Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-17-2008, 06:13 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Wonder Years

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-17-2008, 06:17 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: The Wonder Years

In a recent episode Brink got perilously close to sanity. I thought he was about to endorse Obama! So this should be interesting.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-17-2008, 07:24 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: The Wonder Years

I was wrong. You can skip the first 37 minutes, unless you want to hear the conservative view of the last 40 years.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-17-2008, 08:26 PM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
In a recent episode Brink got perilously close to sanity. I thought he was about to endorse Obama! So this should be interesting.
clay, he actually did endorse obama.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-17-2008, 07:36 PM
nojp nojp is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: rochester ny
Posts: 30
Default The Wonder of frum

Are you F ing kidding me....

We borrowed every bit of the Reagan prosperity and we now have 10+ trillion in debt and have 3 million people locked up but by god we have clean shiny safe cities....good job frum what about sustainability?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-17-2008, 09:48 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: The Wonder of frum

Quote:
we now have 10+ trillion in debt and have 3 million people locked up but by god we have clean shiny safe cities...
But the best part is when I wear shorts the backs of my legs don't stick to the vinyl seats in the orange Gremlin.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-18-2008, 05:29 AM
libertasanimus libertasanimus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: The Wonder of frum

Quote:
Originally Posted by nojp View Post
Are you F ing kidding me....

We borrowed every bit of the Reagan prosperity and we now have 10+ trillion in debt and have 3 million people locked up but by god we have clean shiny safe cities....good job frum what about sustainability?
I agree with Brink, but I respect Frum and I think that based on his statements in the diavlog that he cares about the environment and sustainability. Check out the last fifteen minutes of the diavlog, Frum was critizizing the '08 Republican Convention for having "drill, baby, drill" as a slogan. Later, he states that the Republican party needs to embrace environmentalism in order to have a shot at regaining power.
__________________
"You're neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You're right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right—and that's the only thing that makes you right. And if your facts and reasoning are right, you don't have to worry about anybody else."
-Warren Buffett

If you want the truth to stand clear before you never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.
-Sent-ts'an, C. 700 C.E.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-17-2008, 08:42 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The Wonder Years

brink is my new favorite guy for all things that make sense.

i wish they'd talk about the need for a new type of social conservatism.
the religious right are the only ones advocating social conservatism. the problem with them is that their arguments are premised on the existence of jesus. so too many of the left end up dismissing social conservatism outright because their supporters seem so illogical. and yet, by dismissing social conservatism outright, we are only left with hedonism... which as brink pointed out, will not lead to prosperity.

i'd like to see a new brand of nationalism and cultural identity that transcends existing ethnic and class divisions. in sum, we need a new, inclusive social conservatism to take the place of the existing waspy one. i suppose obama's life story is the best representative of that ideal..

television and music are the best markers for what we value as a society. we used to see ayn rand on television in the 1950s. people used to be famous because they were important. now our society thinks that people are important *because* they are famous.

hard work is no longer a virtue, but is in fact a waste of time. we need a new ideology that counteracts these forces. we need a new social consciousness that isn't so blatantly anti-rational as christianity.

2008 may have brought an end to the importance of the ignorant southern evangelical vote, but now we face a new problem... the equally anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-pragmatist liberals. e.g., vegans, subscribers of homeopathic remedies, eco-terrorists.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-18-2008, 05:38 AM
libertasanimus libertasanimus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
brink is my new favorite guy for all things that make sense.

i wish they'd talk about the need for a new type of social conservatism.
the religious right are the only ones advocating social conservatism. the problem with them is that their arguments are premised on the existence of jesus. so too many of the left end up dismissing social conservatism outright because their supporters seem so illogical. and yet, by dismissing social conservatism outright, we are only left with hedonism... which as brink pointed out, will not lead to prosperity.

i'd like to see a new brand of nationalism and cultural identity that transcends existing ethnic and class divisions. in sum, we need a new, inclusive social conservatism to take the place of the existing waspy one. i suppose obama's life story is the best representative of that ideal..

television and music are the best markers for what we value as a society. we used to see ayn rand on television in the 1950s. people used to be famous because they were important. now our society thinks that people are important *because* they are famous.

hard work is no longer a virtue, but is in fact a waste of time. we need a new ideology that counteracts these forces. we need a new social consciousness that isn't so blatantly anti-rational as christianity.

