The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)

[Bloggingheads]

[BornAgainDemocrat]

They will be back! Made my night. Seriously.

[Wonderment]

Rather he is running with some very important ideas, the most compelling of which is his critique of US foreign policy. He is the ONLY figure on the national stage at present who questions US liberal and neo-con interventionism, militarism and brutal global hegemony.

He is THE antiwar/pro-peace candidate for 2012, in the tradition of Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and 2004 and Ralph Nader in 2000. That's why our inclusive non-partisan peace culture respects Paul, even with all his warts.

He will never be the Republican candidate for president much less win a national election, but his ideas will influence generations of Republican, Democrat and independent voters to come.

President Obama managed to get one war right; Paul has basically gotten all US wars right. That's a major intellectual and spiritual accomplishment that overshadows whatever murky homophobic or racist baggage Paul may have or whatever kooky ideas he may hold about the gold standard and the Fed.

Don't let the mainstream War Party media make this about Ron Paul, the person. Paul the person matters very little. What matters a great deal is the eye-on-the-prize foreign policy vision for the future. The ideas, not the person, are becoming part of the national conversation. That's a good thing.

[Florian]

Good news for bhtv. Maybe it will last a bit longer. Because John and Glenn have mastered the medium---and concision, I agree, is very important--they are always worth listening to, even when, especially when, they disagree. Of course, their "bromance" is essential as well to their performance.

Interesting neologism, btw.

[bbenzon]

Good stuff guys, looking forward to more in 2012.

[Hume's Bastard]

Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat

They will be back! Made my night. Seriously.

Agreed. That news just helped rescue the end of 2011 for me. Anything these two can give is very much appreciated.

But, I hope John still does Up with Chris Hayes. There's an art to that format, too.

[TwinSwords]

John McWhorter seriously thinks that a neoconfederate defense of slavery and defense of the legal framework of Jim Crow make Ron Paul an interesting intellectual? I think they make him a monster, but also extremely popular in the Republican Party.

It was the "peace candidate" himself who published and possibly wrote the following.

If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking.

It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months.

In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob.

What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.

And this gem:

According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

Ron Paul is also the monster who said that healthy 30 year olds who require emergency medical care should be left to die if they don't have insurance.


(Video)

If these are your values, by all means, support Ron Paul.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

John likes the intellectualism of Ron Paul? But Ron's clearly craaaazy.

So, do you think it's possible to be an intellectual and clearly crazy?

[bkjazfan]

Ron Paul being impervious to the racist statements made in his newsletter reminds me of President Obama never having heard his former long time spiritual advisor and minister Jeremiah Wright's incendiary remarks concerning America, Israel, and Jews. To both: give me a break.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Ron Paul being impervious to the racist statements made in his newsletter reminds me of President Obama never having heard his former long time spiritual advisor and minister Jeremiah Wright's incendiary remarks concerning America, Israel, and Jews. To both: give me a break.

I don;t recall obama publishing and/or signing Wright's statements.

[bkjazfan]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I don;t recall obama publishing and/or signing Wright's statements.

I will use one bhtv commenter's handle: "ohcomeon."

[graz]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

John McWhorter seriously thinks that a neoconfederate defense of slavery and defense of the legal framework of Jim Crow make Ron Paul an interesting intellectual? I think they make him a monster, but also extremely popular in the Republican Party.

It was the "peace candidate" himself who published and possibly wrote the following.




And this gem:



Ron Paul is also the monster who said that healthy 30 year olds who require emergency medical care should be left to die if they don't have insurance.


(Video)

If these are your values, by all means, support Ron Paul.

Pay no attention to THE man behind the curtain. The great and powerful peace candidate Paul has spoken. Disregard his ideas in toto. Just click your heels together and say: there's no peace like Paul's ... there's no peace like Paul's ...

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I don;t recall obama publishing and/or signing Wright's statements.

Correct.

People try to defend Paul by finding false equivalencies. The degree of responsibility for the content of a political figure's newsletter isn't the same as responsibility for what his/her grandmother said, or his minister dislikes or word-fires at. Paul had 100% control over what gets published under his name in his newsletters.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by graz

Pay no attention to THE man behind the curtain. The great and powerful peace candidate Paul has spoken. Disregard his ideas in toto. Just click your heels together and say: there's no peace like Paul's ... there's no peace like Paul's ...

The more I find out about this fellow Paul, the more I dislike him. I'm glad he won't make it anywhere near a true candidacy. Whatever he says about the military will be ignored and forgotten in no time. However, he's recruiting and giving voice to white supremacist groups and he is validating the sinister self serving philosophy behind the so called libertarian cause. Disgusting.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Ron Paul being impervious to the racist statements made in his newsletter reminds me of President Obama never having heard his former long time spiritual advisor and minister Jeremiah Wright's incendiary remarks concerning America, Israel, and Jews. To both: give me a break.

