December 22, 2006

Radio alert.

I'll be on Wisconsin Public Radio -- the "Ideas Network" stations -- at 8 Central this morning. I'm doing the "Week in Review" again. This is a show where listeners call in and can bring up any news story they want and two commentators respond -- presumably, from different sides of the political spectrum. I always count as the person from the right. (Can I complain if I keep asking you to vote for me -- daily -- for "Conservative Blogress Diva"? Why, yes I can, I say diva-ishly.)

So who do we have from the left today? It's Ed Garvey, of the Fighting Bob lefty website. Garvey was the Democratic candidate for governor in 1998. Longtime readers know my voting history: prior to 2004, I had only voted for three Republican candidates. I voted for Gerald Ford and his running mate for reasons described here. And once, I voted for Tommy Thompsons because the Democrats put up a candidate who was too far to the left. I'll leave it to you to guess whether this happened in 1998.

Anyway, the radio show should be up and streamable later today.

UPDATE: Go here to stream or download the show. (Scroll to the 8 am show.)


Simon said...

I caught the last few minutes live, talking about taxes on cigarettes and healthcare - back in your milieu, you start sounding more conservative again ("it's a left wing fantasy to expect the federal government and corporations to save us from ourselves"). ;)

Simon said...

Setting aside the question of whether it is even an open question under the Fourteenth Amendment, on a purely normative level, why is the "race blind position" a "superficial" one?

Ann Althouse said...

I think I said it had "superficial appeal," and that's what I meant to say anyway. I think there is no corresponding simple and appealing way to defend affirmative action, and this will present a political problem if the matter is put up for a vote. As to which position has deep appeal... that's a much harder question. It is a complex policy matter in my view, and it isn't easy to figure out what is best, short of vastly improving primary and secondary education.

And thanks for listening.

Simon said...

"I think I said it had "superficial appeal" ... that's what I meant to say anyway. I think there is no corresponding simple and appealing way to defend affirmative action, and this will present a political problem if the matter is put up for a vote."

Oh, so you're only referring to the respective abilities of proponents to sell policy positions, rather than the merits of the positions themselves? That seems much more agreeable, although if that's the case, I'd suggest that the more apt term would be an immediate appeal, rather than a superficial one.

Surely, though, proponents of affirmative action have an equally immediate appeal: they frame it as a question about "diversity." Who, after all, is against "diversity," in the abstract (Chief Justice Rehnquist aside ;)) ? So that's not a bad rhetorical strategy at all - it's at least as effective as the anti-AA "colorblind" argument, in that both appeal to the listener's basic sense of fairness. If I go to argue against AA, and someone pulls the "diversity" argument out, then at a minimum, suddenly I have to go into a lengthy and elaborate explanation as to why presenting diversity and colorblindness as being values in tension is a false dichotomy, and as John Kerry should be able to tell you any day of the week, as lamentable as this may be (recall my quote from Burke the other day), complexity is the kiss of death in a public debate.

Ultimately, the thought that kept coming back to me when you were talking about how the left is going to have to learn to martial a better argument for AA than just "you should be for it" is "what better argument?" Even assuming that the question is not foreclosed by the Fourteenth Amendment, whatever AA's merits fifty years ago, I just don't think there's any longer a serious argument to advance for it, let alone a compelling one. "Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole; but under our Constitution there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race."

"And thanks for listening."

Pleasure's all mine. I'll catch up with the first half-hour later. I actually thought that the other fellow was quite funny (in a good way, that is) in places, although he's quite far out there on the left. There was one occaision where they had you on WPR up against someone who just left the listener thinking that he needed a damn good thumping, but this guy was interesting enough that I actually went and checked out his website.

MadisonMan said...

You and Mr. Garvey were highly entertaining. I'm always interested that callers-in are usually male.

John-o said...

Nice job today on the show, Ann. One thing that is interesting to me is your comment about the left's seeming reliance on emotion-based arguments and the right's more intellectual approach (at least in the case of the issues addressed today.) From his audible reaction, I surmise Mr. Garvey disagreed with your assessment.

It seemed, though, time and again he would defend his positions based on what he felt ought to be true and then, when challenged, would retreat into "well, I don't really know enough to comment more on that." You completely pwn3d him throughout large parts of the discussion. When he actually *knew* what he was talking about (the NFL's monopoly), he was engaging and convincing (and was adopting a more conservative approach, I might add.)

I'm not saying that lefties never use their brains and that righties always do (esp since I don't think of you as being on the right.) It just struck me that so many of his arguments assumed right-thinking people would agree with him, that he had to back off when you offered a counterargument.

Thanks for the great blogging and have a Merry Christmas!

Simon said...

At 4:10, he suggests that it's significant that Pat Buchanan doesn't think we're winning. Does he not realize that Pat Buchanan has been a vocal opponent of the war since day one? Does he not realize that Buchanan is not only not a neocon, but he has loudly and vocally castigated neoconservatism and neoconservatives?

What a perfect example of lefties just throwing out the names of their pet bugaboos - Pat Buchanan! Neocons! Once you get to the right of Walter Mondale, it's all much of a muchness - right?

