy in the executive," he had no idea that a real estate tycoon would become the greatest example of this understanding of the presidency. This week's episode reviews five of Trump's biggest fights that are interrelated in ways that could rebalance out constitutional order in ways conservatives have hoped beyond hope for decades might be possible. Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship is forcing a long overdue debate on the issue along with a challenge to district judges issuing nationwide injunctions; his freezing of spending revives the issue of presidential power to impound funds Congress has appropriated; and his firing of civil servants and termed appointees to federal boards and commissions will force a reconsideration of the old Humphrey's Executor case that a wide spectrum of scholar believe was wrongly decided. Along the way we get in some pop culture references to Star Trek and The Sporanos; the required defense of the McRib from all comers, and some additional closing observations on the "vibe shift" Trump has set in motion on DEI and related culture war issues.

This wide-ranging, round-robin format episode begins with celebrating the end of "Dry January" (which we, um, didn't much observe), mockery of Bernie Sanders' obsession with "onesies," a brief account of a Steve roadtrip to Villanova University, and a declaration of war against the Commentary podcast. (It's serious: it involves McRibs.) After we clear away this opening frivolity, we get down to serious business. Lucretia is in high dudgeon about the Catholic bishops behaving just the way they did in the 1980s—like lapdogs for the left—which generated reflections on theology, federal grant restrictions, J.D. Vance's dialectical skill, and some reasons for optimism for the future of both the Catholic Church and the world as a whole. John casts his spotlight on what we saw in the contentious confirmation hearings for Kash Patel, RFK, Jr, and Tulsi Gabbard. There was rare agreement and sharp disagreement (our usual mode) about aspects of these appointments. Exit bumper music from our pal, the historian Steve Tootle, who doubles as the singer/songwriter for Cosigner; "No Hour Is Mine" sounds a bit like what professors think after class.

The 3WHH bartenders raise their glasses high for the first 100 hours of Trump II, which bid to replace FDR's famous "Hundred Days" for breathtaking executive action. You'd think that this is Trump's first term, and metaphysically, Steve argues, it is. In just the way we've come to expect of Trump in all things, he may have turned the usual presidential cycle on its head. Even John, champion of executive power, is impressed. And one more miracle: he actually gets rare praise from Lucretia for his Newsweek article concluding than Biden's pardons were much worse than Trump's blanket pardons or all the J6 protesters. From there we get to the main event, a three-part discussion of a single issue—in this case free speech and how to understand the First Amendment correctly. Steve argues back to first principles, in which the freedom of conscience and thus free expression was grounded in reason, that is, free speech was essential to deliberation about right and wrong, and how we should be governed. By nearly imperceptible degrees, in the 20th century the protection of "free expression" was re-grounded in moral skepticism (if not nihilism), which is why nude dancing and F-bombs on t-shirts became "protected speech." This is not progress. From there we move on to wondering if the time has come to revisit the libel standard of New York Times v. Sullivan, which has enabled our mainstream media to behave with increasing recklessness. And we think: Yes! Yes it is. And along the way, some digressions into Animal House, Spongebob Squarepants, and other cultural totems. And we depart briefly from our new proprietary bumper music from Cosigner to use a very topical old tune (from lefties!), "Immigration Man."

Nothing "jejune" about this edition, except perhaps for the first-ever use of "jejune" in a podcast, but it is the perfect term to describe Joe Biden's "farewell address," which, aside from its jejune content, is a most welcome sound, since he will be gone in about another 48 hours, never to be heard from again one hopes. This week we take up three topics—one from each of the bartenders: Behold, President Biden amended the Constitution on Friday—all by himself! Aside from the obvious absurdity and low comedy of it, what does it tell us about the state of leftist presumption? Special counsel Jack Smith released his magnum opus, which seems more of a parvum opus if not an opusculum (ask your nearest Latin geek), Finally, Biden's farewell address—and presidential farewell addresses in general—was our third topic (summary: it was absolutely Biden's opusculum). Once again we have custom proprietary exit bumper music from our pal Steve Tootle and his indie band Cosigner.

