Goldberg monopolizes the majority of the time on any diavlog he does, but says nothing of substances. All he does here is bloviate with hems, haws, uhhhhs, and rhetorical filler. It's unreal! His poinst are so shallow and Beinart just nods and lets him drone on. Beinart goes a good 5 minutes without saying anything except "yeah, yup, yeah." His points are thoughtful, but he doesn't push them at all. These two should not be paired together.

I've watched many a Goldberg BH.tv episodes and I love how the majority of the left bash Goldberg by saying he "says nothing", "shallow points", etc. Just because he knows the conservative intellectual community and drops names, events and ideas that are unknown to the average David Neiwet Daily Kos reader who have little idea about John Adams, let alone Burke or Scott or anyone else on the right don't mean he has so substance. Read a damn book.

Also, Peter Beinart lamenting the right doesn't agree with the left is hilarious

Ideologies, by their nature, are much more effective at generating quality ideas when they are out of power than when they hold power. When they finally achieve power at the ballot box, ideologies slowly stagnate into intellectual complacency and eventual corruption, heralding the voters' rejection for the competing ideology. Which means, conservatism is not 'crashing' never to reacquire power, nor has liberalism now become the permanent majority incapable of corruption. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," as Acton noted; the tide will turn again, when the intellectual stagnation of one of the ideologies being in power for a long time inevitably imbues the electorate with the desire for 'reform' and 'change.'

Exactly. Parties are fluid. They change all the time. Ideas are solid. They remain the same.

Quoting GenerationPatriot: Ideas are solid. They remain the same.

Really?

Yeah, I know... DUH! Or am I wrong?

Quoting GenerationPatriot: Yeah, I know... DUH!

Or am I wrong?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "idea," but I can't think of anything more ephemeral. But I'm thinking in terms of Dawkins' memes - ideas as nodes in networks, constantly affecting and being affected by every other idea they come into contact with - rather than some more Platonic concept.

Jonah, what is the point of being "conservative"? why would you subscribe to an ideology rather than analyzing a situation and then making up your mind? robot?

Ideas may remain the same but who that idea affects changes. The idea that all men are created equal only affected white males for much of america's history. Today the vast majority say that they believe this even if a small subset of the population doesn't quite take that idea to heart. The power corrupts argument is a good one and I believe one of the few valuable things jonah adds to the conversation is the idea that a libertarian should always be in the room. Not to interject the needs of the business community ( which under all administrations gets a big seat at the table ) but to keep an administration aware of the power that the govt. has and how easily that power can be abused. Of course there are plenty of other organs of power in the private sector that libertarians have little interest in pointing out but that is another debate. The power struggles on the right are somewhat more pronounced than I remember in previous "ebbs" this time around. Some of it has to do with the

I love both of these guys, even though I don't completely agree with either of them. I've been following them ever since they had their own diavlog-before-they-were-diavlogs, called "What's Your Problem", and the PB/JG chats are my absolute favorites on this site. Two guys who know their opinions and know how to disagree without being disagreeable. I've learned a lot from both of them in the process, as could, I suspect, pretty much anybody willing to listen to views that don't resonate with their preferred echo chamber.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: Jonah, what is the point of being "conservative"? why would you subscribe to an ideology rather than analyzing a situation and then making up your mind? robot?

The point of ideology is an underlying philosophy of organizing principals. A "conservative" (in the post-Goldwater era) means one who believes that free markets and stable social institutions with minimal government tinkering tends to result in the most prosperous, free, and fair civilization which fallible human beings can achieve. A "liberal" (in the post-FDR era) believes that a strong government which vouchsafes the relative comfort of the poor by re-distributing wealth and favors the rights of individuals over any perceived potential damage to social stability is generally the best way to achieve the same goals. Then there's the "libertarian" who would very much like government to respect both property rights AND civil liberties, and believes that the more powerful a government is, the more likely it is to destroy everything it touches. None of these world-views prevent a person of reason to reacting to the situation in front of them according to the facts, but the meaning represented by those facts, and the best course of

....?

