RSS Feed MenuDavid Frum and David Horowitz debate Glenn Beck’s effect on the conservative movement. To read the earlier posts in this debate, click here.
David Horowitz: I agree with you David that this dialogue is getting more focused, and I find it much more pleasurable (and hopefully informative) as a result.
There are two issues here. One is a remarkable conservative outburst against the broadcaster Glenn Beck which includes you, Mark Levin and Pete Wehner among others, and which collectively wishes for his early self-destruction. The message from the three of you is that for the good of the conservative cause he should be silent — and the sooner the better. Wehner expresses the judgment I detect in all three of your blasts in this sentence: “The role Glenn Beck is playing is harmful in its totality.”
More than anything else, it is this that I am reacting to. I think this attitude is wrongheaded, absurd, destructive to the conservative cause and a blatant contradiction of the “big tent” philosophy which you otherwise support.
To read the rest of David Horowitz’s reply, please click here at FrontPageMag.com.
el gato libre // Sep 27, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Who’s cookie? Your probation officer?
mlindroo // Sep 28, 2009 at 4:41 am
Sinz54 wrote:
> [...] And while Obama is realistic enough to know he can’t turn America into
> Germany or Canada or France within just 4 years, he hopes to set America on a
> course toward Social Democracy.
…which makes the hysterical over-the-top reaction of Obama’s detractors on the Right all the more difficult to understand.
—
Let’s suppose that Obama’s domestic reforms (health care etc.) indeed will nudge the country in the direction of Denmark or Canada. SO F*CKING WHAT! We are talking about a type of society that has proved wildly successful by almost any measure, differs from the U.S. in only minor aspects (New Majority had a sidebar link to a great statistical survey on this topic a few months ago pointing out that the difference between America and Europe in fact is quite small). As of 2009 Canada is generally about as affluent, peaceful, entrepreneurial etc. as the U.S.. If you had to move to another country I bet most of you would choose Canada. Yet you guys make it sound as if these other Western societies are as awful as Stalin’s USSR, Hitler’s Germany or North Korea!! “Death panels”, “indoctrination camps” etc..
MARCU$
sinz54 // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:49 am
mlindroo: We are talking about a type of society that has proved wildly successful by almost any measure
Wildly successful?
You’re talking about societies that have no hope of being superpowers, or even anything close to it.
The adoption of socialism by a nation must necessarily lead to its declining power in the world. Britain adopted socialism and thus accepted second-class status as a world power. At one time, the British Empire was a lot like the U.S.–a capitalist superpower. Not any more. Canada adopted socialism and NEVER aspired to true world power. And so it hasn’t got any. It has influence–but the influence of an advisor, not as a leader.
Of all the nations you mentioned, let me remind you of what they CANNOT do:
When a dictator like Saddam or Milosovic threatens the peace of a continent, they can’t stop him. Only the capitalist U.S. could.
If Russia wants to go back to her ancient imperialisms, Denmark couldn’t stop them. Only the U.S. could.
When a tsunami kills 200,000 people like in 2005, their navies can’t do much without the U.S. Navy answering the call. (Does Denmark even have a navy?)
If we detected an Earth-crossing asteroid on a collision course with Earth, about to wipe out our species just like the dinosaurs, Canada and Denmark couldn’t stop it. Only the United States could.
There are no socialist superpowers. The Soviets tried that and they collapsed of their own weight.
This is NOT a peaceful world. This is NOT a cooperative world. It’s an anarchic world, the equivalent of America’s Wild West, and also sitting in a fairly hostile universe.
If America were to degenerate to the level of Canada, I tremble for what this world will be like. It will be dominated by China and radical Islam. And Denmark will likely be swallowed up, just like she was the last TWO times a hostile power (Germany) appeared.
balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 10:57 am
There are no socialist superpowers. The Soviets tried that and they collapsed of their own weight.
How’s that federal debt thing working out for us every time we bump up our military spending?
It is sad that for a temporary day in the sun, there are people willing to sell off our country to the Saudis and Chinese.
