Here’s the latest from Bill Maher’s Friday “Real Time” show. First, the “New Rule” segment called “Let’s make a deal.” This is perhaps the best Maher bit I’ve ever heard. It’s funny, but the main point is not its humor but its message, which is deadly serious.
The guests you see (one of whom Maher points at when he disses Republicans) are “Michael Smerconish, host of ‘Smerconish’ on CNN and ‘The Michael Smerconish Program’ on SiriusXM; and Rep. Nancy Mace, Republican congresswoman from South Carolina’s 1st district who also sits on the Armed Services, Veterans’ Affairs, and Oversight committees.”
The “deal” Maher asks for is a Devil’s bargain in which the Left gives up stupid ideas or phrases in agreement with the Right doing the same thing, e.g., “You stop saying saying ‘thoughts and prayers,’ and we’ll stop with the land acknowledgments.” The Big Bargain though, is this: “The Left should stop their seriously woke shit, and the Right should stop their slide into autocracy.”
The emphasis then becomes the craziness of the Left that needs to vanish, like the refusal of people like Neil deGrasse Tyson to admit that sports should be divided by sex, or allowing kids to transition genders when they are too young. Other examples: “Queers for Palestine” or the “Healthy at any weight” mantra.
This Left-wing penchat for craziness, which goes along with their dictum that there be no debate about it, is, argues Maher (and I agree) a recipe for the continuing electoral losses of Democrats.
The Right gets it in the neck, too, for trying to turn America into an authoritarian police state and all the crazy crap that Republicans want. The first step for Republicans? “Find one thing that Trump wants, and tell him NO.” As he says, ‘What good is Making America Great Again if you wind up losing the ‘America’ part?”
This is one of the finest monologues I’ve heard from Maher, and I wish that the “progressive” Democrats, part of MY party, would listen to and heed it. As for the Republicans, well, they won’t listen to Maher anyway, but his last sentence is a slogan they should take to heart.
. . . and a two minute opening on the rise of autocracy, calling out Trump for being in a “pulling people over for their broken taillight” phase.
Really? Ten million illegal aliens equate to broken tail lights?
a) He was referring to the clearly politically based prosecution of James Comey.
b) What harm is being done by undocumented immigrants that justifies masked, unidentifiable secret police disappearing people (including citizens and legal immigrants) off the streets?
I would add going after Lisa Cook for alleged mortgage fraud, especially while three of his cabinet members have been accused of same.
Aside from driving down wages for low-skilled workers in construction, agriculture etc., to allow millions of unknown, unvetted people into the country entails massive risks of crime gangs, child sex trafficking, terrorism etc. – not to mention the drain on public services. Why did Biden do it? One suggested motive was to boost the numbers of people in blue states to increase Dem representation in Congress in the next census; plus, a future pathway to citizenship would mean millions of new, public service dependent Dem voters in the future (the so-called replacement strategy).
I grew up in California and recall how rounding up and deporting illegals was a normal thing – it was not controversial back then to enforce immigration law, and the Dems were totally on board with it. Those who opposed illegal immigration, such as Ceasar Chavez, were heroes to the left back then. How things change!
If you want to drive up the wages for construction and agriculture, be prepared to pay more for the products of both. The fact that the Trump administration has eased back on nabbing agricultural workers suggests that even it understands this. Imprisoning every illegal worker in agriculture will result in very expensive strawberries, not in a rush of Americans applying to pick them.
And the “massive risks of crime gangs, child sex trafficking, terrorism” sounds more like fear-mongering than anything else. You talk about growing up in California; if you still lived here you would understand that Californians by and large don’t support ICE, and harshly punitive measures against undocumented workers aren’t popular here and haven’t been since the late 1990s.
When I lived in California long ago, we all somehow survived having mostly American citizens working in the fields and on construction sites. Most countries are able to survive without mass illegal immigration. As I said, Ceasar Chavez and his United Farm Workers were heroes to the left for their opposition to illegals driving down wages and taking their jobs.
Whether enforcing the law is popular or not is irrelevant unless citizens vote to change immigration law. If you think most citizens support open borders, you are very wrong. You also seem in denial of criminal elements and child sex trafficking among illegals, yet this has been well documented. And hundreds on terrorism watch lists have entered the country illegally.
Here in Oz during covid we underwent a natural experiment: the borders were closed, so agriculture and businesses such as restaurants no longer had access to cheap foreign backpacker labor to pick fruits and wash dishes. And guess what? Citizens took those jobs at considerably higher wages than were paid to the backpackers, yet we all survived.