I really like listening to these guys and am mystified why Jonah inspires such vitriol. It's clearly a visceral thing (similar to what I felt any time I saw Hilary's face in the 90's.) Even libertarians become unhinged around him, which is idiotic, considering he makes their case so much better than they usually do. I think Jonah presents his position in a calm and deeply reasoned manner while still managing to be entertaining---not easy to do. BUT I will concede this: he has a tendency to stop in the middle of statement and insert an anecdote, and then go back and finish the statement, which takes up a lengthy amount of airtime. Peter, on the other hand, speaks in clean, short sentences and gets to the point a lot quicker.

to that I will also say....?

Quoting Mari Dupont: I really like listening to these guys and am mystified why Jonah inspires such vitriol.

Why don't you check out all the diavlogs that involve Jonah Goldberg here at Bloggingheads and at the National Review website. Peter Beinart and Jonah Goldberg used to do a diavlog called Whats your problem.
I think you will understand why Jonah infuriates many folks. Myself Included.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/152...6:52&out=39:37 Fascinating Diavlog. Goldberg revels that his true dislike is not for libertarians, liberals, or lefties but "Buchananites". He really hates Pat Buchanan. I got the feeling that if Huckabee or some conservative-populist was nominated Goldberg would abandon the Republican party. But Whitman or Bloomberg would be OK. And Nationalism whether in foreign policy or domestic is abhorrent to him. Open borders is "crazy" but stopping illegal immigration the Buchanan way is even worse. One phrase phrase stood out - "Pat Buchanan has grown more fascist as he's moved to the left".

Like watching these fellows? They were in Boise last week and it was a good event. They also appeared on a local PBS show and here's a link to a page with windows replays: http://www.idahoptv.org/dialogue/dia...rsionID=180354

Hi rjajria, Actually I HAVE watched a bunch of "What's You're Problem?" segments and I still dont get it. Granted I agree with a lot of what he says, but I'm fully capable of loathing people with whom I technically agree if they stray from principle or start getting nasty or personal or (worse yet) bitchy (i.e. Ann Coulter.) In JG's case, I'm just not seeing it. It's one thing to disagree with his principles i.e. "this guy is wrong to prefer freedom over equality, or "how can he possibly value the individual over the state?" but that's not what you see in the comments section. Instead its all vague rants about his idiocy without any specifics about what's so idiotic. Which leads me to believe its just personal thing.. maybe his voice? His hair? His beard?

Quoting Mari Dupont: It's one thing to disagree with his principles i.e. "this guy is wrong to prefer freedom over equality, or "how can he possibly value the individual over the state?" but that's not what you see in the comments section. Instead its all vague rants about his idiocy without any specifics about what's so idiotic. Which leads me to believe its just personal thing.. maybe his voice? His hair? His beard?

Well; there you have it: the infuriatingly specious way he frames his arguments. He doesn't prefer freedom over equality. He offers that kind of formulation as an attempt to force a false dichotomy. You don't have to choose freedom over equality. At all. Nor does his position have anything to do with advancing the cause of freedom. But wave the word 'liberty' in front of Americans and you just might spangle their eyes long enough that they won't see you planting your flag in their chest. "I claim this chest for me!" That's why he sucks.

Uh...what are you talking about? The freedom vs. equality debate is a long and, to this day, still contentious debate. As far as I know, the only serious thinker who claims that there is no conflict is Ronald Dworkin. But really, the only way you can claim that there's no conflict is if you say something like: "People don't have freedom unless they have equality!" or "every one equal, because everyone has equal freedom!" or some similarly conflict/reality-avoiding rephrase.

I'm talking Platonic. The concept of a conservative American has held since the early days of the Republic. Its intellectual meaning has yet to change, even when the popular cultural mindset has added many many things to it.