2008 may have brought an end to the importance of the ignorant southern evangelical vote, but now we face a new problem... the equally anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-pragmatist liberals. e.g., vegans, subscribers of homeopathic remedies, eco-terrorists.
I agree with some of your ideas and don't understand how you reach some of your other conclusions. Could you specifically explain what is irrational about veganism, homeopathic remedies, and eco-terrorism?
__________________
"You're neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You're right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right—and that's the only thing that makes you right. And if your facts and reasoning are right, you don't have to worry about anybody else."
-Warren Buffett

If you want the truth to stand clear before you never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.
-Sent-ts'an, C. 700 C.E.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-18-2008, 10:23 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by libertasanimus View Post
I agree with some of your ideas and don't understand how you reach some of your other conclusions. Could you specifically explain what is irrational about veganism, homeopathic remedies, and eco-terrorism?
1. why are there no vegans in starving countries?
because they're fucking hungry. veganism
it is a false ideology that comes from having too much.
vegans end up killing their babies through malnourishment.
the whole premise is wrong because it starts from:
killing animals is wrong, and that's the end of discussion.
it is just as irrational as claiming the bible to be absolute.
discussion is impossible with these people because their premises are wrong.
one day we'll have protesters calling to end the suffering of plants.


2. homeopathic remedies are not science. thinking that eating some special plant will save you from cancer is just as ridiculous as saying some shaman in australia can rid your body of disease.

3. eco-terrorists are always young people who have no idea what the fuck they're doing. environment issues are important, but put into the perspective of millions of dying africans of hiv, malaria, tuberculosis, its just nowhere near the level of importance in relation to the amount of press. if you really want to preserve the environment, then first world nations should stop having babies. no amount of recycling and renewables is going to beat that.

Last edited by sugarkang; 11-18-2008 at 10:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:14 AM
DoctorMoney DoctorMoney is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 305
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
television and music are the best markers for what we value as a society. we used to see ayn rand on television in the 1950s. people used to be famous because they were important. now our society thinks that people are important *because* they are famous.

hard work is no longer a virtue, but is in fact a waste of time. we need a new ideology that counteracts these forces.
What a weird string of things to think.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:52 AM
Trevor Trevor is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 44
Default The New Square Left

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarkang View Post
i wish they'd talk about the need for a new type of social conservatism.
...
i'd like to see a new brand of nationalism and cultural identity that transcends existing ethnic and class divisions. in sum, we need a new, inclusive social conservatism to take the place of the existing waspy one. i suppose obama's life story is the best representative of that ideal..
I think that this is the problem Frum is talking about. This kind of "social conservatism" exists, but it's now on the left.

I've only heard stories about what it was like when Brink and David was there, but these days Harvard Law School is chock full of people who believe in hard work and personal responsibility, who believe in the power of markets, who want to get married and have stable families. They are very conservative in how they live their personal lives. They drive a lot of the old leftists on the faculty crazy with their complete lack of revolutionary radicalism. And the vast majority of them vote Democrat.

They do because the party of social conservatism, and social conservative activists, are too hung up on defending old prejudices to make a positive case for anything. Young people know that gays don't threaten their relationships or their marriages. They've figured out that you can have premarital sex without free love. They recognize that talent and ambition aren't limited to a specific race or sex, and they expect the demographics of their surroundings to reflect that. There are some smart conservatives who've figured this out too, but interest group politics has left the dead-enders in charge of the conservative coalition. Young people, even deeply square young people, are going to stay overwhelmingly Democratic until the left has won these issues the way conservatives won about crime and communism.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-19-2008, 07:23 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The New Square Left

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
I think that this is the problem Frum is talking about. This kind of "social conservatism" exists, but it's now on the left.

I've only heard stories about what it was like when Brink and David was there, but these days Harvard Law School is chock full of people who believe in hard work and personal responsibility, who believe in the power of markets, who want to get married and have stable families. They are very conservative in how they live their personal lives. They drive a lot of the old leftists on the faculty crazy with their complete lack of revolutionary radicalism. And the vast majority of them vote Democrat.
yeah i think that's pretty spot on. obama is the personification of old american values who just happens to be black. no doubt that he lives a conservative life himself. and yet when you think of a typical conservative, you don't think obama. i wish he'd talk about self-reliance and hard work more and speak less about greedy big companies and greedy boogeymen. because while i do believe that wall street gives us very little by way of social, economic wealth, we need to resurrect the idea of personal responsibility.

when you see past the seething anger of hannity and co., there exists the very real problem of weak family values, teenage pregnancies and single mothers. back when obama was a kid, his grandparents helped raise him while his mother worked. but today's single mothers don't have that family structure to depend on.

too many single mothers are just completely on their own, which we know leads to poverty ---> children without education and ethical values ---> lack of opportunity --> criminal activity --> overcrowded prisons ---> higher taxes.

the right drives me nuts when they try to block birth control and abortion.
the left drives me nuts when they try to block programs that stop drug addicts from having babies. i wonder what brink would say about this.

