Have you ever listened to a debate between two extremely skilled pundits or politicians and thinking that they both made sense even though they are on two different ends of the political spectrum? I think that government policy and economics are extremely complex because there is a huge number factors. A person could string together almost anything and make it sound convincing. But it doesn’t mean much to me unless I’ve seen it work in the real world, or there is genuine evidence that it works (unless it’s addressing a unique problem). Since we don’t have a “test” world to try out different scenarios, what I do is look at other countries to see which policies can work and what affect they seem to have. My goal is to support those policies which lead to the most amount of benefit for the most amount of people, with the most amount of freedom. If certain policies seem to do this well, then I generally support them.
I think the worst possible thing a person can do is decide that they are going to be on the liberal team or the conservative team and then try to figure out how things should be. One of the many disadvantages of this is that people personalize the debate and feel attacked if anyone questions or contradicts any of their positions. If a policy supports the goal that I stated above, I don’t care what you call it, or how it’s categorized.
Having said all of that, when I look back at the policies I support and then categorize them, I’d have to say that 99% of them would be considered liberal. To me, the big picture is simple. I could show you nearly two dozen modern, industrialized countries that are way more liberal than the U.S. and for the most part are at least as successful, if not more successful than the U.S. (and support my stated goal above far better). This demonstrates that liberal policies can and do work. I’ve also lived in Germany and Switzerland for many years. In most respects, the living conditions were outstanding. It’s mind boggling how liberal average people are in those countries. On the other hand, I cannot even name another modern, industrial country that is more conservative than the U.S. that is also as successful. The closest, might be Singapore or South Korea, and even these countries have had “socialized” medicine for a long time.
Needless to say, I find the current U.S. political climate extremely disturbing. I hate to generalize, but at least compared with 10 years ago, the right-wing has become powerful, influential and as hateful and angry as ever. Increasingly it also seems to be more and more irrational. The horrendous economy has left a lot of people scared, angry, and looking for someone to blame. The millionaire right-wing celebraties are right there telling them who to scapegoat and who to hate. I believe that we could well be heading for disaster.
So, I think this podcast was very much needed. I would love to hear more of these kinds of podcasts. And if ever, in the future, the Noam Chompsky’s of the world were as successful and influential as people like Glen Beck, then I think a podcast on left-wing irrationality would be in order.
...I’ve also lived in Germany and Switzerland for many years. In most respects, the living conditions were outstanding. It’s mind boggling how liberal average people are in those countries. ...
I’m a Republican but I think Glenn Beck is a nutcase. I think using Glenn Beck to typify Republicans is like using Nazis to typify Germans and Stalin to typify atheists.
One can make a reasonable argument that the living conditions in Germany owe a great deal to US Marshall Plan seed money and continued military support; certainly the U.S. deserves some credit for 30-40 years of solidarity with Europe during the Cold War. It is interesting how easy in retrospect rebuilding Europe seems to be compared to rebuilding Iraq.
If you visit Munich, you can take the train outside the city to Dachau where the camp is there as a museum. Did you visit it? Do you think it is “mind-boggling” that this could happen in Germany?
If you visit Munich, you can take the train outside the city to Dachau where the camp is there as a museum. Did you visit it? Do you think it is “mind-boggling” that this could happen in Germany?
I think given the proper conditions, it could happen anywhere.
Most of the Republicans (and democrats) I know are very nice and reasonable. It is the far right (and left) wingnuts that cause me to grimace!
I actually lived in Munich for a while and I have visited the Dachau Museum several times. It’s “mind-boggling” to me that genocide could happen anywhere. You bring up several interesting points. First, it’s a bizarre experience to be in a country where such a human catastrophe occurred. I lived there in the late 1990’s and still, there were lists of words people didn’t speak and subjects that were so controversial that you shouldn’t bring them up lightly. I’ve seen people in tears, discussing the Holocaust, who weren’t even there. People are both hyper aware of the past and anxious to make things right. They still haven’t quite dealt with it.