I know its hard to understand principle when all you do is insult people for having different views.

Because he doesn't fit into a Bible-thumping social conservative which most intellectually dishonest liberals like to make conservatives out to be? :P

You clearly haven't read anything beside reviews of his blogs, have you? His columns that deal with non-election issues are quite liberty oriented. And Liberal Fascism is an outright declaration of his views.

....!

Dear Peter, I admire your grasp of most things, and respect your civility in these discussions. With respect to the US labor economy of the 1950s, as you know, the global labor landscape is very different today than it was in the 1950s. How easy was it to set up a factory in China then? How robust was Western Europe's ability to supply goods to the international market in the 1950s? Much of labor's rise (in the way it happened then) was only possible at that point in time. Most of the market and the competition was local to US markets. This is obviously not true today. So when we talk about strengthening unions, international corporations (anyone with operations in Asia) are really unable to play the game in the 1950s way. Major protectionist efforts would be a mistake. So, the sector into which unions will be able to make inroads (within the US) is the service industry, mirroring municipal unionization. I cannot foresee how a strong union of Starbuck's Baristas and Walmart Employees is going to benefit the general economic landscape, it seems like a pyrrhic victory for social justice, because (even though I can't imagine

Quoting Mari Dupont: ... but that's not what you see in the comments section. Instead its all vague rants about his idiocy without any specifics about what's so idiotic. Which leads me to believe its just personal thing.. maybe his voice? His hair? His beard?

I think its not really Mr. Goldberg, but most every conservative that Bloggingheads puts up here. If they are convincing and provide well-conceived arguments, they become even more of an enemy. Go back to the recent Amanda Carpenter vlog. In the same vain you note, I read comments before watching and based on their "vague rants" and use of the word "idiotic
I just knew that Ms. Carpenter made a good showing. When I first discovered bloggingheads...actually maybe my first post...I did so in defense of Conn Carroll as the posters here were painting him as some foaming at the mouth reprobate. Even then I called their bluff asking for a digilink example of what they were describing and...surprise...besides then including me in the attacks...nobody came up with an example. Matter of fact, now months and 20 or so more vlogs to pick from later they still have not stepped to the plate. Yep...still waiting. So no, I do not

Nah, I wasn't insulting him because his views are different...I was insulting him because he's an idiot

I thought this was a good discussion, although it was not particularly topical and went on at a fairly high level of abstraction. I am surprised by the fact that I seem to find JG offensive in fewer than 50% of his diavlogs. Much of the time, he seems pretty reasonable, and pretty coherent. I did have a few quibbles, like when JG portrays Nancy Pelosi as a radical leftist. Also, there should be complete symmetry of treatment, it seems to me, between radical libertarians and so-called radical leftists, at least if the radical leftist is of the nonauthoritarian variety, as in Beinart's characterization of Chomsky. But here Beinart seems to concede to an asymmetry. Insofar as economic libertarianism is the soul of Republicanism, then banishing it from the room is tantamount to a one-party system, according to JG, and I don't think that would be healthy, I agree with JG on that point, as well as in his reading of what Republicanism is. And I see no harm and nothing but good coming from having a person of good will point out where some government intervention that is under consideration might be better left to a market. As far as I can tell, JG's

Regarding Jonah Goldberg's imaginings were the Club for Growth crowd to leave the Republican party -- he seems to be saying that the GOP is largely a pile of compost. A noxious gumbo of bigotry and nationalism? Hmmm. I don't know how large he sees this component as being -- I find the whiff unmistakable -- but am surprised at the frank and embarassing acknowledgement.