Last edited by sugarkang; 11-19-2008 at 07:33 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-19-2008, 10:15 PM
bkjazfan bkjazfan is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Los Angeles, Ca.
Posts: 1,192
Default Re: The New Square Left

A Douist,

The chances of the left having libertarians joining them is remote if not impossible. The dems stand for big government like the repubs and that is one thing libertarians abhore.

Take the bailout manias going on with backing by both political parties and where does Ron Paul stand on it: against all of them.

John
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-20-2008, 02:18 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The New Square Left

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkjazfan View Post

Take the bailout manias going on with backing by both political parties and where does Ron Paul stand on it: against all of them.

John
but like brink said, it used to be that republicans were good on small gov't, and bad on social issues. dems were bad on gov't and good on social issues. now the repubs are just as big gov't as the dems are AND bad on social issues. and since clinton made huge military cuts, dems are arguably more responsible with money. cutting military spending for example.

so who are the libertarians like me going to side with? the left is clearly the lesser of evils.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-17-2008, 09:35 PM
fedorovingtonboop fedorovingtonboop is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 216
Default Re: The Wonder Years

david frum <-- do not want
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-17-2008, 09:40 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Aw, I like a conservative who can just come out and say it. Stuff like, "the social safety net is bad because people need to have the fear of starvation in 'em." That beats a bunch of mumbling about the magical free market.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-18-2008, 05:41 AM
libertasanimus libertasanimus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
Aw, I like a conservative who can just come out and say it. Stuff like, "the social safety net is bad because people need to have the fear of starvation in 'em." That beats a bunch of mumbling about the magical free market.
When I meet such people I usually refer them to this passage from the book that gave birth to capitalism:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-Adam Smith

I encourage you to do the same. The ignorance or intellectual dishonesty of conservatives on the progressive tax (social safety net) disappoints me.
__________________
"You're neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You're right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right—and that's the only thing that makes you right. And if your facts and reasoning are right, you don't have to worry about anybody else."
-Warren Buffett

If you want the truth to stand clear before you never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.
-Sent-ts'an, C. 700 C.E.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:09 PM
Tara Davis Tara Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 193
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by libertasanimus View Post
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-Adam Smith

I encourage you to do the same. The ignorance or intellectual dishonesty of conservatives on the progressive tax (social safety net) disappoints me.
Jeez, I'm getting sick of liberals taking Smith out of context on the subject of progressive tax.

Cluetrain coming:

When Adam Smith wrote that, there was no welfare state.

Smith believed that the rich should pay for most of government, because the main function of government in those days was to protect the prosperity of the rich, mostly from the theft and violence by those who lacked property of their own.

In other words, the rich were the main customers of the government, so it made sense that the rich pay for it.

Smith never would have fathomed in his day (when most of the civilized world was still largely run by monarchies) that government would someday be in the business of taking money from the well-off to simply GIVE it to the poor and struggling.

And keep in mind that the Smith quote you read is advocating a tax on the super-wealthy, which a progressive income-tax system is not.

The super-wealthy in modern western civilization do not (and never have) rely on salaries. Obama's "top 5 percent" are not captains of industry or wealthy heiresses. They are surgeons with steep student-loan payments, small business owners obsessing over the pens in their supply closets, and lawyers who gave up the primes of their youths to get where they are.

If you want to soak the rich, you should do so with property taxes, luxury taxes, and estate taxes, and have the intellectual honesty to recognize the dampening such a corse of action might have on the economy. (A lot of yacht-builders lost their jobs last time a major luxury tax was attempted.)

Steve Jobs has an annual salary from Apple Computer of $1 per year. Whether the top marginal rate is 35 or 39 or even 70 percent will not get another dime out of his deep pockets.

But it could mean a lot of upper-management types not having summer homes built, which will mean fewer construction jobs. And it will also mean fewer ambitious capitalists getting rich quick and retiring young, making room for others to ascend up their corporate ladders.

As is all too often the case, advocates of bigger government fail to consider the unintended consequences. Over-taxing "those who can afford it" still hurts those who can't.

