Photo credit: @julesdwit.
A not-for-profit media organization supported by people like you.
What an absolutely tiresome segment. Can I get my 20 minutes back?
number 12 is right...we have monopolies and oligarchies operating under govt protection--in every way from bailouts, to tax breaks, payoffs to congress, lack of protection for the public, --and also commercialism taking over all aspects of life...even public radio! Far too many commercials for corporate sponsors on all the shows, esp compared to past years. Gets worse and worse.
the state and local govts don't have enough resources, and are more subject to local prejudices against minorities,etc...the feds must help...a lot. Also the religious charity is unreliable...what if a person isn't moved by your --he doesn't have to help. The govt has a policy to help and can be consistent. It's the function of govt to do this, not religious charity in a modern society. Shades of Dickens london work houses!
Thanks, Maher. I'll check that out. I also agree about Brian. I think he tries to keep it rant-free and also sometimes looks for common ground. There is more of it than we think.
Signing off now. Good weekend everyone.
mc: Commentary Magazine
I do think that Brian Lehrer, despite leaning left, is one of the best, fairest, talk=show hosts in the radio (or anywhere) and I realize that has much to do with his staff and listeners
the shouting-match oand one-sided rant shows do very little for me - or for public discourse
eva: Well said. We are finding out now that capitalism also needs oversight.
Maher: I applaud you for being someone who leans conservative but still reads the NY Times and listens to NPR and WNYC, because I think both tend toward the left. Which Commentary are you referring to when you mention reasoned unshrill voices of the conservatives? I read David Brooks partly because I find him unshrill and I don't disagree with everything he says, though I disagree with much of it.
tractor guy: You have nailed it. Look both ways, because neither party really has our interests at heart, they both need to be watched closely.
Thank eva. You always got to look both ways when crossing a 2 sided street…
Actually, I think tractor guy is right, especially with the indictment of Democrats sitting around watching.
The republicans burned down the store and the democrats sat and watched instead of calling the fire department. Wake up people, both sides of the isle are bought and paid for by corporate America. The entire senate and congress is bought and does not work for you anymore and has not for a long time…. You’d be very naive and foolish to think any different…. End special interests and you end the problem….
#39 - agreedIt's about issues, not personalities, and to deepen my understanding of the issues, I I listen to WNYC, NY Times, read The New Republic etc... even though I tend towards Republicans and Conservatism and theoretically should be listening to talk radio and reading the Washington Times.
That being said, I also feel that Commentary is a very un-shrill and well-reasoned voice of Conservatives.
mc,Agreed on both points. The irony of our perception of the free market is that it comes from a misunderstanding of Smith, who really wanted checks on the system. Because, as you point out, all systems need oversight. As we're, uh, finding out now, AGAIN.
If the Federal Government was no longer taxing for and administering those programs do you think that potential tax revenue would somehow disappear? Imagine for a moment what NY state would be like were we to reverse the State/Fed tax burden and we payed what we pay in Federal taxes to the state and vice versa. We'd all be alot better off.
eva,Re: #22, I think you could say the same thing about any system. If there are no checks and balances someone will always try to game the system to his/her favor.
To Maher, Tom and eva,I think we would all do well to focus less on personalities like George W. Bush, Castro, Chavez, and yes, Obama, and more on what we would like to see happen in our society. Vesting a single person or group of people with those goals is futile. Better to really know where they stand, watch what they do and then hold them accountable for their actions rather than listening to their rhetoric.
I suspect that if the GOP had not sabotaged McCain in 2000, he would have won by winning over a lot of Democrats (I myself was hoping to cast a vote for him in 2000, but the powers that be at the GOP didn't let that happen, as I recall...)Had McCain won, who knows how different things would look now. My completely unscientific theory is as follows:1) with an entirely different national security and foreign policy team, we might have reacted quite differently after 9/11. Specifically, I think we would have stayed in Afghanistan, and avoided the Iraq fiasco. Would we be winning in Afghanistan? Does anyone win in Afghanistan? Not sure, but we'd be doing better than we are now. Let's face it, Bush-Cheney TANKED the GOP. It's like they drove it right off a cliff. It's not like it won't come back, but you gotta realize what a disaster these clowns have been. And that's coming from someone who thought Bubba was largely a disappointment.
#35,Agreed. Washington is a mess, and it wasn't so hot during the Clinton years, either. We need a major bottle of lysol for that town. I read Frank's article in Harper's this month, thought it was hysterically funny, but like you said, his extreme characterizations don't actually help the argument he's making.
