Let's Go (David Frum & Jonah Goldberg)

[Bloggingheads]

[Bloggin' Noggin]

"Was Richard Nixon a socialist?" "Is Barack Obama more of a socialist than Richard Nixon?"

Oh man! This is delicious! Frum is just destroying Goldberg! Peter Beinart (in the name of right-left comity, i guess) always lets him get away with the kind of escape from intellectual seriousness he tries here. 'Well I'm not burning to defend Richard Nixon...blah, blah, blah"
Poor Jonah's habitual gasbaggery isn't going to float him out of his intellectual difficulties this time!

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Bloggin' Noggin

"Was Richard Nixon a socialist?" "Is Barack Obama more of a socialist than Richard Nixon?"

Oh man! This is delicious! Frum is just destroying Goldberg! Peter Beinart (in the name of right-left comity, i guess) always lets him get away with the kind of escape from intellectual seriousness he tries here. 'Well I'm not burning to defend Richard Nixon...blah, blah, blah"
Poor Jonah's habitual gasbaggery isn't going to float him out of his intellectual difficulties this time!

I'd say, given what he had to say about it, that Jonah agrees.

Well, last Thursday David and I finally had our sit-down, as they say on The Sopranos. It was an interesting, civil, and long conversation. But, at least for me, it was pretty anti-climactic and even a bit dispiriting. David did a very good job of discussing those things he wanted to discuss and not discussing those things he didn’t want to discuss (the idiocy of this “epistemic closure” debate sailed over his plate several times, if memory serves. As did my befuddlement with his recent defenses of Woodrow Wilson). As for me, I think — and certainly feel — that I did a pretty piss-poor job of rebutting various points that have grown even less persuasive as they’ve germinated in my mind (this supposed stranglehold of talk radio on conservatism and the GOP, for example, is just very hard to square with the nomination of John McCain in the last presidential election). I can’t remember the last time I left a conversation with more shoulda-coulda-wouldas (the American translation of l’esprit de l’escalier).

Still, David was at his best: smart, polite, civil to a fault and nimble. For those willing to wade through considerable wonkery, my hunch is that reviews will vary considerably.

[themightypuck]

Frum benefits from appearing reasonable. Goldberg knows this. The reason conservatives are angry at Frum is that he isn't playing hard politics and seems to believe that he shouldn't be playing hard politics in his thinkwankery role. Everyone knows Obama is no socialist on the merits (whatever he may be in some essentialist ontology).

[blofeld42]

Uh, I don't think Frum is destroying anyone. Goldberg's right that all those people in Europe who call themselves Democratic Socialists are socialists, and is correct, in my view, that Obama is an admirer of them.

Nixon's domestic policy isn't exactly admired in conservative circles. Wage and price controls, anyone?

[Bloggin' Noggin]

Originally Posted by blofeld42

Nixon's domestic policy isn't exactly admired in conservative circles. Wage and price controls, anyone?

Frum's point is precisely that THIS is more "socialist" than anything that Obama has done, yet Goldberg can't admit this, because he's a hack, not an intellectual.
In the world of hacks, Goldberg may not have been destroyed. But in the world of logic and intellectual honesty, Goldberg was destroyed. Sorry.

[sptm]

But David, that's what makes them happy: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/278...4:01&out=54:15

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by sptm

But David, that's what makes them happy: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/278...4:01&out=54:15

yes, a stunning misunderstanding of what makes a happy meal happy. hint: it's not the fries (or apple slices, is it now?)

frum's canuck roots definitely showing through there.

[graz]

I kept looking for the quote.... but all I could see were peektures.

[graz]

In other words: he's not a socialist...

...but you may be a tool (who fancies himself a hammer, but is more likely a feather duster):

Jonah stumbles, bumbles and tries to smile off another fact as a matter of interpretation.

[chiwhisoxx]

Oh man, I really wish I didn't have to study for exams right now. Really excited to see Johah back on BHTV, and this topic is definitely going to be interesting.