Or as Sen. Thompson so adroitly put it: "Don't worry. They're not going to take anything from you. They just want to take water from the OTHER side of the bucket!"
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:59 PM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tara Davis View Post

The super-wealthy in modern western civilization do not (and never have) rely on salaries. Obama's "top 5 percent" are not captains of industry or wealthy heiresses. They are surgeons with steep student-loan payments, small business owners obsessing over the pens in their supply closets, and lawyers who gave up the primes of their youths to get where they are.
i'm amazed by the lack of reasoning on the left AND the right.
jesus h. christ, nobody is talking about lawyers and doctors having to prop up the poor and irresponsible.

lawyers ON AVERAGE make 85K per year. these people would get a tax cut. save me the crap about steep student loan payments because i'm in law school now.

compare that to the bankers, fund managers, stock brokers, that need nothing more than a high school education to get their jobs and DO NOT ADD wealth to society. 400 million dollar severance packages. does anyone really *deserve* that much money? yes, if you're a job creator. these people are not.

so in essence WE ARE talking about the paris hiltons, the celebrities, the socialites, the bankers, the traders that should pay the burden. and yes, if the yacht industry collapses because the rich get taxed more, i don't see why that's such a big deal. the new consumer market for rich people is absolutely appalling. $10,000 vertu mobile phones, $8,000 earphones? give me a break.

i hate seeing entrepreneurs get taxed, because they raise living standards for everyone. but if you're making OVER $250K a year, and half the nation is struggling, how about supporting the system that made you wealthy in the first place?

I'd like to see the bulk of tax revenues go into infrastructure, rather than as a cash payout. schools hours need to be doubled with exercise programs reinstated to combat obesity. that means plenty more teachers. end jail time for drug addicts, and use that money instead to promote birth control amongst those who are irresponsible. double the jail time for violent criminals.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-17-2008, 10:36 PM
osmium osmium is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: new yorkistan
Posts: 708
Default Re: The Wonder Years

I enjoyed this discussion a lot. Getting to see what people really think, no talking points, and everyone likes each other--how much better could it get?

Dear David, When you went for the radio I was like no no no no nope, because radio was just fine in the 70s and completely blows now. But ok, you said iPod, iPod, ok sure. You could even put some 70s stuff on there. KC and the Sunshine Band aside...

Last edited by osmium; 11-17-2008 at 10:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-17-2008, 11:11 PM
cmonsour cmonsour is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 15
Default Re: The Wonder Years

I disagree with David Frum too strongly in temperament and basic sympathies to find his arguments convincing. But I enjoyed this conversation. I remember Frum's Bloggingheads episode with Mark Schmitt, which should have been excellent but which was a total waste of time, mainly because Frum was condescending and apparently uninterested in real dialog. (He did later post some more reasonable thoughts, though still not ones I agreed with.)

I wonder what Frum would be like if he were less of (as he characterizes himself) a "party man." At any rate, he represents the sane wing of the Republican party at this point. I hope he manages to help turn his party around -- though I hope it doesn't happen for a while, because I hope the reinvigorated center-left will get a nice, long opportunity to try its hand at steering the ship of state. It's certainly possible that they (we) could screw things up (or fail to unscrew them). But if they manage not to, things might just get really good again.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-18-2008, 05:53 AM
libertasanimus libertasanimus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by cmonsour View Post
I disagree with David Frum too strongly in temperament and basic sympathies to find his arguments convincing. But I enjoyed this conversation. I remember Frum's Bloggingheads episode with Mark Schmitt, which should have been excellent but which was a total waste of time, mainly because Frum was condescending and apparently uninterested in real dialog. (He did later post some more reasonable thoughts, though still not ones I agreed with.)

I wonder what Frum would be like if he were less of (as he characterizes himself) a "party man." At any rate, he represents the sane wing of the Republican party at this point. I hope he manages to help turn his party around -- though I hope it doesn't happen for a while, because I hope the reinvigorated center-left will get a nice, long opportunity to try its hand at steering the ship of state. It's certainly possible that they (we) could screw things up (or fail to unscrew them). But if they manage not to, things might just get really good again.
I respect David Frum. I'm a liberal, but I try to be reasonable and read The National Review and now that I've read that he is leaving I don't see how I can continue reading it.