Modern Europe and pre-World War II German society are very different. Imagine if every other young man were killed as well as a huge portion of the rest of the population, all of your major cities in rubble, all institutions wiped out, the economy non-existent, and your whole country in complete and utter ruin. And in large part because of a totally radical, extremist, reactionary, quasi-religious regime, that didn’t even have strong roots to begin with. Society would never be the same again. Germany is where the ideas of socialism and communism most strongly developed. In the 1920’s, gangs of communists fought gangs of fascists in the streets of major cities. It’s almost weird that Nazism happened in Germany. In the early part of the 20th century, you would’ve thought that France or Poland would have cradled racial fascism, more than Germany. I’m greatly simplifying and generalizing things here, trying to be short. The economy in Germany was in a horrendous depression in the 1920’s, when Nazism was gaining strength. It just goes to show how crazy people can become when their economic stability is threatened and they are shown the supposed “conspiracy” behind it and who to blame. Any country in this position is in grave danger.
You might say that Germany is so liberal today because it’s a reaction against Nazism, and anecdotally it seems plausible to me, however, it’s not just Germany that became ultra-progressive after World War II; it was all of Western Europe, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Some of these countries already had a liberal trajectory, notably the English speaking industrial world (minus the U.S.) and the Scandinavian countries. I do find the role of the Marshall Plan to be ironic. My opinion is that it allowed Western Europe to stabilize to the point where they could start over. All of the wacky extremism (especially on the right) was burned out and they had the luxury to sit down and figure out what a stable, fair, peaceful, sane country should look like. What they came up with was not an American style free market minimalism, but a heavily regulated, relatively socially equitable economy with tons of social welfare safety nets. Also, since the U.S. was paying a bulk of the military defense, Europe could afford to plow extra tax money into social programs, education, mass transportation, public works, welfare, socialized medicine, etc. It’s kind of like the U.S. paid to help install a very liberal system in Europe, that most Americans would probably never tolerate themselves. And it worked. Western Europe has an awesome standard of living and is incredibly stable. It was also in the interest of the U.S. to do all of this. It’s quite likely that if they hadn’t done that, then sooner or later, it would have all fallen to Soviet style communism.
If only the U.S. didn’t mind spending 54 billion dollars a month for a Marshall Plan to fix our awful ghettos or setup a modern social safety net, instead of toppling a third world dictator.
Present day Iraq is completely different from Western Europe after World War II. It’s hard to even come up with similarities, except that they both had dictators and they were both conquered and occupied afterward. Germany was devastated after World War II. There was almost literally, no one left to fight. And people didn’t have many deep ideological, cultural, religious, or even political reasons to resist. Much different from Iraq. Germany also had a much longer folk tradition of liberalism, socialism, and unionism, as well as sophisticated western styled institutions, western culture, western religion, etc., that was not foreign to the survivors. In fact some U.S. institutions were influenced by older German ideas. We play in the same cultural realm.
Finally, I don’t think Glen Beck is a typical Republican (I don’t even know if he calls himself one). I’m sorry if it sounded that way. These days, I’m not sure what to call the resurgent American right. And there appear to be many different strains, from socially liberal Libertarians to Christian Right-wing militias. They seem to be battling for the heart of Republican Party, but I agree with you, some of them are too nutty to fit into normal framework of the Republican Party.
Jackson,
I actually lived in Munich for a while and I have visited the Dachau Museum several times. ...
I only visited Dachau once—the European Patent Office is located in Munich and I had an extra day on one trip. It was a chilly April day and a place you can never forget.
It remains to be seen whether European socialist economic policies are viable over the long term; it’s not clear how one would ‘measure’ this because there are so many other factors affecting economies.
I think given the proper conditions, it could happen anywhere.
Most of the Republicans (and democrats) I know are very nice and reasonable. It is the far right (and left) wingnuts that cause me to grimace!
Most Germans remained nice people throughout the 30s and 40s.
Being a first generation German immigrant, with intelligent, interesting parents, I was very aware (growing up in the sixties) about that seemingly endless discussion: “How could such a thing (nazism) have happened to a people with such a cultural, intellectual, even liberal background.” It was really a head scratcher.
Then 9/11 came along, and I witnessed the Cheney/Bush run up to an absolutely (and obvious to everyone that looked at the greater reality!!) insane military action (As history has so tragically proven!). I now understand it with a clarity I would have much rather never known.
