The Fifth Column on Trump, Immigration Politics, and Colin Kaepernick

Your favorite podcast welcomes Andrew Kirell of The Daily Beast

Fifth Column fan art

Since Hit & Run commenters love them some Kmele Foster, they should be particularly interested in this week's episode of The Fifth Column, since co-hosts Michael C. Moynihan and myself take turns mocking "Kmelism," which may be the 21st century semi-AnCap version of whataboutism, though Mr. Foster does put up a strong defense.

On the show this week is friend Andrew Kirell of The Daily Beast. On the docket is what you'd expect: Colin Kaepernick, Donald Trump's big immigration day, the fingerprints of #NeverTrumpers on his rise, and so on. Take a listen:

Head over to the podcast website for info on how to subscribe; you can also listen using iTunes, Stitcher, and Google Play. Please leave hilarious comments wherever you encounter the podcast in the wild!

Comments

[Crusty Juggler]

co-hosts Michael C. Moynihan and myself take turns mocking "Kmelism," which may be the 21st century semi-AnCap version of whataboutism, though Mr. Foster does put up a strong defense.

A strong "defense?" More like a strong "explaining why he is awesome and right about everything."

[Hugh Akston]

I dunno man. Welch and Moynihan do have a point that when they criticize one team Kmele's response is typically "yeah well the other team does that too."

[Citizen X]

Yeah, but Welch and Moynihan do that too.

[Mainer2]

That's just your opinion, man.

[Craig Smith]

These are all just everyone's opinions. Crazy, isn't it?

[John]

The quickest way to kill the NFL is to get players to start making political statements on the field. Understand there is an enormous variety of people on an NFL team. So, once players start making political statements on the field, you can guarantee that nearly every fan will be offended by some player's politics somewhere.

Very few people are going to want to go to a sporting event if doing so involves getting into a political argument. Half of the attraction of sports is that it isn't political and isn't really important in the grand scheme of things. There is a tremendous about of allure about caring deeply about something that ultimately matters very little. Take that away and make it political and it won't be nearly as fun or marketable.

If I were the Commissioner, I would quietly tell the 49ers to cut his ass and make sure no one else signed him. This kind of shit is poison to their business.

[tarran]

... or they could stop with the jingoistic displays and just play the goddamned game.

[Libertarian]

You'd probably get punched in the nose for not standing for the anthem at a baseball game around these parts. And now it's almost mandatory to have something similar during the 7th inning stretch.

[tarran]

I notice Gilmore hasn't addressed your assertion, Mr. libertarian

Congrats on the imaginative handle BTW.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

The NFL has been political for a long time. It's just that now they are being politician in the other direction and John is all verklempt.

[Gojira]

Unrestrained patriotism isn't political; it's only political if it's leftist.

[John]

it is political if you are a half wit who thinks the odd flyover or playing the national anthem is political. Most people, however, don't see it that way.

Beyond that, you must really love cops. Kapernick has made it so cops can now paint everyone who demands any accountability from them as being against the entire country. That fucking moron has set the cause of police accountability back about a decade.

But hey, why should you care when you have had to listen to the national anthem at ball games all of these years. What a fucking rube you are.

[SugarFree]

There is literally no stupid Culture War bullshit you won't fall for.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

John should change his handle to John, Cultural Warrior. C'mon, John, that would be funny.

[tarran]

it is political if you are a half wit who thinks the odd flyover or playing the national anthem is political. Most people, however, don't see it that way.

It was instituted by the government during the great depression. Yet it's not political.... suuure.

John, I get that there are only a handful of Americans alive today who have any memory of a time when it wasn't routine. I get that, to most Americans, it's a ritual that feels eternal and universal. I can see why you think that makes it apolitical.

Yet that doesn't really change the nature of the beast. It's intended to compel people into participating in public displays of loyalty to the state. It's as voluntary as those voluntary searches where the cop says if you don't agree you will have to wait until they can find a judge to sign a warrant.

Coerced loyalty displays have no place in a free society.

[GILMORE?]

How is it coerced?

[tarran]

People have been beaten up for failing to stand quietly for America the Beautiful at the 7th ining stretch at Yankee Stadium.

There are a large number of people howling for that quarterback to be fired.

Sure, it's not mandatory; you can decline to go to a sports game. You can decline to become a football player if you don't like it - even though it has 0 bearing on how good you are on the field and it's a loss for the fans.

It's merely social pressure. Like the twitter mob.

[GILMORE?]

it's not mandatory; .... It's merely social pressure.

So its NOT coerced, then?

You just don't like it.