You say that you disagree with Frum's temperament and sympathies too much to find his arguments convincing. In this diavalog, he explained that he can't trust the democratic party because he feels that the party's basic sympathies aren't in the right place. What do you think he meant by that?
__________________
"You're neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You're right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right—and that's the only thing that makes you right. And if your facts and reasoning are right, you don't have to worry about anybody else."
-Warren Buffett

If you want the truth to stand clear before you never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.
-Sent-ts'an, C. 700 C.E.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-18-2008, 01:39 AM
nikkibong nikkibong is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,803
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Um. Wow. Behold Brink Lindsey, "sensible" conservative, labeling the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism "crazy radical excesses."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...5:28&out=15:40

The kind of right-wing social history provided in this diavlog is fascinating, if a little bit scary at times.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:13 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Um. Wow. Behold Brink Lindsey, "sensible" conservative, labeling the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism "crazy radical excesses."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...5:28&out=15:40

The kind of right-wing social history provided in this diavlog is fascinating, if a little bit scary at times.
Distorted story nonetheless...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-18-2008, 06:11 AM
libertasanimus libertasanimus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Um. Wow. Behold Brink Lindsey, "sensible" conservative, labeling the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism "crazy radical excesses."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...5:28&out=15:40

The kind of right-wing social history provided in this diavlog is fascinating, if a little bit scary at times.
I respect Brink and I am 99.999999% certain that he is and always has been an equal supporter of equal rights for ethnic minorities and women. He is a libertarian from the Cato Institute after all. He clearly stated that he supported Reagan because he felt that the economic issues were the most important issue. From a civil rights or woman's rights perspective, that is the best approach. Minorities and women suffer more in bad economic times, so if a reasonably person in the 80's who did their homework concluded that Reaganism was going to get the economy on track, we shouldn't mock such a reasonable position.

I think when he used that label to talk about the Civil Rights and Feminist movements, he meant the radical fringe elements. Certainly the Panthers and Redstockings could have been more diplomatic in presenting their legitimate grievances before the American people. Had they been more diplomatic, the "silent majority" who were New Deal democrats probably wouldn't have left the democratic party.

I cannot predict your political affiliations, but I doubt you are a full throated supporter of the radical environmentalist groups like the ELF. Twenty years from now when we discuss environmentalism, we might characterize some aspects of the movement as "crazy radical excesses" in the context of a free flowing diavalog and if we do that, it shouldn't be proof that we are not environmentalists.
__________________
"You're neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You're right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right—and that's the only thing that makes you right. And if your facts and reasoning are right, you don't have to worry about anybody else."
-Warren Buffett

If you want the truth to stand clear before you never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.
-Sent-ts'an, C. 700 C.E.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-19-2008, 04:27 AM
Tyrrell McAllister Tyrrell McAllister is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 121
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikkibong View Post
Um. Wow. Behold Brink Lindsey, "sensible" conservative, labeling the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism "crazy radical excesses."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...5:28&out=15:40

The kind of right-wing social history provided in this diavlog is fascinating, if a little bit scary at times.
I really think that you are misinterpreting that clip there. Listen to the two minutes surrounding your excerpt: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...5:00&out=16:56

To me it is clear the Brink was not calling the civil rights movement and feminism "crazy radical excesses". His story runs like this

properity -----> people aren't entirely consumed by where dinner's coming from tonight -----> people turn to more abstract, longer-term concerns -----> some people take their solutions to these concerns to "crazy" extremes.

In the two minutes above, he briefly summarizes this story, concluding with the "crazy radical excesses" line. Then, immediately after that, he goes back over it in more detail, starting with the feminists and the civil rights movement. The brief segment you quoted is the tail end of the summary and the very beginning of the detailed recapitulation. In isolation, it looks like the "crazy radical extremes" refers directly to the feminists and the civil rights movement. But, seen in context, I think that you stitched together two distinct "runs" through his story. It was not a point in the middle of the story, where each sentence leads immediately into the next. It was a "reset point" right after the "outline", where he rewinds back to the beginning and gives the fleshed-out version of the story. When he mentioned feminists and the civil rights movements, he's internally rewound back to the "reasonable" liberals. He's not yet talking about the liberals who went to what he views as irrational extremes.

Last edited by Tyrrell McAllister; 11-19-2008 at 04:28 AM.. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:16 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Wonder Years

We all bring with us our little stories. Brink and David are no exception. One can take any period in history and create as many stories as one’s own imagination desires. One just has to pick and choose what facts or quasi-facts are convenient for one's plot and voila! One becomes a novel writer or a historian.

The rest of my comment, which contains the ‘Truth’ will be written in my first language.