But I’m beginning to understand your fear of the world that surrounds you, Sinz. While you are sensible on so many issues, it explains why you feel Republicans must maintain power no matter what flaws the current party structure possesses.
sinz54 // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:06 am
mlindroo: It’s also true that it’s the vibrancy of the U.S. capitalist economy that has remade the world through science and technology.
Who invented the airplane? Canada? Nope.
Who invented the Model T car? Canada? Nope.
Who invented the silicon chip? Canada? Nope.
Who invented the basic protocols of the Internet? Denmark? Nope.
Who invented jumbo jets? Canada? Nope.
Who invented the Apple II, the Macintosh, and the IBM PC? Denmark? Nope.
How many Nobel Prizes in the sciences has Canada won?
How many Nobel Prizes in the sciences has Denmark won?
How many patents do Canadians have vs. Americans?
America’s culture of individualism as OPPOSED to socialist collectivism made all that possible.
Tim Berners-Lee invented the HTML protocol for the World Wide Web. But then he came to live in America, to productize and expand the technology.
I was a computer engineer before I retired. You can list the nations that are pre-eminent in that technology. Like Japan. Notice: they’re all capitalist.
Now: Do you REALLY still think Canada is a role model to be copied?
el gato libre // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:16 am
sinz…
What do you think about my argument at #48. Do you really think that an all-belligerent all the time attitude towards other country is the way to maximize American power?
sinz54 // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:27 am
el-gato-libre: Do you really think that an all-belligerent all the time attitude towards other country is the way to maximize American power?
Of course not.
But that’s a strawman.
We have NEVER been that way.
Not even during the Bush Administration, which made stronger alliances with India and Ethiopia. (Remember when the U.S. backed the Ethiopian military’s suppression of Islamist violence in Somalia?) Bush defended the rights of Africa in the World Trade Organization.
You have exactly ONE major example to point to: When the U.S. defied worldwide public opinion and toppled Saddam anyway. We got that one. I agree with you, that was a mistake and a disaster.
But the U.S. had every right to feel and act belligerent. On 9-11, we were attacked on our home soil, and 3,000 Americans killed. That’s 50% more than were killed at Pearl Harbor on 12/7/1941. Yet look at the comparable reaction:
After Pearl Harbor, we created the mightiest military machine the world had ever seen, fought in dozens of nations on six continents, and inflicted over a MILLION civilian casualties on enemy nations. And in the end, atom-bombed two enemy cities, till the enemy surrendered unconditionally.
Now THAT is belligerence.
Anything Bush did in the last 8 years pales by comparison.
Given this precedent, the U.S. had every right to lay waste to the entire nation of Afghanistan for what they did to us on 9-11. We didn’t. The world should breathe a sigh of relief.
I can guarantee you, had Osama bin Laden bombed the Kremlin and killed 3,000 Russians, Putin wouldn’t have shown that kind of restraint.
sinz54 // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:32 am
balconesfault: How’s that federal debt thing working out for us every time we bump up our military spending?
Bump up???
During the Cold War, we spent far more as a percentage of our national wealth.
During the JFK Administration, we spent 10% of our GDP on national defense.
During the Reagan Administration, we spent 6% of our GDP on national defense.
Now we’re spending less than 4% of our GDP on national defense.
Defense spending here at home has created jobs and new technologies. Radar, microwave ovens, commercial satellites and the Internet being major spinoffs. Southern California blossomed under defense spending. (Notice that when Hughes Aircraft went under, so did the city of Fullerton CA.)
The major difference between Reagan and Bush was simply that Reagan wasn’t fighting two quagmire wars. Reagan used military power mostly as a bargaining chip in negotiations with our adversaries. So defense spending went mainly into local economies, rather into foreign countries. There won’t be many commercial spinoffs of our fight in Afghanistan.
Military spending isn’t the issue. The issue is Reagan’s “PEACE through strength” versus Bush’s “war with weakness.”
el gato libre // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:44 am
Also, sinz, let me add a little local color to this debate about socialism vs. free markets. You bring up the example of innovation in the computer industry.