[tarran]

Social pressure is a form of coercion. I don't think it should be illegal. I think if the NFL demands that all its players stand for the North Korean National Anthem that is their right. I think if their fans want to boycott games if a quarterback declines to stand for the national anthm that is also their right. I even think the NFL has the right to fire any palyer who refuses to stand for the national anthem.

But!!!!

NFL games are essentially entertainment. They are little different to going to a theater to see a movie, play or concert.

It's ridiculous that on some entertainment events our fellow citizens are so thoroughly brainwashed as to think that overt displays of loyalty and fealty to the state are absolutely vital and people who don't participate are threats to the social order to be ostracized while they have no such expectation on other events.

Personally, when I go to sporting events, I stand. Not because I am loyal to the U.S. government (hell I have publicly called for its disbandment on this very site). stand because I want to watch the damn game and its a part of the price of the ticket. I don't take it seriously. Essentially I pretend to have respect when I feel nothing but contempt. However, I do not enjoy the experience, and it does make me far less likely to buy tickets to sporting events. Much more pleasurable to watch it on TV and when the silliness starts, to mute the TV and go get a snack.

[GILMORE?]

This is just a longer way of you saying, "You don't like it".

Your problem isn't so much the NFL, and rather the majority of NFL (or professional sports*) fans.

Do you feel compelled to stand when you watch the game on TV?

(*do they play the anthem @ NBA games? i'm drawing a blank)

[Chipper Morning Wood]

Oh, GILMORE. How long before you start bitching about some conservative getting banned from Twitter or Facebook, and we have to remind you that nobody is forcing you to use Twitter or Facebook?

[GILMORE?]

How long before you start bitching about some conservative getting banned from Twitter or Facebook,

Firstly, I've never done that. If you have an example where i've even done so, point to it.

secondly, you're copping to "whataboutism" now yourself, and admitting i'm right -

just that i'm right about something you think some fictitious-me is hypocritical about.

[GILMORE?]

sorry - missed your last sentence.

You are basically arguing against yourself here. You admit its a feature you don't like, so you are less likely to go to games because of it. Its not 'coerced' anything. If enough people felt the way you do, the NFL would change.

But they don't. And no one's stopping you from agitating to have pro-franchises cease their rituals. I'm pretty sure you could get a petition going, or something.

until then.... shocker = you don't represent the majority on this point.

I presume there are other areas of life where if a minority of people (e.g crazy feminists?) demanded the majority conform to their particular demands, you'd tell them to go suck an egg and deal with it = the market should decide.

[tarran]

Of course, there is nothing coercive about an off duty cop working security at Yankee stadium beating a guy up for not standing at attention while America the Beautiful is played during the 7th inning stretch.

[GILMORE?]

you're strawmanning by claiming this one example is somehow the rule now? please

[tarran]

Oh Buddha.

People are angry he didn't stand. Angry people make threats. Soemtiems they act on those threats.

People angry at me and telling me to do something = social pressure.

My employer threatening to fire me if I don't do something because my refusal pisses off the customers = still social pressure

People threatening to hurt me if I don't do something in a way that is implausible = still social pressure but close to the boundry

People threatening to hurt me if I don't do something in a way that is plausible enough that I fear for my safety = extortion

People acting on those threats by beating me up = extortion.

All of those things are forms of compulsion. Some we think are permissible. Some we think should be impermissible. Some of the causes that trigger these forms of compulsion strike us as noble. Some are ignoble.

The fact that I find this cause, habituating people to declaring loyalty to the state ignoble does not mean that I am being unreasonable to point out that there is compulsion.

The fact that the social compulsion in this case skirts and occasionally crosses the line from social pressure to actual battery or extortion doesn't mean isn't a strawman.

Alternately, we could try an experiment. Why not go to a game, and not stand up Gilmore? You are patriotic. Surely you have nothing to fear? 🙂

[GILMORE?]

The fact that I find this cause, habituating people to declaring loyalty to the state ignoble does not mean that I am being unreasonable to point out that there is compulsion.

1) contra your repeated assertion, there is no actual compulsion

2) i think its a bit much to describe 'standing during a song' as being 'forced-loyalty-oaths'.

the easy solution is simply to avoid public rituals you don't want to participate in. Moaning about how other people like them is so much sour grapes from a minority view. I respect that minority view, but i don't see why anyone else is supposed to care.

I was never bapitzed, but I used to go to catholic mass just to join my family. out of petulant observance of "the rules", i never took communion or did the sit-stand-kneel-stand stuff. Technically I wasn't *supposed* to. But my dad - the only actually-serious catholic in the family - said, "to hell with that, just do it anyway", and i still refused.

The fact was that i enjoyed much of mass and i didn't want to be left home alone when everyone else was out. So there were competing feelings of "wanting to be included" and yet still maintaining my ostentatious non-participation.