Some ten years later, USA still refuses to look at what a total all around failure that Iraq grudge match was - instead waving flags and pretending this is how we are supposed to live. While fervor and hatred keeps getting amped up, (hey, I’m only trying to make a few millions bucks, what’s the big deal.) while personal weapons stockpiling seems to have become one of America’s favorite past times, right after reinforced faith based hatreds and hysterical notions of one another… and science.
Perhaps I’m influenced by talking with my Mom who is terrified, and truly heartbroken by what she is witnessing, to her it is all too familiar and she just wants to check out before the next inevitable stage overwhelms us. It would be fun to believe we can finesse ourselves to a more humane run out of history - but history doesn’t hold out much hope for that.
Is this the mirror image of the Glenn Beck conspiracy theory?
I don’t see how you could make a cleaner sweep than electing Obama—just as electing Jimmy Carter was a clean sweep of any hint of Watergate.
I think that is something everyone in the US should be proud of.
Yes, it is a triumph of democracy. However, in spite of this wonderful example of a nation founded on humanistic principles, there are those who abuse the freedoms it offers for personal reasons. Beck is a perfect example of such a person and unfortunately he has the ear of the world and his words tear down any gains we may have made in the eyes of the world.
Is this the mirror image of the Glenn Beck conspiracy theory?
I don’t see how you could make a cleaner sweep than electing Obama—just as electing Jimmy Carter was a clean sweep of any hint of Watergate.
I think that is something everyone in the US should be proud of.
Well yes.
But what good has it done when the opposition party has one imperative: ‘oppose and destroy the man’s initiatives at every turn, rather than taking part in the process and working out a better plan than either party can accomplish left to themselves.
I was actually just checking out, but then saw this headline:
By KIM GAMEL, Associated Press Writer Kim Gamel, Associated Press Writer – 6 mins ago
KHAN BANI SAAD, Iraq – A $40 million prison sits in the desert north of Baghdad, empty. A $165 million children’s hospital goes unused in the south. A $100 million waste water treatment system in Fallujah has cost three times more than projected, yet sewage still runs through the streets
As the U.S. draws down in Iraq, it is leaving behind hundreds of abandoned or incomplete projects. More than $5 billion in American taxpayer funds has been wasted — more than 10 percent of the some $50 billion the U.S. has spent on reconstruction in Iraq, according to audits from a U.S. watchdog agency.
I’ll start believing in right wing honesty as soon as I see them recognize the idiocy of the mindset behind perpetrating and contining these wars that only encourage more justified rage against America plus train and increase the strength of our enemies. Oh yea, I know the Iraq is officially over, but we’ve heard that before haven’t we - maybe we’re getting out, (maybe not) but it seems that the war continues. It ain’t over til it’s over.
And it wouldn’t hurt to start hearing right wingers examine the Anthropogenic Global Warming science with a sense of realism - but that would demand questioning their faith-based notions.
Jackson,
My original point was a simple one; some two dozen countries are far more liberal than the U.S. and do as well or better. But I’m hard pressed to come up with even one country more conservative than the U.S. that is doing well (and none of them are modern, industrialized countries). Like I said, it’s too complicated to try to calculate all of the different factors to predict outcomes, but it’s relatively straight forward to take real live countries and figure out to which degree their policies are regulatory vs. free market and see what the social stats are for the country. This tells me that liberal policies can be successful. I like to look at countries as models of what’s possible. Many Western European countries have been extremely liberal (compared to the U.S.) since WWII and some since WWI. These aren’t polices thought of yesterday! So we know that these policies can be successful over the long run. How they’ll do in the future, I think, is how they continue to calibrate the economy in the future and keep things in balance. It’s worth noting that economically, the U.S. is on the far conservative extreme, among western industrialized countries.
In general Western Europe prefers to sacrifice high growth, for a high standard of living (ie lots of vacation, shorter working hours, free college, generous social benefits, free medical, etc.) By studying these countries you can start to see broad, general rules. You can begin to see where you can set different parameters and what’s likely to happen.