I happen to be typing my posts out from one of the hotbeds of computer innovation–Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, home of the good old University of Illinois.
As you’ll probably know, the first web browser, Mosaic, was developed here. More specifically, it was developed at the NCSA (National Center for Supercomputing Applications). The funding for the NCSA comes from a mix of State, Federal, and industry sources. People come from all over the world to study at the U of I’s computer science department. In fact, in a minute or two I’m going to hop on the bike and ride to work, straight through the “North Campus” which is where all the computer and engineering stuff goes on, and as always I will have to take great pains to avoid the primarily Asian and Indian computer students who, like the stereotypical geeks you see on TV, have very little body-sense, and walk around with their head in the clouds (or on the pavement) and do their best to wander into my path. But I digress.
The point is that a lot of this computer development is done with a mixture of business AND GOVERNMENT funding. Do you call this socialism?
Bah…I’m gonna be late for work now. Can’t give more examples of this but I guess you can catch my drift. In the USA computer innovation game, Government is lending a hand in the process of development. Is this a bad thing?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 28, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Sinz says Obama’s policies are pushing the country into socialism, but when asked what specific Obama policies are having this effect, he can’t cite any. In light of the fact that most of the policies that people on the Right complain about (e.g. TARP, auto bailouts, etc.) were started by Bush, one can only assume Sinz is referring to Obama’s desire to have a public option as part of a plan for universal healthcare.
Sinz and the other flat earthers now believe that universal healthcare with a public option will result in socialism and, in turn, the inevitable loss of U.S. superpower status. Of all the arguments against a public option, this is absolutely the dumbest one yet.
According to Sinz, the U.S. must be the only Western democracy in the world that is not socialist because all other Western democracies have a public option or something substantially similar. And, what happened to all the other conservative dire predictions about the “socialism” and loss of freedom that were to inevitably result from public schools, social security, Medicare and Medicaid? Each of those were far less capitalistic in nature than a public option for health insurance, yet the U.S. had no problem whatsoever maintaining superpower status after these were enacted. If anything, a very strong argument can be made that creation of public schools and social security laid the foundation for the U.S. becoming a superpower.
Sinz’s arguments are nothing more than the product of a shallow, fearful thought process (I use that term loosely) that is more concerned with labels and ideology than with empirical evidence. He is truly a flat earther.
balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Sinz and the other flat earthers now believe that universal healthcare with a public option will result in socialism and, in turn, the inevitable loss of U.S. superpower status. Of all the arguments against a public option, this is absolutely the dumbest one yet.
I think that Sinz actually understands the value that universal healthcare would bring to America – but he also knows that in the long run, if any healthcare bill is passed that expands coverage and provides additional security to Americans … at this stage, Republicans will be in opposition to the last moment, and Democrats will get all the credit. And in a few years, if the program is very successful and well liked, the Democrats are going to reap huge electoral successes as a result.
Now, one way to deal with this inevitability would be to encourage Republicans to join the process, work for cost-containment (instead of using any talk of cost-containment to raise the specter of “Death Panels”), and be viewed as part of the success. But Sinz also knows that given the current makeup of the Republican congressional delegation, this isn’t going to happen.
So status quo, as disasterous as that is going to be for our economy over the long run, is preferential to change that might end up causing a major shift in party affiliation. Thus is the corner the GOP has painted itself into. And they really can’t blame Obama for that maneuvering – he has given them every opportunity to come aboard and take credit.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Sep 28, 2009 at 3:53 pm
balconesfault, I’m afraid you are exactly right – and the rest of the country may have to suffer because of this childish game.
mlindroo // Sep 28, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Sinz54,
I find it truly baffling that any sane person could describe Canada as “socialist” nation while (still using the same yardstick-) the United States is described as “capitalist. You make it sound as if “non-socialism” basically “massive military spending” which is the same as being a superpower.
I am curious, though. Are New Zealand and Australia also “socialist” by your definition? And how many nations can be described as “capitalist”?
But those are questions for tomorrow…time to go to bed.
