MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
He is offering a glimpse into what Fox News would look like as an intellectually interesting network.
By Peter Beinart @ TheAtlantic.com, July 13
Over the last two nights, something fascinating has broken out on the Tucker Carlson show: A genuine, and exceedingly bitter, debate between conservatives on foreign policy. On Tuesday, Carlson told retired Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters he thought the U.S. should team up with Russia to defeat ISIS. Peters responded that, “You sound like Charles Lindbergh in 1938.” Carlson called that comment “grotesque” and “insane.”
Then, on Wednesday night, Carlson told the Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow, and former Mitt Romney adviser, Max Boot, that he opposed overthrowing Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and didn’t see Russia as a serious threat. Boot responded by accusing him of being a “cheerleader” for Moscow and Tehran. Carlson called that comment “grotesque” too. And declared, “This is why nobody takes you seriously.”
In his vicious and ad hominem way, Carlson is doing something extraordinary: He’s challenging the Republican Party’s hawkish orthodoxy in ways anti-war progressives have been begging cable hosts to do for years [....]
Comments
I posted this not because I am pushing Mr Bowtie Carlson but because it is yet another indicator that I see that the lack of leadership from the White House is giving the GOP permission to factionalize further.
I think all the sturm and drang about Dem factions and lack of message will be proven to be a nothing compared to what will come out of this for the GOP. What is their platform? Can anyone find true unity among them anywhere besides "lower taxes"? (Speaking of that, how often do you hear Dems campaign on the higher tax message?) They have had no message for eons, either, besides: against the other side. Both big tent parties can't really have strong messages, they coalesce for a short while to win and then if they win, they fight amongst themselves.
Voters who vote party line are voting for an illusion that is no longer there.
by artappraiser on Fri, 07/14/2017 - 2:06pm
I draw a distinction between disagreement and disunity. Factions with relatively small disagreements may still exhibit intense hostility. The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks agreed on a lot and yet...
Likewise, today's GOP is ideologically homogenous compared to previous points in history. In addition to taxes, there is plenty of agreement on abortion, gun rights, deregulation, and other matters that Republicans used to disagree about. But where they disagree, they disagree intensely, as we've seen in the health care fight. We're going to see a similar fight, btw, when they get around to tax reform. If we're lucky, they will fail to bridge those gaps as well.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 07/14/2017 - 4:49pm