Tom,As a liberal, I neither hate George Bush, nor adulate Castro or Chavez. That's a stereotype, like insisting conservatives all love George Bush. If you look at the data, no one actually loves George Bush. His approval ratings are in the toilet. Or, have you not checked? It's okay, you can disavow him, too.
#33 - Eva, I am more a Republican and Conservative than not, but troubled by many things going on in Washington and welcome the critiques on lobbyists etc...
Without such criticism, things will never improve.
But I agree that Frank's tone and language don't do service to some of his better points & his most extreme characterizations will be used to try to dismiss those good points.
Generally, I think if we can have better discourse, we'll see more real progress - even if being snarky and extreme may get more press and attention initially.
Can someone answer a simple question for me? Ho do Liberals reconcile their intense hatred for George Bush, with their love and adulation for dictators like Fidel Casto and Hugo Chavez?
#24,in my experience, conservatives have always surprised me with their generosity. On a one-to-one basis, I have found them to be more generous as employers. At the same time, they were running businesses that were purely for-profit, so there was more money to go around. I have not found them so generous when it comes to charities, and I am skeptical about the data used in the Brooks book you mentioned. Having said that, I am surrounded by so-called liberals who espouse all the pc ideas, but are status-obsessed and environmentally nutty (I have twice seen Sean Penn in SF, he drives a Range Rover - what justifies THAT if you're so concerned about the environment?)I think Frank takes too harsh a view of conservatives and the conservative movement. On the other hand, I don't think the last seven years are a good reflection of conservative ideas. They have, however, been a good reflection of Visigoth plundering.
Maher, I would agree with you then. No ideology has a lock on greed or selfishness. Perhaps the right seems selfish because it's so obvious that faith in the private solution leaves so many hung out to dry!
do you think then that we should have America be like Charles Dicken's era England "A Christmas Carol" which was a commentary on the times. The boss controlled everything and had a good heart so he decided to out of the goodness of his heart give a turkey for Christmas, the day off and would pay for the sick child's medical bills.
Shall we all be poor living off the charity of the rich when they feel like tossing us a penny or two all in the name of "free market" which only has the wealthy's interest at heart?
I don't think so!!!!
Politicians frequently rely on the gullibility of the public to believe whatever authority figures tell them. Someone may charge politicians with eating all the cookies from the cookie jar, but when they deny it with a full mouth and crumbs on their cheeks, do we the citizens and media of this country point to the evidence and demand justice? Far too often, we instead tell them not to chew with their mouths open and hand them a napkin.
Local governments have been STARVED for decades, Erick. If New York State were suddenly expected to pick up the tab for all of our social programs, educational, and infrastructure needs, the sky would indeed fall.
Another conservative canard.
Mark - #23No offense taken.
And with all due respect, it is the point - at least to many of the posts here which allege relative "greed" and "selfishness" of conservatives. See posts 2, 3, 4 etc...
People seem to forget that there are other government entities (specifically the state and local governments)that are more than capable of taxing for and administering social programs. Were the federal government brought back into within its Constitutional mandate it's not as if the sky would fall, the poor would go hungry and the sick would die. The burden would not be removed from government all together it would simply be shifted to more local and accountable governments.
What Mr. Frank and other Liberals don't understand that it is exactly this condescending, know-it-all approach that so well defines the Liberal mindset. Forget democracy and a government governed by the will of the people. Give us elitist monarchs who will rule over us ignorant, unwashed masses (the worst of which are epitomized by the inhabitants of Kansas, apparently). Give us high and mighty rulers who will tell us how best to live our lives.Please spare me your patronizing, head-patting tone, Mr. Frank.
so #9 Perhaps it is liberals (and many of the comments here) who protesteth too much about greed and selfishness of conservatives.
The statistics clearly indicate conservatives are more charitable and less greedy than liberals. when it comes to correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative.
No offense, Maher, but that's not the issue.
Conservatives are animated by a belief that an unfettered, raw market can take care of people better than government.
If you really believe that Walmart or ExxonMobil have your interests at heart, or that Bechtel and KBR can be trusted to run a war (or disaster-aid mission), then I would question your concept of charity.
Tom,The free market is a rational, optimistic idea, like democracy. In theory, it is wondrous. In the dirty hands of mankind, not so much. Smith warned about the difficulty of maintaining a free market that is truly free, as the tendency is for people to try to gain an unfair advantage as soon as they get a leg up.