MARCU$
PS: Returning to my original post, I hear from Andrew Sullivan that there has been a major “Take America Back” seminar hosted by Phyllis Schlafly & co.. Here’s Phyllis:
“Kitty has pointed out the parallels between the slow, incremental Hitler takeover of Austria and some of the things that are happening today,” said Schlafly, asked about Werthmann’s “How to Recognize Living Under Nazis and Communists” session. “She’s an expert on that. I see what [Obama] is doing as absolute socialism, as government ownership of the means of production.”
I am sure Sinz agrees:-)
anniemargret // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:03 pm
So reforming the skyrocketing healthcare costs which are putting working class Americans into bankruptcy, and ignoring the dire plight of the 45000+ Americans is making American into a ’socialist’ nation? So sayeth the Republicans.
90% of the backlash against Obama and his efforts are political. For 8 years, the Republicans ignored the issue . Now that Obama has taken the reins, they are scared to death. It might mean the Democrats might do something constructive for America, and we can’t have that. DeMint let the cat out of the bag with his Obama and his ‘Waterloo’ wish.
In the meantime, while Republicans are spending more effort to scare the bejesus out of Americans that our country will devolve into some third world state, China is busy attending to business. While Republicans are marching to DC about ‘death panels’ and Obama is the devil incarnate, etc…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
They are well on their way to a viable new industry. Other nations have also taken the reins. Have we? Why not?
Why not put those great new American minds into renewable energy sources…..thereby ending our addiction to oil, forcing an end to the power of the Middle East oil rulers. By putting them out of power, we can redirect our monies to re-strengthen our military, (instead of future oil wars as peak oil continues unabated).
A bold step for strengthening American industry, self-containment, renewable sources of energy, job creation, and a boost for our military.
athensboy // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:15 pm
anniemargaret is right about China and alternative energy. Tom Friedman stated that China has the jump on us as far as alternative energy goes and we could end up importing Chinese technology and its products as far as alternative energy products. Doesn’t this country ever learn? Our industries are at a disadvantage against countries that have national health care. All I see from the gop is scare tactics. Are they willing to slash and burn if it gets them back in power. Even the guru of politics, Frank Luntz says, you have to be for something to win elections, you just can’t be against something. The Party of No just won’t cut it IMHO
balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:36 pm
said Schlafly, asked about Werthmann’s “How to Recognize Living Under Nazis and Communists” session. “She’s an expert on that. I see what [Obama] is doing as absolute socialism, as government ownership of the means of production.”
Well, they may be crazy paranoiacs … but at least they understand the definition of socialism, as opposed to many here.
And Annamarie – you’re right – they are afraid. And what they really have to be afraid of is that it is looking more and more like the public option will pass (latest polls show 65% support versus 28% against). And after it passes, and is implemented – people will see that most private businesses in America actually benefit from the public option, with a boon to small busness development, and large businesses happy to over time surrender the additional administrative burden of being health insurance providers – the rhetoric from the right over the last 9 months is going to look like Gingrich’s predictions back in 1993 that Clinton’s tax cuts would result in years of financial collapse in America.
balconesfault // Sep 28, 2009 at 9:46 pm
athensboy: Doesn’t this country ever learn?
Only very slowly. We have made some progress in the last 9 years – at this time in 2000, Al Gore was going around saying that if we moved towards renewable energy and CO2 reduction in America, the technologies we developed would propel our economy in the 2000’s the way that semiconductors did in the 90’s.
In 2008, we actually elected a President who was making essentially the same pledge. Of course, the 8 years in between cost us dearly, but hey – we got some great tax cuts to fuel a derivatives bubble with!
Jim // Sep 28, 2009 at 11:38 pm
jeninct:
They view us with contempt. Try not to let it get to you. If you read between the lines, you can learn something from these a$$holes. Just be aware that they’re trying to use words to turn us into their sheep.
joedee1969 // Sep 30, 2009 at 6:20 am
This is why C. Rich is calling for David to have his own show:
http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/09/calm-conservatives-this-is-our-time/