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!

[sptm]

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

[graz]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[thouartgob]

I haven't finished this diavlog yet cause I am still shivering from laughter after hearing one of the funniest lines in BHTV history EVAHHHH !

Fresh from his defending liberalism in Liberal Fascism Jonah is now making the world safe for Socialists. I believe Obama owes Johah a debt of thanks for bravely undercutting the main talking point against him since 2008.

[rcocean]

Usually I don't care about these label issues, BUT:

Tony Blair calls himself a Socialist and Frum's reaction is

What you think Blair's a Socialist??!!

Perhaps he should read "Socialism" by Tony Blair.

[kezboard]

I don't think Frum was trying to zing Goldberg with the question about Tony Blair, rather he was trying to get at what Goldberg means by "socialist". The real question should have been something more like "Would you support Glenn Beck's fearmongering if it were directed at Tony Blair?" or "Do you think Blair is more or less scaaary and raaaadical than Obama?"

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by kezboard

I don't think Frum was trying to zing Goldberg with the question about Tony Blair, rather he was trying to get at what Goldberg means by "socialist". The real question should have been something more like "Would you support Glenn Beck's fearmongering if it were directed at Tony Blair?" or "Do you think Blair is more or less scaaary and raaaadical than Obama?"

He wasn't 'zinging' anyone, but stupidly reacting with disbelief when Goldberg called Blair a socialist. As for what the 'real question' should have been, we can all our make up our own. Maybe, Frum's 'real question' should have been, "Jonah, why am I so ignorant and allowed on BHTV?"

[bobnthuan]

Very interesting diavblog. I thought Jonah did a good job of making David's points for him. If these two do it again, I'll tune in.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by rcocean

He wasn't 'zinging' anyone, but stupidly reacting with disbelief when Goldberg called Blair a socialist. As for what the 'real question' should have been, we can all our make up our own. Maybe, Frum's 'real question' should have been, "Jonah, why am I so ignorant and allowed on BHTV?"

Good golly, rc. Is it really so easy to watch to watch a guy eviscerate a sequence of arguments as thoroughly as Frum did here and yet come away with the impression that he's stupid?

Maybe there was something about that exchange you might have missed? (Like perhaps that a politician's use of a word might not track exactly with most other people's expectations, for instance?)

[nikkibong]

Originally Posted by Toryentalist

Can we all agree that Goldberg doesn't understand what a 'liberal' or a 'socialist' is? Henceforth I feel he should be banned from abusing those terms -- or is that too 'fascist'?

don't you mean too liberal?!

[graz]

Originally Posted by Toryentalist

Can we all agree that Goldberg doesn't understand what a liberal or a socialist is? Henceforth I feel he should be banned from saying all these things -- or am I being a bit too fascist?

You're being illiberal. And as banning is usually employed by nanny-staters, you are clearly an illiberal fascist... according to Jonah.

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Good golly, rc. Is it really so easy to watch to watch a guy eviscerate a sequence of arguments as thoroughly as Frum did here and yet come away with the impression that he's stupid?

Maybe there was something about that exchange you might have missed? (Like perhaps that a politician's use of a word might not track exactly with most other people's expectations, for instance?)

Can strawmen be eviscerated?

[chiwhisoxx]

Glad to see we're all mocking Jonah for a fairly sophisticated historical argument he made in a book that none of you read.

[Don Zeko]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

Glad to see we're all mocking Jonah for a fairly sophisticated historical argument he made in a book that none of you read.

What would be the point of reading it? I don't see how I could possibly understand the intricacies of such an obviously thoughtful, serious argument that had never before been made in such detail or with such care.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by rcocean

Can strawmen be eviscerated?

Ok, that's a charge. What's your argument? What strawmen?

[chiwhisoxx]

I don't care if you think there's a purpose to reading it or not, but the first rule of book reviews is that you can't give a bad review to a book you haven't read.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

Glad to see we're all mocking Jonah for a fairly sophisticated historical argument he made in a book that none of you read.

Meh. It's been reviewed, often. The reviews were so bad he needed to start a blog to counter the criticism. (e.g., e.g., e.g., e.g.) (Here's a list of positive reviews, compiled by Jonah.) I didn't need to read any of Mark Levin's screeds to understand the quality of his arguments either. A million crappy books get published every year. Stupid polemics have to work pretty hard to merit even a once over. Liberal Fascism didn't pass the smell test.

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx

I don't care if you think there's a purpose to reading it or not, but the first rule of book reviews is that you can't give a bad review to a book you haven't read.

What if its written by Hitler?

[rcocean]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Ok, that's a charge. What's your argument? What strawmen?

Jeff,

No argument, just an opinion.