OMG, you're sooo cynical!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

The degree of responsibility for the content of a political figure's newsletter isn't the same as responsibility for what his/her grandmother said, or his minister dislikes or word-fires at. Paul had 100% control over what gets published under his name in his newsletters.

And Mr. Obama had 100% control over his body sitting in Wright's pews.

And BTW, how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Either you like these guys and forgive them for things you don't agree with or you don't. For Godssake...it's not complicated.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Ocean

The more I find out about this fellow Paul, the more I dislike him. I'm glad he won't make it anywhere near a true candidacy. Whatever he says about the military will be ignored and forgotten in no time. However, he's recruiting and giving voice to white supremacist groups and he is validating the sinister self serving philosophy behind the so called libertarian cause. Disgusting.

I would think you'd love having this fellow near the true candidacy, as would TS and graz.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

And Mr. Obama had 100% control over his body sitting in Wright's pews.

And BTW, how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Either you like these guys and forgive them for things you don't agree with or you don't. For Godssake...it's not complicated.

Well, yes, if the only level of analysis is "things you like about candidate x or y and things you don't."

But we are comparing Obama attending a church where (when he was not at said church) negative things were said from the pulplit by someone other than Obama vs. Paul's newlsetter, promoted and sponsored by him and bearing his signature.

If you can't see a difference there in what is fair to hold someone responsible for, then I have a beef with the second cousin of your former boss's girlfriend that I want you to fix.

[graz]

Originally Posted by Ocean

The more I find out about this fellow Paul, the more I dislike him. I'm glad he won't make it anywhere near a true candidacy. Whatever he says about the military will be ignored and forgotten in no time. However, he's recruiting and giving voice to white supremacist groups and he is validating the sinister self serving philosophy behind the so called libertarian cause. Disgusting.

Indeed. He may not become the Republican candidate. Yet he is giving voice and gaining legitimacy for a whole host of vile and pernicious ideas that are festering in the core of his chosen party. The push back against him is not surprising. It's not personal. The politics demand it!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

If you can't see a difference there in what is fair to hold someone responsible for, then I have a beef with the second cousin of your former boss's girlfriend that I want you to fix.

I don't care enough about any of this to muster up an opinion about what is fair.

But this does put me in mind of the twisted logic employed while trying to make Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin responsible for the Arizona shootings. Clucking hens.

[sugarkang]

Glenn Loury: (exasperated) Purity of heart? Is that the criterion? What is this sanctimony? ... It seems infantile to me ... that to me is just stupidity politics ... if this is the evidence, I'm prepared to move on.

Heh. I would say several people on here got owned, but these people would need the ability to self-reflect for that to even be possible. In any case, thank you, Glenn.

McWhorter and Loury both understand a reasonable, non-racist argument for opposing the Civil Rights Act.

How many brains were exploded here?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

So, do you think it's possible to be an intellectual and clearly crazy?

Crazy? I don't know. That seems a problem of definition. I think what we're usually dealing with is being an intellectual and being really disastrously wrong on policy. That latter part seems to be confused with crazy.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by graz

Indeed. He may not become the Republican candidate. Yet he is giving voice and gaining legitimacy for a whole host of vile and pernicious ideas that are festering in the core of his chosen party. The push back against him is not surprising. It's not personal. The politics demand it!

Nothing is personal I would say. We wish him a long and healthy life, away from politics and any position of power. He's a human being after all, it just so happens that his ideas stink!

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Whatever he says about the military will be ignored and forgotten in no time.

Whats that supposed to mean? Maybe I agree that anyone who speaks out against a murderous war machine will be forgotten in the pathetic mainstream culture and media that dominates US politics. Imagine if the US actually talked to her so called enemies.

Originally Posted by Ocean

However, he's recruiting and giving voice to white supremacist groups and he is validating the sinister self serving philosophy behind the so called libertarian cause. Disgusting.

Can you elaborate on him recruiting white supremacist groups? Surely its about what he says himself and what he advocates regarding policies etc. As far as I'm aware he's the only one in the rebublican race who has stated the inherent discrimination in the courts system towards blacks and hispanics which he's criticized for from his own party.

I'm not a fan of the libertarian philosophy he espouses but Paul has been one of the main critics of the oligarchic control the corporate and financial system has had over US politics for decades now, and thus why he receives little financial support from these oligarchs.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Ron Paul being impervious to the racist statements made in his newsletter reminds me of President Obama never having heard his former long time spiritual advisor and minister Jeremiah Wright's incendiary remarks concerning America, Israel, and Jews. To both: give me a break.