Señores, están bastante confundidos en cuanto a la historia de su propio país. El error es tan grosero, que la única solución, por el momento, es que vayan a confesarse inmediatamente, y luego, en penitencia, recen 1,500 Padre Nuestros y 1,500 Ave Marías. Noten el detalle delicado de la equivalencia numérica: se trata del principio de igualdad, del cual ustedes están bastante lejos. Pero, claro, siempre hay esperanza…

Good try.

Last edited by Ocean; 11-18-2008 at 02:18 AM.. Reason: correction
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-18-2008, 06:12 AM
libertasanimus libertasanimus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: The Wonder Years

You suggest that Brink and Frum have grossly mischaracterized history. What specific inferences or specific facts that they used to support their historical conclusions do you dispute?
__________________
"You're neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You're right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right—and that's the only thing that makes you right. And if your facts and reasoning are right, you don't have to worry about anybody else."
-Warren Buffett

If you want the truth to stand clear before you never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.
-Sent-ts'an, C. 700 C.E.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-18-2008, 01:04 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by libertasanimus View Post
You suggest that Brink and Frum have grossly mischaracterized history. What specific inferences or specific facts that they used to support their historical conclusions do you dispute?
I tried to place a dingalink here but I was unable to do it for some odd reason.

There are multiple aspects of this discussion that I had problems with. I found that some of the narrative was meaningful but there were many aspects that just didn't fit. I found myself taken aback by some of the bias displayed by two obviously intelligent and knowledgeable people.

Among other things I found some of the explanations given to the rise of liberalism, civil rights and hippie culture in the 60's, simplistic to say the least. Brink, for example says that as a result of the post-war economic growth int the 50's, people kind of started 'looking around thinking about happiness and pleasure and ended up in hedonism'. Wow! He included civil rights movement and feminism! Is he implying these are aspects of hedonism? Pleasure seeking? At most one could say that at the time a new balance was reached after the economic and war turmoil of previous decades and people had to come to terms with some painful realities about their own "slavery". Perhaps it was a result of a society reaching a certain degree of maturity. That generation also reacted to the conservatism of the previous generations. Perhaps people looked at their parents' lives and saw their shortcomings. How many women in the feminist movement may have looked at their mothers imprisoned in a repressive society that never allowed their full development? How many blacks may have realized that their parents or themselves fought side by side in the wars, worked hard to build this country, took care of their children and yet they were always unappreciated and left behind? Were they supposed to stay in this prison for ever? Are they to be blamed when they ask to have their conditions changed, and after years of not getting a response they finally say "No more!". And even then, silence and disregard from the other side. How many of those people may have reached the point of demanding their freedom, and the other side would say "next year". How many next years? Sometimes when people haven't been able to cut their chains and they remain prisoners in their cells, they create a world of fantasy. Escapism is the illusion of freedom when freedom doesn't exist. But it's a weak and temporary solution. It's a way to ease their pain. And they talk about hedonism!

So, yes, I had a negative response to this diavlog because of its shallowness in perspective, and because it ignores the root causes of the deep social changes in the 60's. Let's just think where we would be if the civil rights movement had been squashed in order to maintain status quo.

I would suggest that if the topic of civil rights is going to be discussed, they invite a discussant who represents those minorities, instead of two members of the 'establishment'. It looks like they see these social changes as a 'hobby'. It may be hyperbole on my part, but it illustrates the point. And I'm sure that both Brink and David are able to do a better job on this topic. They somehow got in a peculiar perspective.

And if the topic is going to be about hedonism, please discuss it in more depth, which would be quite interesting, but don't confuse the topics.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-18-2008, 01:11 PM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: The Wonder Years

It is sickening how certain conservatives lump racial and gender equality in with permissiveness and lawlessness. That's yer privilege talking there.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-18-2008, 01:26 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by claymisher View Post
It is sickening how certain conservatives lump racial and gender equality in with permissiveness and lawlessness. That's yer privilege talking there.
Clay,

Present your ideas for discussion. I'm very interested to hear (read?) more. I'm going to be out for a while though...
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:00 PM
Ray Ray is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 408
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
Brink, for example says that as a result of the post-war economic growth int the 50's, people kind of started 'looking around thinking about happiness and pleasure and ended up in hedonism'. Wow! He included civil rights movement and feminism! Is he implying these are aspects of hedonism? Pleasure seeking?
Yeah. What is it with conservatives and libertarians and television? It's strange how much TV dominates their understanding of the world.

