Monthly Archives: March 2012

Jim Emerson has a good take on the Free Speech issues involved in the Rush Limbaugh matter.

Here's my renewed way of looking at the issue: If you believe in Free Speech, you have to occasionally defend that principle with regard to those who say things you find noxious or offensive. They don't have the right to be paid for saying it. They don't have the right to have a TV or radio show on which to say it. They don't have the right to say it and go unrebutted. They don't even have the right to say it and suffer no consequences like sponsor or audience desertion. But they do have the right to say it and we should all do more to protect that right. I'm going to try to do more on my part.

This will change no prominent person's mind about anything but as William Saletan notes, there's a pretty good piece of evidence that Barack Obama was right to not declare that the U.S. was engaging in a Holy War against Islam. That's what everyone courting the evangelical vote in the U.S. demanded but instead, Obama framed it as a war against Al-Qaida. And that seems to have been the wise choice.

Andrew Sullivan notes that when Republicans complain about Obama the Big Spender, they're mounting a campaign against a fictional Barack Obama. The real Obama is spending at a much lower pace than any of our recent Republican presidents, Reagan included.

A lot of interesting messages this morning in response to my wondering about a conservative host who has civil conversations on his or her program. A couple of folks mentioned Joe Scarborough. One suggested John Stossel. A few said that while it isn't moderated by anyone as conservative as Jon Stewart is liberal, there are non-rancorous discussions on the NPR show, Left, Right, and Center.

But so far, the most oft-mentioned name was that of William F. Buckley with more than a dozen correspondents suggesting that the kind of thing I seek died years ago, much as did the host of Firing Line. I really want to believe that's not so — not about Buckley dying as I accept that — but that one couldn't do a show like that today and make it entertaining. A reader of this site named Jeff Noren wrote…

What you're looking for isn't on TV because it would be Bad Television. It would be like watching a wrestling match where the two guys weren't trying to kill each other. Who would care? I admit that most people find Jon Stewart entertaining. I don't but I can see why many do. But they find him entertaining as a comedian not as a commentator. In the wrestling model, it would be like he's not really wrestling but is cracking jokes in the ring.

I can have the kind of conversations you want at work and I do. I don't tune in the radio or program my DVR to hear what I can get at the office.

I'm not sure you really get the appeal of Jon Stewart if you liken him to a wrestler. I don't think people who compare him to a Bill O'Reilly do, either. But the wrestling analogy is interesting. I worked a bit with WWE (then WWF) wrestlers and the main thing I gleaned from that experience is that the appeal of pro wrestling for most of its fans is predetermined outcomes. If you root for your favorite baseball team, there's every chance they might lose. In pro wrestling, they tell you who the good guy is and if you root for him…well, it may take a couple of Wrestlemanias or other hurdles but eventually, you'll be rewarded. A lot of Talk Radio is like that to me: Tune in and your side will always win.

I still think civil discourse can have its entertainment value without that. It would require hosts far wittier and interesting than some who are presently cast in that job description, It might also require a slightly different pool of guests than the talking heads who pop up on Fox News, MSNBC and CNN these days…but I think the talent's there. And it would not surprise me if the demand was, as well. Then again, it also wouldn't surprise me if it was not.

A fellow came up to me yesterday at WonderCon and we had a nice, friendly conversation about political topics that have wafted through this blog. The guy is one of those Republicans who doesn't want the "Obama Agenda" (his term) but also doesn't want any of the particular men who are in contention for the G.O.P. nomination. He understood, as some readers of this blog do not, that I have great reservations about some of the things the Obama administration has done…and a few that they haven't done. I'll write about a couple as soon as I get my thoughts more organized.

What struck me as we spoke is that in all of TV, radio or even the Internet, there's no place anyone can go to see two people discuss issues, politely and (I thought) reasonably. Standing there in the exhibit hall with women parading by in Red Sonja outfits, we were saying things like, "Well, I understand your point" and "I may be wrong about this" that you never hear in political discussions in public venues. There, it's usually two warring parties refusing to give an inch, twisting themselves in pretzel-shapes to not admit that anything the other side says could be a valid point. The closest I've seen is some of Jon Stewart's chats, especially in the online Extended Interviews which I have to remember to watch instead of the truncated televised versions, not after.

The one Stewart did the other night with Grover Norquist was interesting, given how much Norquist was tempering his arguments and moderating positions in order to play to the Stewart audience. In that sense, I'm not sure it was an entirely honest discussion but Norquist did get to speak at length and he scored a few points. In Stewart's chats with folks like that, no one ever yells. No one ever doesn't get to finish their sentences. I vaguely recall one conversation in which the host spoke with great passion on some topic, took a lot of time to do that, and then the guest complained he hadn't received sufficient time to reply…but the segment was just about over and he couldn't. Stewart seemed embarrassed and I don't think I've ever seen him do that again.

More to my point, those chats always end on friendly terms with the guest at least appearing eager to come back on again soon…and this brings me to a question: Can anyone suggest a host (TV, radio, anywhere) who is as conservative as Stewart is liberal who does something similar? Who could have on the liberal equivalent of Norquist (say, Robert Reich or Paul Krugman) and talk politics with them in such a mature but entertaining manner? This is not a trick question or a desire on my part to prove that no such person is possible in the conservative world. In point of fact, I think it is but the con-goer I mentioned above couldn't think of one and neither can I. I'd love to hear some suggestions.