Then i grew up, and i stopped going. Mainly out of respect for the people who DO go.

I see your bitching about 'sporting events' much in the same light. If you don't like how they work, then don't go. But don't go and then complain how people think you're a dick.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

Of course. The NFL can do as it pleases. Except that they get millions in subsidies from the government. But absent that, I do not favor any coercion to get them to be less jingoistic. I do support non-violent means to get them to be less collectivist and statist, such as supporting NFL players that do not go on with the herd or criticizing their brainwashing of team red citizenry. Just remember to extend the same principle to leftist groups that choose to exclude your favorite team red cheermonkey.

[GILMORE?]

red cheermonkey.

You're not very bright, are you.

[tarran]

This is just a longer way of you saying, "You don't like it"

No, I am saying more than that. I am saying that social pressure is a form of coercion, Gilmore.

Whether I like it or not is immaterial to the main argument.

And, you'll note it all was kicked off at the behest of Congress. It's about as voluntary as the voluntary searches of our vehicles on the side of the road by a statie looking for drugs.

[GILMORE?]

social pressure is a form of coercion, Gilmore.

that's new. Most libertarians consider 'social pressure' to be the marketplace at work.

you'll note it all was kicked off at the behest of Congress.

I missed that. Pro-sports are obligated to play the national anthem due to an act of congress?

[tarran]

Pro-sports are obligated to play the national anthem due to an act of congress?

I did some research, and it appears that I was mistaken.

It turns out it was adopted by the Cubs and Red Sox because it was popular. It spread throughout the MLB at the behest of the commissioner who had previously been hunting IWW guys and other antiwar agitators in WW-1.

So I was wrong about that.

[Mainer2]

Kaepernick was discussed on NPR yesterday evening. It was interesting how they saw his timing, i.e. making an issue when his career is in danger, as a sign of how brave he is. When the more plausible argument is that his failing career is why he decided to make himself controversial and presumably harder to fire. I would be "braver" to take a stand when you have something to lose. Obviously I don't know what's in Kaepernick's mind, but what I know about human nature makes me chuckle that NPR when with the less plausible explanation.

[SugarFree]

So black people are wrong when they protest loudly and burn shit down and black people are wrong when they protest quietly and don't burn anything down?

[Mainer2]

Well, I re-read my comment to check myself, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. But to clarify, people have speculated on why Kaepernick is doing this. Some have said it's a cynical ploy, as his career is failing, and making himself controversial may make him more difficult to cut. The folks on NPR said that doing it when his career is failing is actually the opposite...a sign of just how brave he is to do it when his job is in jeopardy. And I think that second explanation does not comport with what I have seen of human nature. It would be brave to take a controversial stand when your career is flying high, and you have it to lose.

[Swiss Servator]

SF is a bit on edge, Mainer.

I fear to see what will emerge from his pen, next.

[Mainer2]

Fear is normal when anticipating the emanations of SF's pen.

[Hamster of Doom]

Since Hit & Run commenters love them some Kmele Foster...

I haven't seen a restraining order yet, so he can't be that unhappy about it.

[Citizen X]

He tried to get Crusty served with one, but the county was unable to confirm that he has an address.

[Chipper Morning Wood]

I thought he lived in the back of a pet store, in a discarded chinchilla cage. His mailbox is an old habitrail tube.

[Mainer2]

Vivid

[Citizen X]

Allegedly, but that's still not technically an "address."

[DEATFBIRSECIA]

Tyrone Biggums for the win!

[Fist of Etiquette]

They were right about Welch and the booze. He becomes worthless on air.

[Mainer2]

So you're saying he typically drinks when on air

[DenverJ]

You know who else something something?

[Swiss Servator]

That one guy?

[GILMORE?]

I never have time to listen to these things when they're first posted. I'd totally be down if it were in the PM.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Look, some of us have work to avoid!

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

LEAVE KMELE ALONE!

*runs out of room crying*

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

@59 minutes, I agree with Kmele that there is no mainstream "vanguard" defending free market and economic ideas. And while Matt Welch countered with Reason magazine and a few others he mumbled that I didn't catch, I still generally side with Kmele. Even Reason, presumably in response to the general zeitgeist has started emphasizing culture war issues* and has de-emphasized its more wonky econ coverage. And I get it, it gets eyeballs. But it seems that everything is race, rape, sex, sexism, transgender, immigration.

None of those subjects are invalid, but they seem to dominate the discussion-- pretty much like everywhere else.

*Reason being on the correct side of the culture war issues, of course. I'm not going to jeopardize MY cucktail invites.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Moynihan criticizing Venezuela-- always mean to the commies.