Immigrants, including undocumented immigrants, commit fewer crimes than native born Americans: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20250122/117827/HHRG-119-JU01-20250122-SD004.pdf
To your last point, ICE weren’t unidentifiable, masked secret police prior to Trump.
That stat has been widely disputed, but in any case there would be NO such crimes if, as the law requires, they were not in the country in the first place. Illegals are by definition committing a crime by being in the country illegally.
Whenever I see any statistics about crime committed by the native-born, my first question is what percentage of the crime was committed by black native-born Americans? Texas is 12% black, 40% Hispanic, and many murders aren’t solved to where an arrest is made. We know who commits unsolvable murders, and it isn’t jealous husbands in wealthy neighbourhoods, so the murder rate by the native-born is probably much higher than published. If immigrants and illegal aliens are committing fewer crimes per 1000 than a native-born population that is already highly criminal, this is not a great recommendation for them….unless you propose to send one black family to Venezuela for every Venezuelan family that sneaks in.
You’d also want to know how inherently criminal Texas is at baseline compared to other states. It’s possible that a very safe state with low rates of crime by the native-born would see its crime rate increased substantially by entry of migrants no more criminal than those who chose Texas. I suspect this is where much fear of immigrant crime comes from. (We have a perception here in Toronto, a traditionally safe city except in two or three large neighbourhoods, that crime by Somali immigrants and their native-born children has suddenly shot out of control, especially armed carjackings and home invasions by adolescents. In the blame game we consider them cultural immigrants even if they were born here. And this is probably true even in Texas.)
From the point of view of the non-black native-born population of Texas, who commit few crimes and already worry about black crime, should they worry more, or worry less, about having their state become less black (through dilution) and more immigrant? To answer that you’d have to know what the crime rate among the non-black native-born was, as the relevant baseline comparator. If that rate is less than the illegal alien rate, then illegals and legal immigrants both are making the state more criminal than it was before, on top of native black crime, from the point of view of the law-abiding non-black native-born. If the immigrants commit less crime than even the non-black native born population, then they should be welcomed as a positive influence, and not feared, at least in Texas.
They’re not “undocumented immigrants.” That’s a contradiction in terms. An immigrant is someone who asked for and has been granted legal permission to live in the country, with a path to citizenship. The essence here is that an immigrant was allowed in on the bet that he would deliver some benefit to the host country.
What you are referring to are illegal aliens, those who overstayed their temporary visas or never reported to Border Patrol upon entry in the first place. These are folks who never put themselves up for vetting and possible refusal as undesirables. I don’t know about the U.S., but illegal aliens have always been, for that reason, subject to immediate deportation from Canada unless they make an asylum claim which has to be heard first by a non-judicial review panel.
I agree – a very fine monologue by Maher.
Thank you for sharing a segment that had me laughing while shaking my head at the whacky antics of politically affiliated people and groups. Maher is a national treasure.
I am very skeptical that Maher found the recipe for the Dems dominating elections. The race was close enough that we could argue wokeness cost them the election. I’d argue it definitely was not the best strategy. To say that they would just beat the Republicans by dropping the crazy is a bit of a stretch though. Per polls the biggest issue voters had was inflation. Many centrist liberals praised the great job Biden did with the economy. I observed this constantly on Twitter from 2022 to 2024, even as I thought inflation was a massive liability. It turns out that voters didn’t like inflation either. Per polls Trump scored higher on this most important issue. The world is very complex and winning elections consistently is easier said than done. With the exception of Maher’s “natural immunity” shamanism, I agreed with his criticisms.
Re wearing a General’s uniform by Xmas, no way. It will be a Generalissimo’s one. Maybe even one for a newly-created most highest rank (with lots of gold braid).
Remember when LBJ proposed a “palace guard” with ludicrous uniforms, and was met with howls of derision? O tempora, o mores!
I don’t think that was LBJ, but his successor, another wannabe strongman with a persecution complex (IMO).
https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/news/pomp-and-circumstance
Oops. Thanks for the correction.
“Full Ruritania” said Newsweek.
This is one of Maher’s best ever monologues! Thanks for posting it.
I watch Maher every week. He is by far my favorite political commentator/comedian. And you’re right, this was a good one.
“As for the Republicans, well, they won’t listen to Maher anyway, but his last sentence is a slogan they should take to heart.”
Republicans routinely appear on Maher’s show, yet he can’t get prominent Democrats to bother. It seems only one side will look him in the face while he slings barbs and disagrees.
I liked his monologue, but the idea that only one is sliding into autocracy is not supported by the evidence. Woke might be batty, but it becomes something far more pernicious when enforced by the power of the State.
Trump ran ads that are now famous. Quote from one of those ads ‘Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you’. The ads were deemed to be highly effective (as political ads go).