Hippies were telegenic. So was Beaver Cleaver. Neither accurately represents or explains an historical period.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:29 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray View Post
Yeah. What is it with conservatives and libertarians and television? It's strange how much TV dominates their understanding of the world.

Hippies were telegenic. So was Beaver Cleaver. Neither accurately represents or explains an historical period.
I think I should better read and not comment these days. I don't mind the disagreement, it's mostly having no clue that discourages me. One day at a time...
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-26-2008, 04:29 AM
libertasanimus libertasanimus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ocean View Post
I tried to place a dingalink here but I was unable to do it for some odd reason.

There are multiple aspects of this discussion that I had problems with. I found that some of the narrative was meaningful but there were many aspects that just didn't fit. I found myself taken aback by some of the bias displayed by two obviously intelligent and knowledgeable people.

Among other things I found some of the explanations given to the rise of liberalism, civil rights and hippie culture in the 60's, simplistic to say the least. Brink, for example says that as a result of the post-war economic growth int the 50's, people kind of started 'looking around thinking about happiness and pleasure and ended up in hedonism'. Wow! He included civil rights movement and feminism! Is he implying these are aspects of hedonism? Pleasure seeking? At most one could say that at the time a new balance was reached after the economic and war turmoil of previous decades and people had to come to terms with some painful realities about their own "slavery". Perhaps it was a result of a society reaching a certain degree of maturity. That generation also reacted to the conservatism of the previous generations. Perhaps people looked at their parents' lives and saw their shortcomings. How many women in the feminist movement may have looked at their mothers imprisoned in a repressive society that never allowed their full development? How many blacks may have realized that their parents or themselves fought side by side in the wars, worked hard to build this country, took care of their children and yet they were always unappreciated and left behind? Were they supposed to stay in this prison for ever? Are they to be blamed when they ask to have their conditions changed, and after years of not getting a response they finally say "No more!". And even then, silence and disregard from the other side. How many of those people may have reached the point of demanding their freedom, and the other side would say "next year". How many next years? Sometimes when people haven't been able to cut their chains and they remain prisoners in their cells, they create a world of fantasy. Escapism is the illusion of freedom when freedom doesn't exist. But it's a weak and temporary solution. It's a way to ease their pain. And they talk about hedonism!

So, yes, I had a negative response to this diavlog because of its shallowness in perspective, and because it ignores the root causes of the deep social changes in the 60's. Let's just think where we would be if the civil rights movement had been squashed in order to maintain status quo.

I would suggest that if the topic of civil rights is going to be discussed, they invite a discussant who represents those minorities, instead of two members of the 'establishment'. It looks like they see these social changes as a 'hobby'. It may be hyperbole on my part, but it illustrates the point. And I'm sure that both Brink and David are able to do a better job on this topic. They somehow got in a peculiar perspective.

And if the topic is going to be about hedonism, please discuss it in more depth, which would be quite interesting, but don't confuse the topics.

I am certain that both Brink and Frum are more knowledgeable about this period of history than me; they have both written books on the era.

I wouldn't judge them too harsly on their free ranging conversation. When they go from the 50s to the 80s and they talk about the hedonism that went on I think about the sex, drugs, and rock n roll in the late 60s and early 70s all culminating in Studio 54. When I was in high school and college I told my mother what went on at parties and she always would play the really conservative mom and advise me not to do anything irresponsible. One day I overheard my mom on the phone with her friend talking about Studio 54 and she came clean with me and told me that she never was worried about anything that I did because she had personally seen the very worst. She told me that she couldn't describe the hedonism that went on at Studio 54 specifically and the late 70s early 80s generally... the last party at Studio 54 was called "The End of Modern-day Gomorrah."

When Frum talks about hedonism, I think he is talking about the 70s/80s, in order to get to the 70s/80s he starts in the 50s and talks about the civil rights movement and the feminist movement and the liberalism that drove those movements and then ends up talking about the hedonism of the 70s/80s that was also a result of liberal ideas about freedom.
__________________
"You're neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You're right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right—and that's the only thing that makes you right. And if your facts and reasoning are right, you don't have to worry about anybody else."
-Warren Buffett

If you want the truth to stand clear before you never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.
-Sent-ts'an, C. 700 C.E.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-26-2008, 09:43 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Thank you for the clarification. I certainly don't know enough about that important period of contemporary American history. I only know pieces here and there.