With this episode the Three Whisky Happy Hour emigrates into its very own identity on Ricochet and Steve's new group Substack, "Political Questions," but not to worry—the old Power Line Show will live on in its old format as an interview show. The 3WHH, meanwhile, is rebooting with some new formats. We'll be doing some show with a single-subject format; on some we'll do a round robin of hot topics and reflections on currtent news items, and we'll even have some guests from time to time, as well as emergency shows when somethingbig happens—or we get a new single malt in whose virtues we just have to share. And having completed our emigration to a new logo and format, it seemed only logical that we'd take up as our primary focus this week the issue of immigration, with an attempt at an orderly procession through the key aspects of the matter: How much is too much? Should we have an immigration pause? What's up with the H1-B visa controversy anyway? How should skills-based immigration be done, and should we move to some kind of point- or auction system to regulate immigration. And finally the big one: what about birthright citizenship? We throw down pretty hard on this issue, and our three bartenders nearly get into a brawl about several of these questions. So don't think alone when you can drink it all in with us!

Since so many of our fellow conservative podcasts are taking the holidays off, we decided to do another special mid-week edition to observe the new year, and gear up for some changes. Last year's end of year show featured some low-probability but plausible predictions for 2024 (inspired by the late Wall Street guru Byron Weins' annual practice, which was often right), and unlike other shows that never track prediction accuracy (like the McLaughlin Group, which had a terrible record once someone checked), we decided to do a scorecard. Steve was 0 for 6; John was 5 for 8 (depending on how you score partial credit); Lucretia didn't make any new year's predictions, but pointed out that ALL of her mid-year predictions came true, especially J.D. Vance for running mate. We offered a few new low-probabilty predictions for 2025, but you'll have to listen to get them. Steve offers one of his as a teaser: some time in 2025 an elite or major university (could be a state flagship) will fire their president and senior administrators, and bring in a team to "clean house," which will mean closing whole departments and programs that teach anti-Semitic ideology, and eliminating faculty positions attached to these poisonous programs. From there we resume our unfinished argment from last week about discrimination and the 14th Amendment, and come to some unsatisfactory conclusions. Now the news: We're taking this weekend off from our usual Saturday show, and won't be back until January 11 or so. We're going to be re-tooling the podcast with some format changes. Stay tuned for details as they become available!

Our final podcast of 2024 looks back on the top story and bottom story of the year, and you won't be surprised to see some symmetries in our answers. But then we move on to the main event—a question from a listener (initials RW) about whether the 14th Amendment, rightly understood, actually permits the federal government to outlaw private discimination. We go several rounds (but not really enough rounds) about aspects of this issue before realizing after we finished that we didn't reach a verdict. Perhaps we'll return to it in our first episode of 2025. The title for this week's episode is taken from Steve's nomination for the slogan of the year, which comes from a Twitter person who responded to the UN demanding that Americans give up meat to fight climate change with the phrase: "they can osculate my fundamental oriface!" You'll just have to listen to the end to get the translation. Announcement: We'll be back on January 1 with another special holiday midweek episode that will introduce some format changes, a review of our predictions from last year (guess who had the best record), and a fresh round of predictions for 2025 that will likely be mostly wrong.

We were going to take up the transcendent matters appropriate for the climax of Advent, but the headlines won't let us! The dam started breaking this week about Joe Biden's unfitness for office, which, as the Wall Street Journal reported, began during the 2020 campaign. Just who has been president for the last four years? And aside from the perfidy of the complacent and compliant (to Democrats) news media, should there be a serious congressional investigation into what is clearly one of the greatest coverups in American history. Biden's senior staff and cabinet should have to answer uncomfortable questions about this, and perhaps face charges for decisions and actions they may not have had legal authority to make. We also review the drama of the last 72 hours over the Continuing Resolution to avoid a "government shutdown," with Steve arguing the outcome was a minor victory for conservatives, but needs to be followed up with more serious steps in the new Congress. From there, we note the important of Fani Willis getting her fanny handed to her, and then take up briefly some listener reaction to our mid-week show, especially Hadley Arkes's long note about what we missed about the Commerce Clause and the nearly forgotten case of Hammer v. Dagenhart. We ran out of time for a complete consideration, so next week!