Well called on that one.

Gerald Hibbs said...

This is a great show. Give it a listen. Here's an interest stimulator.

Live Blogging: (all quotes paraphrased)

Ring Announcer: In this corner, the lovely Anne "Amazing" Althouse from her lonely outpost in Madison, WI. In that corner, Ed "The Ed-iot" Garvey live in studio. Are you ready to see Ed crumble?! DING!

Anne: Well, I'm not a military expert, so I don't know whether we should have more troops or less troops. I just know losing is not an option and the President needs to find a way to win.

Anne: We lost Pat Buchanan? When did we ever HAVE Pat Buchanan?
-- That was an early indicator that you were going to beat this guy like a drum.

Anne: We went in there, we broke it. Don't we have a moral obligation to the Iraqi people?
Garvey: No.
Anne: We should listen to the Iraqis.
Garvey: 80% of the Iraqis want us out.
-- Yes, that poll number smells. Probably because he pulled it out of his beep.

Shorter caller: All we Americans want to use our money to do good. Anne -- "the lady" never sounded more condescending -- and Bush are morally bankrupt for making war on the Iraqis.
-- Gotta love the demographics for "Public" radio. If Rush were on public radio it would have been defunded by the Left long ago.
Anne: Well, I think dictators who murder their people en masse are more morally bankrupt. When things get so bad in a country and the rest of the world looks on and lets it happen THAT is more morally bankrupt. I agree if we do it we should do it well and I understand the criticisms. Every war could be fought better.

Host: Leaving Iraq in the lurch and seeing an increased chaos. . .what do you think?
Garvey: It's already chaos. . .mixing real facts with -- Haliburton! -- debunked studies, etc. . .Bush can't define victory and doesn't know why we are there.
-- WHAT? Surely, even you don't believe that? Yes, Bush has been a terrible communicator but the goals for Iraq, the reasons for going there, (current) plan for victory -- these are all publicly available. Just because the NYT won't spoon feed them to you every day or your memory is bad and you can't remember doesn't mean they don't exist. And it is already chaos? This is the type of guy (like the illustrious John Kerry) who poo-poo'd critics who said that if we left Vietnam millions would be killed and apparently hasn't learned anything from history. . .

AARGH, I give up! I can't be a intermediate vessel for this guy any more. I feel soiled by his mental touch. This is a great show. Give it a listen.

AJ Lynch said...

Good show. I hope to God you had one arm tied behind your back and were standing on your head cause Ed Garvey is no match for you let alone a well-informed 9th grader.

He is a pompous one - snorted at you for watching such a low-brow (?) TV show like The Apprentice. And his lack of information (neo-con Buchanan) was appalling.

But of course Buchco is hideous and wrong, we need to raise taxes and let's throw in free college tuition too (tsk stk btw, neither of you seemned to be aware the mayor of Pittsburgh just announced a similar "homestead" program where Pittsburgh residents will get their tution paid in an effort to get people to move to Pittsburgh).

All in all, very very good showing by you but Garvey should be put out to Emeritus pasture. Thanks for sharing with us.

Ann Althouse said...

John-O: Yeah, the funniest part of it all is the way Garvey was suddenly pro-free market, and it was precisely in the area where he had been professionally involved. (He was executive director of the NFL players union for 12 years.)

Independent-1 said...

The show was a hoot…

"it's a left wing fantasy to expect the federal government and corporations to save us from ourselves" It’s actually not a left wing fantasy.

We elect the officials that oversee the federal government so essentially we are the federal government that is there to serve us. Guess what? The feds is us. LOL

Police save us from ourselves.

American run corporations are part of our collective, and we have regulations to help save us from ourselves.

We have a legal system to help us get judgments against ourselves. In fact you teach people how to save us from ourselves.

This kind of mixing of metaphors is hilarious. Many government services can and should save us from ourselves. We just can’t go overboard.

I’m sure you mean we can’t prevent a person from intentionally wanting to hurt him/herself.

But then again, there are people who actually don’t know that fast food will make them fat. So they aren’t intentionally hurting themselves. They are just uninformed.

There are people who don’t believe that smoking is bad for you, so they aren’t intentionally hurting themselves. They just choose not to believe the studies.

How many studies have you chosen not to believe and why should the studies you believe take precedence over the studies someone else believes?

After all, if it wasn’t for the regulations that require that content label on your packaged food, you wouldn’t know what you were eating. Another case of us saving us from ourselves. LMAO

So essentially, there is no way to protect us from what we don’t know or don’t believe unless we take actions to save us from ourselves.

And why are all these neophytes talking about affirmative action? What a waste of time. AA is a pill invented to counteract the illness of racism AKA hatred. So it has some side effects, so what? Why not try and cure the illness of racism so the AA pill isn’t needed rather than blaming the AA pill? How idiotic to blame the AA pill. Could it be that people like to be free to practice racism with no repercussions, that those that go after AA actually feel their freedom to hate is being threatened? Or maybe most people feel the hatred of racism doesn’t really exist, like the Iranians and the holocaust.

I heard a lot of other invalid arguments, so I’ll be back if I have time.

Merry Christmas!!!