A Libertarian in the room: There was an interesting article on October 9 in Claremont, by William Voegeli, that had some great information and statistics about the growth of the welfare state, but it concluded that liberals and conservatives should argue about Good Government rather than Big Government - in other words, give up on smaller government, but try to balance the budget while growing the welfare state, seeking the best and highest use of resources. This, my friends, is capitulation, and if conservatives buy into this concept, it is even more important to have a libertarian in the room. When per capita federal spending on human resources grows from$2557 in 1980 to $4632 (in constant 2000 dollars), something is inherently wrong. Social spending is no longer even suggesting it is a safety net, and the figures do not even capture the unfunded mandates that are legislated in and planned in both POTUS candidates' platforms. Voegeli reports that these outlays grew most (not surprisingly) under FDR (178.1%), but next under Eisenhower and Nixon. True, both were Rockefeller Republicans, not conservatives, but both surpassed Kennedy/Johnson in social spending. While Bush II is far more miserly, he authored the Part D debacle, and when that spending catches up, we will have

NYC123: While I don't disagree with your points, and in fact enjoyed them, I think you are underestimating the power unions might have to make new inroads in many industries and small businesses if the Employee Free Choice Act is passed. In my experience (and it is considerable, as my business is labor relations), unions add from 20 to 26% to the cost of doing business, separate and apart from any wage or benefits gains. Further, the large internationals purport to deliver voting blocs in the 100's of thousands, and do a fair job of it for Democrats. Their influence will grow, and that will result in a lot of anti-corporate behavior among the majoritarians in Congress. While some anti-corporate diatribe may be deserved, the anti-trade, high tax, punitive controls on wealth that these absurdly underqualified "leaders" end up considering will impact markets, jobs, and international outsourcing far more than we might now imagine.

It is not surprising to me that Buchanan's facism grows as he moves left. Facism is a leftist concept. It grew from roots in the French Revolution, and was perfected by national socialists. If you want brown shirts and boots, let a socialist adopt nationalist principles and see what happens.

Jonah should be proud. There still seem to be few packets of L/F Kool-Aid sitting on the remainder shelves.

Since the diavloggers spent almost 30 seconds talking about him, I thought I'd post another request that the powers that be at Bloggingheads look into getting Andrew Bacevich to do a diavlog in the future. He's an interesting guy, with a new book out that he might be interested in talking about.

The current cry is "not enough regulation", by the congressmen and senators who were in charge of the current regulation. Where is the deregulation that fed the current crisis? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directly regulated by the Congress through a special regulatory authority OFHEO reporting to the House Financial Affairs Committee (Chairman Barney Frank presiding for the last two years). The claim is that those people calling for less government and more freedom are misguided; they just don't understand the threat of big business and Wall Street. The failure of "regulation" in this financial crisis is the failure of Congress to regulate its own desire to buy votes with easy mortgages. The financial markets did just what most of Congress wanted. They lent money to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (off budget) so that FanFred could do the bidding of Congress. They traded in the mortgage securities that Fannie and Freddie were buying and selling in the market. Congress is now saying "Yes, FanFred offered to buy up those risky loans, but you mortgage lenders should have had restraint and not sold them

Well put, Andrew! Do you think they will watch any closer over those the government now essentially owns? Why do I think they won't?

Andrew, you should stop reading Powerline because it's really skewed, biased information.
judging from your blog list, i'm guessing you didn't realize the Times has an actual audio recording of big business specifically asking for dereg and then laughing about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...dia/index.html here's the whole series:
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/b...ckoning&st=cse it seems like you need to read this because it's a LOT more complicated then fannie and freddie.

Quoting GenerationPatriot: I'm talking Platonic. The concept of a conservative American has held since the early days of the Republic. Its intellectual meaning has yet to change, even when the popular cultural mindset has added many many things to it.

Please define this concept of a conservative American that has remain unchanged over the past two or three centuries. I am willing to bet right now that you're not going to be able to say anything besides the most banal of tropes, like "self-reliance" and "can-do attitude" and "believes in limited government." Please also give three examples from the 18th century (or early 19th) and three examples from the 21st century (or late 20th) of actual persons who embody this concept and show how they are all identical, at core.

Shorter Tara Davis: If you share my tastes, you have an open mind. If you don't, you live in an echo chamber.

