Ta-Nehisi Coates linked to a video debate between William F. Buckley and James Baldwin on topic concerning the “American Negro” in American society. Watching it reminded me that we are no longer in an age of Great Debate. I mean, we debate. GOP candidates rehash the same tired issues with slightly different flair over a dozen times through the course of the primary season. And we watch shows like Meet the Press or Real Time with Bill Maher and a few other scream fests here and there which count as pseudo debates. Even then, there is always an ideological disadvantage when the moderator is either a liberal comedian (?) or employed by a risk-averse media company.
But what about 1-on-1 debates between two people with well thought-out arguments who could not be any further apart on the ideological spectrum? Many of the talking heads on pundit TV have tweaked their argument here and there in the same way that the stylist backstage applied makeup and coiffed hair. For Rat Pack bloggers and academics we have Bloggingheads.tv – a site which I enjoy thoroughly. But that site rarely pits two ideological adversaries, and we get the sense that the people discussing issues there are going to meet up for martinis somewhere in the near future. Not that debate opponents have to be enemies, but I don’t want them worrying too much about if they’ll get an invite to the next backyard tofu BBQ.
I suggested on Twitter that I’d love to see a debate between John Derbyshire (or Steve Sailer) and someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates, Jelani Cobb, or Toure. A hardcore conservative on the race issue and a hardcore liberal. I’d even be willing to shell out money to watch it online, and I believe that plenty of other people would too.
Because what are the hottest button issues today? I mean, people get mad about income inequality, the environment, and the economy, but they don’t get quite as worked up about that as they do highly contentious racial issues. And there is never an embargo on the discussion of contentious economic issues. But the fact that there is one surrounding race indicates that it is of utmost importance. The people of this country are just pretty good at sweeping all of it under the rug until individual cases open up the wound.
The topics that should be discussed now, as we’ve moved up the Kuznet’s curve to a point where blacks have their civil rights and affirmative action and equal *opportunity*. During the era of the Buckley-Baldwin debate, none of the issues that Derbyshire brought up in his column at Taki’s were in play. None of the anger blacks had towards whites had coalesced to the point that it overtook the fear of policing and punishment – as such seems to be the case in many cities today. Jail was not glorified; “No Limit” had not become a way of life or a badge of honor for young black kids in the streets. But instead of having an efficient point-counterpoint, rebuttal-rebuttal, we are stuck with mischaracterizations of argument, misunderstandings (of which I was slightly guilty too), and unchecked hand-waving. And only the most fringe extreme voices on the idea-discussion circuit have any desire to bring up arguments that are supported by a much larger percentage of the population. These are citizen advocates, but they are quickly labeled as racists and then marginalized. Liberals and liberal-conservatives are denying what very many people see as true. At the very least, the arguments being put forth by the *silenced* majority need to be borne out. They need to be addressed in a respectable manner by a person who can properly craft the arguments.
I’ve been listening to the debates at Intelligence Squared U.S. for the past couple of week while I’m at work. The two I’ve enjoyed the most are “Don’t Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses” and “Too Many Kids Go To College” (Charles Murray was part of the college debate):
I think anti-racism is a central bit of dogma in the modern religion (whatever you want to call this religion), it’s a litmus test of orthodox thought. Hence racists are worse than racists, they’re heretics.
So asking for a mainstream debate on such heretical matters is like asking for a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Torquemada — that can’t happen (setting aside the logistical difficulties) because Torquemada’s purpose is to drive such heretical thought into oblivion.
Funny. The more “diverse” the US becomes, the less diversity there is in the range of acceptable topics for debate.
MultiKultism and Multiracialism require an authoritarian or totalitarian mode of government in order to keep the whole thing from falling apart, and we can see that tendency now in the conduct of the dominant globalist-Left regime.
A problem with your suggestion is that to set a debate in the manner you mentioned with the set up you discussed, on (for example) race issues, you take away most of the firepower the left has. They still use the firehoses and police dogs on the Pettis Bridge imagery to guilt swing voters and sheltered, no black nearby whites (like Maine or North Dakota whites). Forget that it’s been decades between the suited up and dress wearing nonviolent protestors. You could do the same with women’s issues, where to set the situation up as if it is 2012 and not 1952, they lose their guilt and crapola imagery. They do this with single women every election, where a GOP POTUS would remove the right to abortion and send them to the kitchen forever. The left would never agree to this, which is why they cloak all discussions in pre-68 imagery to guilt ro shame opposition.