[Don Zeko]

Yikes. Jonah just gets obliterated. with regard to the whole "socialist" thing, I think we all know what Jonah's response would be if it came from the other direction. Let's say that Paul Krugman started calling Marco Rubio a fascist, and when challenged on it explained that when he said "fascist" he didn't really mean someone in favor of creating an undemocratic police state, just someone that wants to dismantle the welfare state and erode civil liberties in the name of counter-terrorism. Why, I feel like Goldberg might need a solid 496 pages to explain why it was wrong of Krugman to say such a thing.

[claymisher]

The Doughy Pantload tells it like it is.

[themightypuck]

Originally Posted by claymisher

The Doughy Pantload tells it like it is.

Nice.

Also mean.

[rcocean]

Tried, but I only listened to part of this. Frum doesn't like talk radio hosts or their "tone", Jonah doesn't like them either but doesn't like David's tone. Frum thinks conservatives need to be open to "new ideas" aka move left, Goldberg disagrees sorta. Ho hum.

Frum of course, has been launching nasty attacks against other conservatives for years - until recently with approval from NR editors Lowry and Goldberg. But now he's worried the talk show conservatives are too abrasive. Ho hum.

As for the whole Manzi-Levin dust-up, who cares? Levin's a popularizer - expecting him to write a detailed, nuanced, balanced analysis of GW is silly. People don't read Levin to get the liberal side of GW, and if they care about the issue, they can get that from the MSM.

[mattcbrown]

Originally Posted by rcocean

But now he's worried the talk show conservatives are too abrasive. Ho hum.

Well, no. He's worried that talk show conservatives are utterly extremist in their rhetoric--to a dangerous degree--and that they have influence on huge numbers of people. And he's worried that this situation makes it difficult for conservatives who actually care about governing to do so. If Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are out there screaming that Obama's a "Marxist", and their audience buys into that, then Joe Moderate Conservative can't exactly work with Obama, lest his/her constituency sees it as a pact with the Devil.

[Jyminee]

After watching many Jonah Goldberg diavlogs, I've noticed a telling tick: he expresses casual disdain with the phrase "all the rest." Examples from just the first five minutes here, here, and here.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by Jyminee

After watching many Jonah Goldberg diavlogs, I've noticed a telling tick: he expresses casual disdain with the phrase "all the rest." Examples from just the first five minutes here, here, and here.

Good observation. He has a number of tricks like that. One that I've long noticed is that whenever his superficiality (or laziness) gets exposed, he resorts to "I don't really want to get into the weeds there." Or, "I haven't had time" or "we don't have the time."

I am not going to bother to dingalink the several instances I heard in this diavlog, but if there somehow sounds unfamiliar to anyone, examples from his writing have been collected.

[Mannish Boy]

Come on, Tony Blair wasn't socialist. The whole idea of New Labour was to turn the Labour Party from a "socialist" party to a centrist party. He might have called himself a social democrat, but that was just to fob of the left wing of his party.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by Mannish Boy

Come on, Tony Blair wasn't socialist. The whole idea of New Labour was to turn the Labour Party from a "socialist" party to a centrist party. He might have called himself a social democrat, but that was just to fob of the left wing of his party.

True. BTW, in a lot of European countries the Socialists (state ownership) broke with the Social Democrats (welfare state) 100 years ago.

If the Pantsload wants to go by European terms then America's Democratic Party (which supports national health care, childcare, education, etc) would be called Conservative or Christian Democratic. The Republican Party would have to be called National Front, National Party, or National Democratic.

[r108dos]

Thanks David. Jonah proved your point. A 'style of politics and thought' for sure.

[claymisher]

So the Pantload complains over and over about Frum's tone, but gives Limbaugh, Beck, and Levin a pass? Why is Frum's mildness so much worse?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by claymisher

So the Pantload complains over and over about Frum's tone, but gives Limbaugh, Beck, and Levin a pass? Why is Frum's mildness so much worse?

Because his mild-mannered criticism is directed at, in part, Limbaugh, Beck, and Levin.

[look]

Originally Posted by claymisher

So the Pantload complains over and over about Frum's tone, but gives Limbaugh, Beck, and Levin a pass? Why is Frum's mildness so much worse?