In my opinion, immigration (and foreign internal cultures) is by far Western Europe’s biggest issue. For some reason, Americans love to point this out. Then again, I think it’s been civilization’s biggest issue from the very beginning. Every society struggles with this. But I think that the U.S. has had a very difficult time dealing with this issue, even though we were supposed to be set up for it. I think the U.S. has never dealt with its past with black people and the issue simmers and festers to this very day. In fact, when you compare minority populations (who are actual citizens) in Europe with black people in the U.S., there’s no comparison. In the U.S. black people have similar stats to the developing world (infant mortality, life expectancy, disease, crime, chronic multi-generational poverty). The discrepancy in Europe is not nearly as big. I think immigration (and foreign internal cultures) is also America’s biggest issue. If we could solve the income discrepancy issues in the U.S., I think we’d be in a far, far better position.
I tuned in expecting to get some ammunition to use when discussing Beck with his supporters, but instead was presented with ad hominem attacks, and some of Beck’s ancient history (to which he freely admits and uses to great effect to show how god can better anyone).
I did not hear any argument addressing the title of the show (Beck’s war on reason), or the book (common nonsense and the triumph of ignorance). In fact, I did not hear anything that would prompt me to buy the book, which I presume was the principal purpose of the broadcast.
I get that the host and authors are not big fans of Beck, but I would have preferred a few concrete examples of how Beck’s message distorts the truth, assaults common sense, and challenges reason.
As it was, I did hear yet another dig at people who do listen to Beck . . . I believe they were directly or indirectly referred to as having diminished mental capacity. That may well be the case for some, but if we have any hope of getting them to listen to counter-arguments, we should not continuously call them idiots.
And let’s not forget his audience is not homogeneous. Some listen because they are pissed off at some of what has happened and is happening in the political and social arena, and while they may not agree with everything he says, he nonetheless speaks to some of their concerns.
No, I am not a fan. I recognize he offers nothing more than platitudes and vague mission statements, but it is worth nothing he rings a bell with many people not because they are stupid, but rather because his generalities do touch on the concerns of many.
I think the show could have been less Beck-roasting, and more toward dismantling some of his arguments. At the very least it should have been clearly pointed out, with examples touching on a few issues, his tactics for raising anger without offering solutions.
As it was, this is not a show I can point a Beck fan to in the hopes they will reconsider their admiration for him; all they would hear is how much left-leaning people hate him, something they already knew and dismiss for lack of any concrete reason.
As it was, this is not a show I can point a Beck fan to in the hopes they will reconsider their admiration for him; all they would hear is how much left-leaning people hate him, something they already knew and dismiss for lack of any concrete reason.
What concrete reason? He doesn’t really say anything. From what I’ve seen he uses emotional reasoning. He connects with people’s pathos. You’re not going to defeat that with knowledge. People hate him, that just plays to emotions.
Probably a failure of our public education system to teach knowledge and reasoning skills.
The question is “why”? I never got from the host or author why they dislike him so, or what specific things they object to. Most of all, in their zeal to vilify the man, they neglected to inform me of what I can expect from the book. Unless the book is full of examples relating to the man, and not his message (just like the show).
If that is the case I am not interested in it, but I was hoping for more.
For instance. it would have been useful to hear an examination of Beck’s tactics when speaking on global warming. The guest author mentioned he would have liked to have the host debate Beck on the issue. You know what? A show taking apart Beck’s arguments would have been infinitely more informative and useful that the dismissive derision I heard.
That said, I will ask what your comment of “connects with people’s pathos” means. Is it the same as what Obama did during the last elections? Just wondering.
I won’t ask about the “knowledge and reasoning skills” comment as it sounds . . . what’s the word . . . oh, yeah; Beckish. You know, vaguely accusatory and widely inclusive, but lacking specifics and too broad in nature to refute or argue against.
I will repeat it is a huge mistake to assume all who listen to Beck fall on the far side of the intelligence bell curve, and that it is therefore no use arguing with them because they lack the reasoning skills. Why, I might even hint that it is positively elitist to do so. Surely that goes against liberal ideals. It certainly goes against my ideals; those of a centrist individual opposed to the arguments and tactics of both extremes of the political and social spectra.