Quoting Doubtful Avenger: It is not surprising to me that Buchanan's facism grows as he moves left. Facism is a leftist concept. It grew from roots in the French Revolution, and was perfected by national socialists. If you want brown shirts and boots, let a socialist adopt nationalist principles and see what happens.

Question: What is this facism? Is it a philosophy where you are for faces? Or against them? If one likes brown shirts, does he also like little mustaches, and is this part of facism? And are boots kept shiny, the better to see the reflection of one's face in them? Regarding Buchanan specifically, I would say that his face has not really grown over the years, although it has gotten more droopy. I think this has less to do with his movement to the left than his increased age (and gravity), though. Well, I suppose if we think of his receding hairline, then in that sense we could say that his face has grown. So are you saying that liberalism causes baldness? How then do you explain why we see so many DFHs with all that long, wild, dirty, smelly hair, usually all in their faces?

OK, I missed that in my typing. Have a relevant comment? Have you read any history, for example? Just checking.

Well, I did read those articles. Nothing new there, except they tend to draw unfounded or partially-founded conclusions. Of course it is complex. The financial firms were doing what they are supposed to do - hedge risk. They did so using CDS's to hedge the risk of CDO's, which securitized really bad loans, and by trading in credit derivatives. Some of us learned about derivatives years ago, when our local bank lost 52 million overnight, leading to expansive (and lucrative, for the plaintiffs and their lawyers) litigation. I know at least one F500 company that chose to leave a very lucrative business trading energy, including weather, as a hedge strategy, because it felt it was too small and therefore too exposed to avoid the risk and succeed against the market giants. These financial firms on Wall Street, however, led by hot shot MBA's who, if they really consider risk at all, simply come up with a hedge strategy to offset that risk, continued to reap the short term profits. They clearly share blame in this economic nightmare, but when you boil it all down, it still appears that it was the $270 billion in bad loans, loans securitized across a vulnerable but cocky

Quoting Doubtful Avenger: OK, I missed that in my typing. Have a relevant comment? Have you read any history, for example? Just checking.

Oh, lighten up, DA. And no. I have no comment on your attempt to follow in Doughy's footsteps. If you want to call liberals "fascists," knock yourself out. Your side has already redefined honor, integrity, clean, healthy, accountability, competence, country first, strong, and truth. Might as well finish the whole damned dictionary.

What exactly are the unfounded conclusions? They describe, in detail, pretty much what you stated yourself.

Fair question: I am going by memory, rather than going to the trouble to look them all up again, but, as is typical of the NYT and why I seldom rely on them for much of anything substantive, the articles tend to pick a cause around their theme and blame it as the cause. Hence, in one, it was the SEC's passage of a rule that took restrictions off investment banks in debt ceilings, leverage, etc. In another (inconsistent with the first), it was the way AIG and others greedily sought to profits from the CDSs; in yet another, it was Mudd simply doing the bidding of all the pressure he was feeling from so many sources. I am not saying that you were incorrect - there is shared blame here - but I am saying that if I set out to fix this in our own risk structure and portfolio, I wouldn't avoid securitizing debt, but I would avoid obvious bad debt. I would not alter leverage rules, but I would focus clear standards on how much crap I would tolerate in that leverage. (Pardon the expression, but I recall a young Smith graduate, upon returning to her home in Texas, complaining to her mother when her

I am not sure what side you believe I am on. I guess you assume I would not call the left fascist if I saw myself as one of them. On the other hand, I was merely relying upon obvious, clear history (some of which is recorded rather well in Liberal Fascism, a recent book). Unlike many on the left, I don't claim to have the vision of the anointed, and I don't redefine concepts or terms that have been generally understood (unlike fascism) for generations. That is in part because I respect language and culture, and don't view the latter as something that can or should change at the whim of a politician or a subset of human beings who want to be free to do as they please, apparently without consequences.
I was, more or less, kidding in my first reply, but the point was irrelevant.