Obama will be your savior and make it all right, give you free insurance ans syringes and tuck you in at night.
Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
It is deceptive to call the disavowing reaction of Republicans to the effects of their rule merely ironic. To say so attempts to absolve those Republicans in power of responsibility for the disastrous results of the past few decades, which appears to be their motivation for saying so. Instead, call their reaction what is: manipulative and disinformative.
The major problem is that it may not be possible to maintain a competent government over such a large, widely-extended, and heterogenous group of people that exists on this continent. I always laugh when the phrase "The American people are this or that or want this or that" is used. What exactly is the common demoninator that defines "The American people". I would say there is nothing. So how can such any institution meet the expectations, the needs, etc. over such a disparate group, and sometimes, mutually exclusive, collection of interests.
Frank's book and Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine lay out this corporatist agenda in plain and sickening detail. I worry that's not possible to put this genie back in the bottle -- as Frank says, the best and brightest no longer even consider working for the public sector, and the mantra that business can do it better is not even questioned.
What's your guests problem with the government following THE CONSTITUTION?
He is right, but it goes further. The polluted air in Beijing today is from STEEL FACTORIES that belong over here. The free market evangelists that sold off our government also sold off our production jobs. We need those jobs now, and they are in India and China, and those countries are not stupid enough to give it away based on FREE MARKET beliefs.
#1, Michael:Adam Smith would be rolling over in his grave if he knew what became of his enlightened hopes for the free market. He's been hijacked by the Milton Friedmanistas.
the real problem,, the source of all thievery and corruption is GREED... on both sides of the aisle
This is not free market as described by Adam Smith. What we really have is Monopolies and Oligopolies working under the protection of government. These outsourcing entities has no competition, no openness.
Blaise was right. It all started with the Air-traffic controllers.
Why did you all cut him off? He had important stuff to say very sucinctly.
people are not fed up or looking down on a DEMOCRATIC congress, they are fed up with CONGRESS.
me thinks thou protest too much.
the era is over to an extent because Republicans no longer control congress. but yes there is still legalized corruption in DC.
why is a post defending conservatives deleted when several stereotyped conservative-bashing posts remain?
I am conservative and I am reality based. not mean, selfish, hypocrites, Machiavellian, intolerant, plundering, selfish, and I believe in the Bill of Rights
I wish some liberals were more tolerant of diverse ideas.
Oh yes... it's too conspiracy to think we went to war on purpose to fund corporate interest. That would just blow everyone's minds wouldn't it?
I'm happy to see this book and this information coming out. I'm sure I'm not the only one but we who have seen this happening over the past 2 decades. The government has been taken over by anti-government people!! Now what does that say about us. A government of, by and for the people has become a lobby of, by and for the corporations in the holy name of the free market. It's time we point out the faults of the so called totally free market and the sad state of the economy as well as the social and cultural structures. All down the drain. When you find yourself paying $7 for a cookie because you buy the rhetoric used to sell it, then you need help.
I forget who said it, but it's clear that conservatism is mostly an effort to find a moral justification for selfishness.
Conservatives promote a "free market" agenda that only benefits the rich. It is our job as liberals and Progressives to expose the "con" in conservative and not be bought into their philosophies and lies.
What's the matter with Conservatives? Multiple choices:a) They are not reality basedb) They are meanc) They are selfishd) They are hypocritese) They make Machiavellian tactics seem downright quaintf) They are intolerantg) They plunder the treasury, stealing from the poor and giving to the richh) They believe in aggressive attacks on countries in violation of international lawi) They glorify Jack Bauer and promote torture and are too cowardly to admit it and create Orwellian names like enhance interrogation techniquesj) They don't believe in the Bill of Rightsk) etc., etc.l) All of the above
The Free Market doesn't exist in this country.1. Bailing out Fany Mae and Fredie Mac - 2. Microsoft's monopoly on an operating system3. cable companies4. Bail outs of Airline companies5. Farm subsidies6. Tax brakes for Oil companies7. No Bid contracts for Haliburton to reconstruct Iraq
Email addresses are required but never displayed.
Brian Lehrer leads the conversation about what matters most now in local and national politics, our own communities and our lives.
Subscribe on iTunes
WNYC 93.9 FM and AM 820 are New York's flagship public radio
stations, broadcasting the finest programs from NPR and PRI, as well as a wide range of award-winning local
programming. WNYC is a division of
New York Public Radio.