Phil Plait recently gave an excellent talk that can be summarized as “don’t be a dick”. He was referring to skeptic arguing with believers, but I think it applies here as well. It seems to me calling the opposition stupid and lacking in reasoning skills violates at least the spirit if not the letter of that sentiment. (disclosure statement: I myself often fail in that regard, but not when referencing large diverse groups. One on one, however, I’ve been known to be quite the dismissive and condescending reproductive tool. Something I am still learning to temper.)
Here is how to find a concrete example of Beck using and spreading irrationality: Get a book on critical thinking, read the part about logical fallacies, and then watch or listen to his show. There is your example(s).
The question is “why”? I never got from the host or author why they dislike him so, or what specific things they object to. Most of all, in their zeal to vilify the man, they neglected to inform me of what I can expect from the book. Unless the book is full of examples relating to the man, and not his message (just like the show).
If that is the case I am not interested in it, but I was hoping for more.
For instance. it would have been useful to hear an examination of Beck’s tactics when speaking on global warming. The guest author mentioned he would have liked to have the host debate Beck on the issue. You know what? A show taking apart Beck’s arguments would have been infinitely more informative and useful that the dismissive derision I heard.
That said, I will ask what your comment of “connects with people’s pathos” means. Is it the same as what Obama did during the last elections? Just wondering.
In politics I think one has to, to get elected. Political speeches generally don’t have a lot of details. People would get bored. Pathos, you connect emotionally with people. You feel their pain. You promote a commonality of experience.
[qoute]I won’t ask about the “knowledge and reasoning skills” comment as it sounds . . . what’s the word . . . oh, yeah; Beckish. You know, vaguely accusatory and widely inclusive, but lacking specifics and too broad in nature to refute or argue against.
It’s not intelligence, it’s knowledge. Whether one’s learned about physics, math, scientific concepts or not. If you have knowledge on a subject then you know. A person is not as likely to be persuaded by an emotional argument. It’s certainly not meant to be elitist. No body knows everything. When ideas and concepts are being expressed when lacking knowledge on a particular subject you rely on trust. Some expert you trust. This is where emotion and commonality of experience comes in which elicits trust.
I will repeat it is a huge mistake to assume all who listen to Beck fall on the far side of the intelligence bell curve, and that it is therefore no use arguing with them because they lack the reasoning skills. Why, I might even hint that it is positively elitist to do so. Surely that goes against liberal ideals. It certainly goes against my ideals; those of a centrist individual opposed to the arguments and tactics of both extremes of the political and social spectra.
Phil Plait recently gave an excellent talk that can be summarized as “don’t be a dick”. He was referring to skeptic arguing with believers, but I think it applies here as well. It seems to me calling the opposition stupid and lacking in reasoning skills violates at least the spirit if not the letter of that sentiment. (disclosure statement: I myself often fail in that regard, but not when referencing large diverse groups. One on one, however, I’ve been known to be quite the dismissive and condescending reproductive tool. Something I am still learning to temper.)
I’m certainly not calling either side stupid. One knows what they know. Some liberals accept AGW for example not because of knowledge but because they trust Al Gore. You ask them for specifics, they don’t know. In their daily lives they have no need to understand the science behind it. They trust Al Gore. Someone else will trust a Rush Limbaugh on AGW. Doesn’t mean they lack intelligence. It only means they aren’t experts on the subject. So they rely on someone, for whatever reason, they’ve developed trust in.
If I have knowledge about a subject then I’ll trust someone who displays a equal level of knowledge. If I’m lacking knowledge on a subject then I have to rely on something else. Emotional ties, ties of common experiences. That’s pathos. People who’ve shared a terrible experience, there is a bond between them. Knowledge has nothing to do with it.
For me knowledge takes effort. Emotions come naturally. It is easier to connect with people on an emotional level and that’s what I’m saying people like Glen Beck does. Trying to connect with people using knowledge is much more difficult.
Even to your point of one group trying to vilify the man. That is connecting on a emotional level.
Glen Beck doesn’t really say anything from a level of knowledge. Truth is I don’t think Obama really says anything from a level of knowledge. From what I’ve noticed “opinion leaders” are more successful connecting with people on an emotional level.
You want more, you want knowledge so you’re not left to rely on these emotional exchanges you have to put the effort in yourself I think. However I don’t really think there is much there besides the emotion.
[ Edited: 01 September 2010 04:29 PM by Gnostikosis ]