Your post ellicits some deeper thinking about what the process of liberation is like. Regardless of age or historical 'moment', I imagine that the process is similar to that of a teenager trying to understand the adult world, adopting and rejecting values and forming his/her unique views. Whether a developmental stage, or a release from 'prison' the process is probably similar.

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:16 AM
bramble bramble is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 31
Default Unanswered

A tally sheet of the conservative Republican era:

1) Liberalizing trade: accomplished, Democrats on board more or less.

2) Unfettering markets: accomplished, Democrats on board more or less.

3) De-unionizing workforce: mostly accomplished, Democrats mostly NOT on board, and rising inequality creates conditions for this to be reversed. (Side question: if the UAW dies with GM, will this be a good or bad thing for the American union movement?)

4) Reduce entitlements/reduce size of federal government: net failure on both counts, though I guess one can count Welfare reform as a Pyrrhic victory.

5) Law and Order/guns issues: somewhat to mostly accomplished, though to my liberal eyes the rise of the illicit drug market, the gang problem and the prison industry makes the whole enterprise seem like a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Democrats on board.

6) Hawkish Foreign Policy, accomplished, though from my perspective of the 20th Century to the present the doves have never really had much of a place at the table under either party. The notion that peaceniks ended Vietnam has been wildly exaggerated. Democrats on board, but poised to jump off for a while.

7) Abortion and other "family values" issues: net failure. Democrats no longer looking to Tipper Gore for talking points.

There are probably other categories that I've neglected, but it appears from my list that the most unambiguous accomplishments correspond to the demands of globalism. That begs a question. Was conservative ideology or an evolving economic structure the agency of conservative success?

That's the question I'd like to see conservatives debate.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:34 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Unanswered

Quote:

7) Abortion and other "family values" issues: net failure. Democrats no longer looking to Tipper Gore for talking points.

There are probably other categories that I've neglected, but it appears from my list that the most unambiguous accomplishments correspond to the demands of globalism. That begs a question. Was conservative ideology or an evolving economic structure the agency of conservative success?
Would you mind rephrasing these points?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-18-2008, 06:18 AM
libertasanimus libertasanimus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 11
Default Re: Unanswered

Quote:
Originally Posted by bramble View Post
A tally sheet of the conservative Republican era:

1) Liberalizing trade: accomplished, Democrats on board more or less.

2) Unfettering markets: accomplished, Democrats on board more or less.

3) De-unionizing workforce: mostly accomplished, Democrats mostly NOT on board, and rising inequality creates conditions for this to be reversed. (Side question: if the UAW dies with GM, will this be a good or bad thing for the American union movement?)

4) Reduce entitlements/reduce size of federal government: net failure on both counts, though I guess one can count Welfare reform as a Pyrrhic victory.

5) Law and Order/guns issues: somewhat to mostly accomplished, though to my liberal eyes the rise of the illicit drug market, the gang problem and the prison industry makes the whole enterprise seem like a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Democrats on board.

6) Hawkish Foreign Policy, accomplished, though from my perspective of the 20th Century to the present the doves have never really had much of a place at the table under either party. The notion that peaceniks ended Vietnam has been wildly exaggerated. Democrats on board, but poised to jump off for a while.

7) Abortion and other "family values" issues: net failure. Democrats no longer looking to Tipper Gore for talking points.

There are probably other categories that I've neglected, but it appears from my list that the most unambiguous accomplishments correspond to the demands of globalism. That begs a question. Was conservative ideology or an evolving economic structure the agency of conservative success?

That's the question I'd like to see conservatives debate.
I am more interested in the truth than ideology so allow me to try to answer your question.

I think that conservative economic ideology coupled with liberal international institutions was the agency for conservative success, but I think that the conservative economic ideology is the necessary condition for the economic structure. Globalization = Liberalization. Liberalization = free flows of capital, goods, and services across national borders. In other words, the economic system evolved because economic conservatives took over the government of the most powerful country on earth and began promoting their liberal deregulation philosophy around the world.
__________________
"You're neither right nor wrong because other people agree with you. You're right because your facts are right and your reasoning is right—and that's the only thing that makes you right. And if your facts and reasoning are right, you don't have to worry about anybody else."
-Warren Buffett

If you want the truth to stand clear before you never be for or against.
The struggle between "for" and "against" is the minds worst disease.
-Sent-ts'an, C. 700 C.E.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-18-2008, 02:18 AM
banco banco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 9
Default Re: The Wonder Years

Good to see libertarian versus conservative rather then liberal versus conservative
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.