This special mid-week holiday edition of the 3WHH makes up for the lost ground over the weekend, when schedules prevented the bar from opening at any of the usual meet-up times. Steve, this week's host, and Lucretia grill John Yoo about his latest article, "Globalization's Challenge to American Constitutionalism," published at the sparkling new website of the Civitas Institute, where Steve also appears for the first time today on a separate subject, "The Future of Conservatism in America." While Steve and Lucretia completely agree with John about the insidious threat of "internationalism" to our constitutional soverignty, they detect some tergiversations on John's part that seem to offer—or so they say—too many concessions to progressive jurisprudence. From there discussion turns to the drone epidemic, with Steve offering two complementary theories about what is going on (neither of which involve foreign actors, stealth sky ships, or aliens), and Lucretia offers her drama review for Broadway's newest stage sensation, who happens to wear judicial robes in her regular job. A dilemma indeed. And about that ABC News libel settlement with Trump, more theories to chew over. Today the Wall Street Journal reports that "Disney’s legal team was concerned that given the current makeup of the Supreme Court, appealing a negative district court ruling could have jeopardized the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan ruling that protects the media in defamation cases." This was Steve's hypothesis about the settlement.

So your three bartenders weren't able to assemble even virtually this week for our usual format—John is away on a clandestine mission stalking the elusive McRib, while Steve and Lucretia are also largely indisposed. But fear not! We decided that in lieu of our usual snappy brickbats, we'd share with our insatiable fans the talks we gave a couple weeks back at the University of Florence about the American election. It was great fun and the student questions were great, but we're just offering here our introductory remarks. This a short episode—barely over 20 minutes. But never fear: we plan to be back with our usual format mid week, probably Wednesday or Thursday.

The Three Whisky Happy Hour gang is finally all back in the U.S. after weeks of galavanting overseas, and boy is there a lot to catch up on. Among our topics this week are the signs and wonders that the Age of Trump is fully established; the Biden pardons; the farcical Penny trial; whether World War III is indeed under way, and the attempted coup in Korea, about which our resident Korea expert (and resident Korean!) John Yoo has lots of thoughts. Along the way some fresh new insults are thrown around, with John leveling the ultimate low blow against Steve—calling him a Hegelian! Thems is fightin' words!

Two-thirds of the 3WHH crew were back home in the states for Thanksgiving, while Steve is still galavanting around coastal Italy, defiling the reputation of this podcast by drinking Negronis at happy hour—a tergiversation that this week's host, John Yoo, does not let pass without censure. In any case, by the miracle of Zoom we managed to assemble for a holiday weekend special edition, where Steve and Lucretia push back on the emerging narrative that Trump's election victory was so narrow that it doesn't deserve to be considered a landslide. On surface statistics, perhaps this has some merit, but even if this is conceded it should at least be considered an earthquake. Steve and Lucretia make the case, noting that, among other things, gthe media treated Bill Clinton's 43% of the vote in 1992 as a "mandate" for sweeping change, and that Trump's popular vote total is close to Ronald Reagan's in 1980, which was universally considered a landslide. The equally important question is whether this election portends a genuine political realignment—the elusive beast of political scientists. Some evidence suggests it might be, but realignments always require successive elections to confirm. We also spend some time pondering the prospects for the Musk-Ramaswamy DOGE (Dept. of Government Efficiency) project, and mull over the last few Trump cabinet picks.