Because Frum is being given a pass for his neocon axis-of-evil past, and is well on his way to reconstructing his image. As basman kindly put it, 'Jonah is smart enough.' But he's no intellectual, just a well-meaning light-weight who plays at politics.

And now it looks like Frum may be sitting pretty on the foreign policy front, as Obama seems to be leaning toward a Wilsonian footprint.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by look

Because Frum is being given a pass for his neocon axis-of-evil past, and is well on his way to reconstructing his image. As basman kindly put it, 'Jonah is smart enough.' But he's no intellectual, just a well-meaning light-weight who plays at politics.

And now it looks like Frum may be sitting pretty on the foreign policy front, as Obama seems to be leaning toward a Wilsonian footprint.

I don't agree that Frum's being given a pass on anything. Nobody's forgotten his neocon past, or his part in promoting the stupidest war ever, it's just not the most important fact in the current conversation. It's just nice to have opponents who argue honestly - I can think he's badly wrong about just about everything and still appreciate the fact that he hears the arguments that are presented to him and argues on the merits. That latter is not something Jonah does with any grace (and compared to the folks with the biggest media reach [Rush, Levin, etc...], he's a real pussycat.)

[look]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

I don't agree that Frum's being given a pass on anything. Nobody's forgotten his neocon past, or his part in promoting the stupidest war ever, it's just not the most important fact in the current conversation. It's just nice to have opponents who argue honestly - I can think he's badly wrong about just about everything and still appreciate the fact that he hears the arguments that are presented to him and argues on the merits. That latter is not something Jonah does with any grace (and compared to the folks with the biggest media reach [Rush, Levin, etc...], he's a real pussycat.)

He is being given a pass because of the attributes you mentioned above, and the passage of time.

Please recall the Frum/Bacevich dv. He's still a devoted state-building neocon.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by look

He is being given a pass because of the attributes you mentioned above, and the passage of time.

Please recall the Frum/Bacevich dv. He's still a devoted state-building neocon.

That's another conversation. Frum is a devoted state-building neocon who shares a benighted view of foreign policy that led to a pointless, disastrous war. And when that's what's being talked about he should be subject to harsh criticism. But just because it doesn't come up every time his name is mentioned doesn't mean it's been forgotten, or that he's getting a pass.

Nevertheless, just because I think he's wrong doesn't mean I don't think he deserves a place in the conversation. It is true that if somebody isn't willing to engage in honest argument, that I do think they ought to be shunned. (It ought to be clear who I have in mind.) I don't think that's the same thing as giving somebody like a pass - it's a judgment that it's far worse to be dishonest than it is to be, in my view, wrong.

[look]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

That's another conversation. Frum is a devoted state-building neocon who shares a benighted view of foreign policy that led to a pointless, disastrous war. And when that's what's being talked about he should be subject to harsh criticism. But just because it doesn't come up every time his name is mentioned doesn't mean it's been forgotten, or that he's getting a pass.

Nevertheless, just because I think he's wrong doesn't mean I don't think he deserves a place in the conversation. It is true that if somebody isn't willing to engage in honest argument, that I do think they ought to be shunned. (It ought to be clear who I have in mind.) I don't think that's the same thing as giving somebody like a pass - it's a judgment that it's far worse to be dishonest than it is to be, in my view, wrong.

I understand, though I wouldn't call Jonah dishonest, so much as unable to be quick on his feet, and somewhat intellectually shallow. I prefer to listen to Frum over Jonah.

Breaking news: Someone was front-paged at Althouse.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by look

I understand, though I wouldn't call Jonah dishonest, so much as unable to be quick on his feet, and somewhat intellectually shallow. I prefer to listen to Frum over Jonah.

Breaking news: Someone was front-paged at Althouse.

Heh! Who'da thunk?



Cripes. Althouse elegance! From the comments:

Ann Althouse said:

Frum's face is like some weird CGI in a scifi flick.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by look

Breaking news: Someone was front-paged at Althouse.

For future reference, here is the permalink.

[mattcbrown]

Originally Posted by look

He is being given a pass because of the attributes you mentioned above, and the passage of time.

Please recall the Frum/Bacevich dv. He's still a devoted state-building neocon.