This seems to me a false equivalence. In comparison to the Ron Paul passages quoted above by twinswords, what Jeremiah Wright said in his "infamous" sermon about Iraq and US foreign policy in the ME--- the "chickens coming home to roost," "God damn America "etc----seems pretty tame; indeed one might well argue that Wright was merely stating the obvious. Susan Sontag said the same thing a few days after 9/11, admittedly in more cerebral, measured tones.

Anti-semitism? Do you mean this (from Wikipedia)?

Wright also suggested that Obama did not send a delegation to the Durban Review Conference in Geneva on racism because of Zionist pressure saying: "[T]he Jewish vote, the A-I-P-A-C vote, that’s controlling him, that would not let him send representation to the Darfur Review Conference, that’s talking this craziness on this trip, cause they’re Zionists, they would not let him talk to someone who calls a spade what it is."

[badhatharry]

Quoting sugarkang: McWhorter and Loury both understand a reasonable, non-racist argument for opposing the Civil Rights Act.

How many brains were exploded here?

I remember the first time I broached this subject on the forum. It was almost as if I had questioned the cause of climate change.

Some things must never be said.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Some things must never be said.

This was Loury's main point. If you stand for something, it's up to you to make clear justification for it. That's the whole purpose of the marketplace of ideas. But some people get their feelings hurt and then call BHTV police to have posts removed. Gotta love freedom of speech! It wouldn't exist if these people had political power.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

But we are comparing Obama attending a church where (when he was not at said church) negative things were said from the pulplit by someone other than Obama vs. Paul's newlsetter, promoted and sponsored by him and bearing his signature.

Right. There used to be a priest at the church I attend who said stuff in homilies that I really didn't agree with (and which would irritate me) all the time. Sometimes I'd want to go argue with him afterwards (I never did), usually I just tried to avoid him. I suspect this is common enough in some form or another.

On the other hand, I never invited said priest to blog under my name, which is a closer comparison to the Paul situation.

Speaking of Paul, the Edge of the West blog linked to a 2007 piece that I missed at the time going into both Paul's Civil Rights Act views (which have been discussed some) and some statements about the Civil War and Lincoln. I just don't see how, given everything, Paul's anti war statements could possibility seen as support for a progressive POV or at all separated out from the background to them and his paleolibertarism and associations with the far right. It's all tainted, basically in the same way as opposing the CW because "it's wrong for the pushy feds to interfere with the rights of states to have slaves" would be.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Well, yes, if the only level of analysis is "things you like about candidate x or y and things you don't."

But we are comparing Obama attending a church where (when he was not at said church) negative things were said from the pulplit by someone other than Obama vs. Paul's newlsetter, promoted and sponsored by him and bearing his signature.

If you can't see a difference there in what is fair to hold someone responsible for, then I have a beef with the second cousin of your former boss's girlfriend that I want you to fix.

I can understand people listening to their radio brain-washers or internet bots and parroting their false equivalencies here. But once you lay out the differences, that are extremely obvious, insisting that it's all the same, and angels and pins and the like, well, there's nothing else to discuss. It's pure political blindness. And there's no reasoning that can get through that one.

People who like Paul, like him for whatever reasons, or because he's Republican, or because they don't like Obama, and they will look the other way when the uglier aspects come to light, because those aspects aren't ugly enough, or because they fool themselves thinking that it wasn't really him who wrote them and therefore they exonerate him from responsibility. Basically, the goal is to have him come out of this discussion "clean", no matter how much grime is on him.

The tendency to do this isn't particular to Republicans, or conservatives, or pro-Paul commenters. But regardless, the rest of us who haven't contracted the pro-Paul blindness, have the responsibility to bring it up. And also we have the responsibility to point out the fallacy of "you do it with these other things about Obama" or "you did it with all these other [unrelated] things", which are all ridiculous and don't hold up to scrutiny.

And that's the way it goes.

Boy, I'll miss Science Saturday!

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

This was Loury's main point. If you stand for something, it's up to you to make clear justification for it. That's the whole purpose of the marketplace of ideas. But some people get their feelings hurt and then call BHTV police to have posts removed. Gotta love freedom of speech! It wouldn't exist if these people had political power.

The marketplace is strewn with platitudes and pandering...the most recent is making a huge deal out of giving pizza money to dads to boost the economy whilst raising the cost of mortages and simultaneously trying to encourage lending by printing money.

We should all be ashamed at the state of our collective ignorance and what we allow to pass.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by TwinSwords

John McWhorter seriously thinks that a neoconfederate defense of slavery and defense of the legal framework of Jim Crow make Ron Paul an interesting intellectual?

Classic TwinSwords. Incorrectly interpreting what other people say and then create a mini novella of blah blah blah? 60% of the time it happens every time.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Crazy? I don't know. That seems a problem of definition. I think what we're usually dealing with is being an intellectual and being really disastrously wrong on policy. That latter part seems to be confused with crazy.

Well, I think it's difficult to say whether a public figure is crazy, especially given how they are trying to present images to people.