Another in a never-ending series.

Seriously, does anyone really care about Palin's clothes? (and don't go there!) Does anyone not appreciate that Obama's campaign has figured out the system and is maximizing it on those "pay-in-advance" credit cards? Good for him.
Can we talk about ending bail-outs, abolishing capital gains and estate taxes, using the ridiculous tax code to encourage drilling, refining, and development of cleaner technology, including nuclear? Maybe adoption of a single rate tax option for most taxpayers? Stop being the second-highest corporate taxer on earth? These seem like issues to me that have promise for getting us out of this economic and social mess, and having a huge impact on reducing dependence on foreign oil. Not that I expect any of it to happen in the next four years ....

Quoting Doubtful Avenger: Seriously, does anyone really care about Palin's clothes? (and don't go there!) Does anyone not appreciate that Obama's campaign has figured out the system and is maximizing it on those "pay-in-advance" credit cards? Good for him.
Can we talk about ending bail-outs, abolishing capital gains and estate taxes, using the ridiculous tax code to encourage drilling, refining, and development of cleaner technology, including nuclear? Maybe adoption of a single rate tax option for most taxpayers? Stop being the second-highest corporate taxer on earth? These seem like issues to me that have promise for getting us out of this economic and social mess, and having a huge impact on reducing dependence on foreign oil. Not that I expect any of it to happen in the next four years ....

Political campaign are about symbols. Palin's clothes tell us something about the dissonance between who she is and who she'd like to be seen as. Since "character" has been made an issue by her running mate, don't you think that issues like this tell us something important? Of course they do.

I also found it fascinating. Usually I can't stand JG, esp since he insists liberalism is essentially fascism--which defies common sense and is itself a fascistic attempt to shut down debate with ad hominem attacks, and since he often comes off as too smug by half. But it was refreshing to see him admitting the distinction between liberalism and radical leftism. Where was this Jonah when he was writing his incendiary Liberal Fascism, with its eye-catching and provocative title? ______________________
Nixon/Kissinger in 2000!

Quoting Doubtful Avenger: Seriously, does anyone really care about Palin's clothes? (and don't go there!)

I should start CCing you when I send email. Here's something I said to someone last night:

Truth be told, it doesn't bother me at all that the McCain campaign bought these clothes. They're selling an image, and buying nice threads for someone who is basically selling her looks is a perfectly reasonable investment. $150K in the context of a $100 million campaign is lost in the noise -- that's not even enough money to pay to air one national 30-second spot. Really, their answer should have been, "So?" Don't even try to talk about Obama's suits or whatever. Just say, "Of course we bought her some nice clothes. She has to be on TV and on stage several times a day."

The thing that's great about it is that it's something stupid to beat them over the head with, which means we don't have to hear about ACORN or Ayers or whatever stupid stuff they'd like to be the story for a day or two. The bonus was the outcry from Republicans themselves.

The double bonus was how panicked the McCainiacs got about it. Sign of

So, you know? Karma, and I couldn't be more delighted to see it all coming back on them. Maybe next time the GOP will run on something other than trying to scare people.

They actually had no one to run. Remember this gang of bozos? They had to pick among the fundie minister who openly didn't believe in evolution (even Palin fakes it), the deranged McCain, the lunatic Giuliani and the Mormon dude who flip-flopped his way from Massachusetts to Michigan to Utah. In retrospect, they should have gone with Romney. He would still have lost, but he would have been smarter on the economy and not biographically stuck in 1960. The problem with McCain is not that he's an old guy. It's that he's an old guy with old ideas and an old narrative. It's the Lawrence Welk show. Bad then and unredeemed now. Not even camp. Not even nostalgic. Just stale history repeated as farce (as Karl the Plumber once said).

Clearly you folks haven't been keeping up with the latest news: http://www.theonion.com/content/vide...dentally_leaks EW