Podcast Summary: Bulwark Takes

Episode: If a Liberal Wrote This, They’d Be Fired INSTANTLY
Date: September 27, 2025
Host & Guests: JVL and Andrew Egger

Episode Overview

JVL and Andrew Egger dissect a provocative, openly violent editorial by Jeffrey Ingersoll (Daily Caller’s editor-at-large), specifically focusing on the asymmetric standards of political rhetoric and calls to violence between right-wing and left-wing media figures in America. The episode is a critical, often darkly humorous conversation about the broader willingness of right-wing media to condone, ignore, or even champion explicit calls to violence, and how media double standards fuel dangerous dynamics in American politics.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Climate of Political Violence & Its Treatment on Both Sides

• Opening Framing: JVL remarks on the ongoing national concern over political violence, recounting infamous moments from the Trump rallies to January 6th and the assassination of Charlie Kirk (00:45).
• Asymmetric Responsibility: Both hosts agree that, on the national level, mainstream liberals and Democrats have generally been responsible in their rhetoric, while examples of left-wing incitement are rare and minor ("small town mayors…800 person Pennsylvania town").
  • Andrew Egger: “The people who have been held up as the most grievous examples of left wing justification have been like small town mayors... There’s one of those more at the national level—Ilhan Omar—but hers was a clear condemnation of political violence." (02:33)

2. The Jeffrey Ingersoll Editorial: "I Choose Violence"

• The Editorial’s Source & Context:

  • JVL describes the Daily Caller as a substantial, but not top-tier, right-wing publication; not "an intern or one-off," but Ingersoll is former chief and current editor-at-large. (05:04)
  • The hosts discuss the outlet's evolution and seriousness relative to its right-wing peers (03:30–04:53).

• Open Advocacy for Violence:

  • JVL Reads Ingersoll:
    • “We need to reinstitute a public debt for antisocial and subversive behavior...Some of this cost needs to be summary and ultra violent. Is this a call for violence? Yes, explicitly it is." (05:04–06:25)
  • Andrew Egger: “Not just violence, but ultra violence. I wonder if Ingersoll means anything specific by that or whether that's just kind of a punch up word...” (06:25)

• Justifications for Violence:

  • Ingersoll frames violence as necessary due to a "corrupt" system:
    • “In corrupt legal scenarios...What do we do? Choose violence. We all know the government is not going to help you in your time of need. Especially a Soros sponsored government.” (06:36–07:33)
  • The hosts point out that Ingersoll offers no plausible deniability, making the editorial a rare instance of a mainstream right-wing figure explicitly calling for blood in the streets.

• Examples of Incitement:

  • Quotes from Ingersoll’s piece reveal explicit instructions for violent and disproportionate retaliation in public and private scenarios:
    • “Bring security with you that’s dying to dole out drubbings...I want blood in the streets.” (09:26–10:56)
    • “Book the kind of security that has no qualms hospitalizing her and people like her.” (09:26–10:56)

3. Double Standards and Hypocrisy

• Host Reflection:

  • JVL wonders aloud about the double standard: “Can you imagine what Fox News would say if the editor of the New Republic wrote a piece demanding 'I want blood in the streets?'” (10:56)
  • Discussion on how the right scrutinizes even minor perceived incitements from the left, yet seemingly tolerates far more egregious rhetoric on its own side.

• On Asymmetric Media Accountability:

  • JVL: “If some liberal magazine editor wrote this column, basically every Democrat with any sort of national ambition would be put on the spot and told to repudiate it. I think that editor would probably lose his job within an hour or two. ... This is the Daily Caller...This is a guy who was the editor and is now the editor at large saying explicitly that he wants blood in the streets.” (20:14–21:50)

4. The MAGA/Right-Wing Approach to Power and Violence

• Internal Contradictions:

  • Andrew points out that Ingersoll’s column is internally inconsistent:
    • “On one hand he’s calling for more and more law and order...and then on the other hand he says...the justice system is completely incapable...the only thing to do is get out there and start cracking heads. I don't really understand that.” (13:57–15:00)
  • The posture of being the lone "bold truth-teller" is critiqued as posturing that appeals to the basest instincts rather than real courage or principle.

• Fascism and Power:

  • JVL frames the editorial’s logic as essentially fascist—about pure power, not consistency:

    • “This is what fascism always winds up being. It’s just about power. ... There is no pause being given between 'wait, shouldn’t we use the law' vs. 'shouldn't we just bash heads?'” (17:08)

  • Both discuss how the right supports state violence when perpetrated by their "side," but is outraged when the same actions are taken against their movement (e.g., January 6th), concluding it's not about principle but about might making right (17:08–20:14).

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• JVL:

  • "Is this a call for violence? Yes, explicitly it is... There is nothing in this piece that is put there to give him plausible deniability." (06:01)
  • “Can you imagine what Fox News would say…if the editor of the New Republic wrote a piece demanding 'I want blood in the streets'?" (10:56)
  • “It’s all about power, right? And this is what fascism always, always winds up being. ... There is no pause being given.” (17:08)

• Andrew Egger:

  • “My very first initial thought is just not just violence, but ultra violence. ... He's really letting it fly.” (06:25)
  • “It really grinds my gears how these things are always written from a posture of: I am the only bold truth teller willing to say the thing that must be said... It's like, come on, man. I don't want to live in a cave and wear animal furs and try to bash your head in with a club.” (13:57–15:55)

• Summary Statement:

  • JVL: "If some liberal magazine editor wrote this column, basically every Democrat with any sort of national ambition would be put on the spot and told to repudiate it. ... This is a guy who was the editor and is now the editor at large saying explicitly that he's making a call for violence and he wants blood in the streets...I want you to leave in the comments for me the name of every Republican elected Republican and conservative writer ... who you see denouncing this guy because it's gonna be a short fucking list. That's the asymmetry guys." (20:14–21:50)

Key Segment Timestamps

• The landscape of political violence and left/right responsibility – 00:45–03:30
• Daily Caller/Jeffrey Ingersoll column background – 03:30–05:04
• Quoting & analyzing 'I Choose Violence' – 05:04–11:35
• On mainstreaming violent answers and hypocrisy – 10:56–13:32
• Contradictions within the right's calls for law/order and violence – 13:57–17:08
• Fascism, power, and the MAGA approach to violence – 17:08–20:14
• Concluding analysis of media double standards – 20:14–22:21

Tone and Style

Throughout, JVL and Egger maintain a sardonic, exasperated tone, mixing gallows humor with deep concern and sharp critique. They are blunt and unsparing in their language when discussing the gravity of violent rhetoric and hypocrisy in the media and political ecosystem.

Bottom Line:
This episode is a searing critique of asymmetrical accountability in American politics and media regarding violent rhetoric, using the Ingersoll column as both evidence and warning. Its core argument is: if a liberal public figure published anything close to what Ingersoll wrote, they would be fired instantly and become national news, while on the right, such calls are ignored, tolerated, or quietly cheered—an asymmetry with grave implications for the country.