However, one can say that particular statements or ideas are crazy, and I think the distance between your "disastrously wrong on policy" and my "crazy" is probably not that far, at least as regards Paul.

I also think that intellectuals often come up with crazy ideas (and are much more rarely crazy themselves, but it does happen). Not sure if I'd call Paul an intellectual, either way.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Ocean

Boy, I'll miss Science Saturday!

Yeah, you and me both. were it not the case that my professional life doesn't allow it and that my wife would probably kill me, I'd have loved to have a diavlog with you about some aspect of human behavior where our interests overlapped but our opinions didn't.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by miceelf

I also think that intellectuals often come up with crazy ideas.

The popular term being 'thinking outside the box'

[Florian]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Classic TwinSwords. Incorrectly interpreting what other people say and then create a mini novella of blah blah blah? 60% of the time it happens every time.

Actually, if you read the New Republic article, from which twinswords drew his quotations, you will see that his interpretation of Ron Paul's remarks is the same as the interpretation of the writer of that article.

Are they both incorrectly interpreting Ron Paul? Maybe, but the circumstantial evidence suggests otherwise.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by Baz

Whats that supposed to mean? Maybe I agree that anyone who speaks out against a murderous war machine will be forgotten in the pathetic mainstream culture and media that dominates US politics. Imagine if the US actually talked to her so called enemies.

Yes, that's what I mean. That whatever he says that goes against the aggressive interventionistic pro-military proclivity that has taken deep root in both parties but even more so in the Republican party, will be ignored and forgotten quickly. Media and mainstream culture are equal partners in this phenomenon.

Can you elaborate on him recruiting white supremacist groups? Surely its about what he says himself and what he advocates regarding policies etc. As far as I'm aware he's the only one in the rebublican race who has stated the inherent discrimination in the courts system towards blacks and hispanics which he's criticized for from his own party.

I'm referring to this.


Whether he likes the endorsement or not, the racist message endorsed in his newsletter legitimizes the kind of supremacist talk that has been shunned (for good reasons) from higher level political figures.

I'm not a fan of the libertarian philosophy he espouses but Paul has been one of the main critics of the oligarchic control the corporate and financial system has had over US politics for decades now, and thus why he receives little financial support from these oligarchs.

I can only tell you what I hear from him these days. This is the message he wants to give as a candidate.

Would any candidate ever be able to hold on to the principles you cite? I don't think so. That's why some candidates are just that. If they go heavy against the establishment (corporate and financial oligarchies, military industrial complex, for example) they are not viable. If they go heavy against certain groups (minorities for example) they are also less viable.

Paul is walking a thin line trying to give voice to some raw ideas which mobilize underrepresented groups, for both good and bad causes (from my perspective), such as white supremacists, and racists, anti-government, anti- social safety net, anti- universal health care, on one hand. And then he also expresses anti-interventionism sentiments, and may have expressed anti corporate power ideas in the past.

As you can see each political base can pick and choose which message to listen to and which one to ignore. The bottom line, he's not a viable candidate, and he lacks enough leadership to be a game changer. So, he's just a "fill-in" figure that keeps people busy talking about him while he has no significant base that can embrace all of his ideas. If he wants to be more viable, he will have to sell out to the base of his party. Which of his ideas do you think he will give up and which ones will he emphasize if it came to that?

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Yeah, you and me both. were it not the case that my professional life doesn't allow it and that my wife would probably kill me, I'd have loved to have a diavlog with you about some aspect of human behavior where our interests overlapped but our opinions didn't.

I understand time constraints and professional life neutrality/ anonymity considerations, but why would your wife kill you?

[Parallax]

Hats off to Glenn for saying that so very well put. People don't understand how much of Paul's economic ideas are dangerous and insane. Forget abolishing Fed and a return togold standard the casual $1 trillion spending cut in the Federal budget that Paul advocates will certainly land the US in a severe recession.

Not all fundamentalists are religious and Paul is a non-religious fundamentalist. He does not care about the reality outside of his simple ideology. If he gets into office he will blindly pursue his disastrous policies with the kind of zeal you only see in the feverishly religious (most likely he will be forced out of the office in his first term). And that is why he is the scariest candidate out there.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Ocean

I understand time constraints and professional life neutrality/ anonymity considerations, but why would your wife kill you?

She's very private, and I am an extension of her, so....

The fact that I even have a facebook page is a constant source of annoyance for her.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Florian

Actually, if you read the New Republic article,

Actually, if you read my reply to TS, you'll see that I was commenting on his mischaracterization of McWhorter's position. As to TS' other assertion about Ron Paul supporting Jim Crow, it just happens to be precisely the opposite here and here.

You guys all love to trust hearsay and refuse to go to the source. Why is that, exactly? Didn't you complain about DSK not getting a fair shake? What do you think you're doing?