I don't get this. So he's a "devoted state-building neocon"--he's entitled to be. It's not what I want from America, and it may not be what you want, but it's his perspective and it's not batshit crazy. It's a genuine foreign policy, whether or not you or I agree with it.

What's commendable about Frum is that he's willing to argue his position on its merits and not just hurl invictive nonsense at his opposition. That's what we need more of. Frum is saying that he's basically opposed to nearly everything Obama does, but he wants to argue against it from a reality-based position. It's actually very similar to what Obama himself is constantly saying: "Stop campaigning. Dial down the rhetoric. Let's actually get serious about discussing our differences."

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by mattcbrown

What's commendable about Frum is that he's willing to argue his position on its merits and not just hurl invictive nonsense at his opposition. That's what we need more of.

Frums's hurled plenty of nonsensical invective in the past. He's sucked up to demagogues like Mark Levin too, and now he's playing nice with somebody like Jonah Goldberg. But yeah, he should be commended for acting like a grownup now.

[look]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Frums's hurled plenty of nonsensical invective in the past. He's sucked up to demagogues like Mark Levin too, and now he's playing nice with somebody like Jonah Goldberg. But yeah, he should be commended for acting like a grownup now.

lol

[mattcbrown]

Originally Posted by claymisher

now he's playing nice with somebody like Jonah Goldberg.

Do you really think that? Because I think he was being respectful, while simultaneously tearing Goldberg a new a**hole, which is the best way to do it.

I'm not in love with Frum or his opinions. I'm merely saying that he's one of the very, very few voices on the Right trying to dial down the rhetoric, and he deserves credit for that.

[nikkibong]

by goldberg's definition, who, or what country ISN'T socialist? every essentially free-market country has at least some degree of regulation - be they anti-trust laws, minimum wage etc.

is somalia goldberg's idea of ideal government?

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by nikkibong

by goldberg's definition, who, or what country ISN'T socialist? every essentially free-market country has at least some degree of regulation - be they anti-trust laws, minimum wage etc.

is somalia goldberg's idea of ideal government?

Of course not. Goldberg just needed some sophistry with which to defend the socialism charge, because one must not criticize the most radical elements of one's political coalition in order to work at National Review. Unless they break with consensus on foreign policy, that is. Strangely, part of that sacred party line is that William F. Buckley's expulsion of the Birchers was crucial to the Right's glorious success. I suppose Good Conservatives nowadays aren't just people that admire revolutionaries once they're dead, they must also criticize reactionaries only after they're dead.

[themightypuck]

I wonder what Frum's position is on those who break foreign policy orthodoxy? Is he as ecumenical as he seems to be vis domestic policy concerns?

[BornAgainDemocrat]

"Socialism" for the past hundred years has been defined as government ownership of the means of production. Look it up. It is the antithesis of the idea of private enterprise operating through a market economy. Social democracy, on the other hand, is just Germany's name for what we used to call in this country the welfare state. It included such ideas as a forty hour week, abolition of child labor, anti-trust laws, collective bargaining, the minimum wage, unemployment and old age insurance, and some form of national health insurance. (It used to include cash assistance to single mothers but that is not accepted any longer, at least here in the U.S. ) In other words, what Jonah wants to label socialism is just Roosevelt's New Deal plus Medicare and Medicaid plus some kind of national health insurance mandate that I don't pretend to understand.

If Jonah is opposed to some of these institutional arrangements, fair enough. But please don't confuse them with socialism in order to gain a rhetorical effect. That is not being honest. And, in particular, please don't confuse Medicare and Medicaid with Britain's national health insurance, which is truly is a form of socialism in that the government owns the hospitals and pays the doctors on salary. Not that that would be such a bad idea necessarily.

[Baltimoron]

At the height of my undergrad activism, I belonged to DSA. Forgive me if Goldberg's invocation of "democratic socialism" acted like a dog whistle on me.

[mercer]

Goldberg complains about the slogan of compassionate conservatism. He does not mention that the biggest element of the GOP platform is tax cuts which Bush delivered.

Frum notes that most Americans did poorly under the Bush presidency. Goldberg does not seem to care. A movement that is indifferent to how the economy is for average Americans does not deserve to govern.