The problem I anticipate is that left-debating tactics include refusing to yield the floor, deliberate mischaracterization, strawmen, sloganeering, and a resort to feelings over facts. Debating a leftist is exhausting and unpleasant.
Which is not to say that such a debate wouldn’t be revealing. Of your suggestions, I’d most like to see Sailer vs. Coates.
Debate is a reasoning combat game, which you could liken to fencing, boxing, or wrestling. Debating the left, especially the black left, is useless. Dirty tactics aside, if the debator is roundly defeated, admits his defeat, and publicly voices a correction to his views, his followers’ mob will not disperse; for they had only assembled under emotion, not reason.
A debate between Sailer and Coates would probably play out a lot like this debate between Jared Taylor and Tim Wise, which I assume many who are commenting here are familiar with, did:
Taylor frequently challenges people to debates. Most people decline. I wonder what would happen if someone like Derb, given his recent 15 minutes, publicly challenged Coates or someone like him to a debate?
absolutely bring back firing line as late as –when?– the 1980s? firing line formal debates were still on the air, with kinsley playing the role of the anti buckley, arianna when a fierce conservative, etc. it was brilliant and, as you point out, totally at odds with the 24/7 spin culture. so yeah bring it on. i think it will work nowadays precisely because we’ve rotted so far to the other side we can’t go futher and an auto correct is inevitable.
During my high conservative days, I’d put on old firing line episodes and use it as a calming experience. Even with hacks like Chomsky, hearing them forced into high minded debate was always a good feeling. Now, you can barely say “lower corporate taxes” without Godwin’s Law taking immediate effect.
I remember this watching this debate when I was back in high school. I was hoping at the time that Suzuki would give a decent rebuttal. Unfortunately, he mostly resorted to shaming the man for daring to ask the question. I knew then, that we were never going to resolve the issue and that Suzuki was only looking out for his best interests.
the left is much more media savvy than the right. Toure or Coates appear in the media regularly and have had media training. Sailer and Derbyshire have not. It would be a blood bath of the right-wing person using boring facts while Toure or Coastes using demagoguery. The debate would also have to be done without an audience because if not, the audience will be stacked for the left.
What I have always found odd is how the right over estimates their own ability to look good in the media and how much the right underestimates the eft in their ability to bend the rules to their advantage.
fuck this crap, talk about feminism you jerk!
I’ve been listening to the debates at Intelligence Squared U.S. for the past couple of week while I’m at work. The two I’ve enjoyed the most are “Don’t Give Us Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Huddled Masses” and “Too Many Kids Go To College” (Charles Murray was part of the college debate):
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/americas-house-divided-immigration/
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/too-many-kids-go-to-college/
The only kind of real debate you can have in the US is anonymous. Otherwise the massive taboo structures we’re operating under will make it pointless.
there are only two ways to speak honestly: anonymously or posthumously.
- thomas sowell
There is no debating in liberal America. There is an alt-Right underground that speaks the truth to a new generation of ambitious young men.
but if they get money for it…
Chuck- Derb gave your blog a shoutout in his latest Taki piece.
I think anti-racism is a central bit of dogma in the modern religion (whatever you want to call this religion), it’s a litmus test of orthodox thought. Hence racists are worse than racists, they’re heretics.
So asking for a mainstream debate on such heretical matters is like asking for a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Torquemada — that can’t happen (setting aside the logistical difficulties) because Torquemada’s purpose is to drive such heretical thought into oblivion.
Funny. The more “diverse” the US becomes, the less diversity there is in the range of acceptable topics for debate.
MultiKultism and Multiracialism require an authoritarian or totalitarian mode of government in order to keep the whole thing from falling apart, and we can see that tendency now in the conduct of the dominant globalist-Left regime.
Suppression of dissent.
A problem with your suggestion is that to set a debate in the manner you mentioned with the set up you discussed, on (for example) race issues, you take away most of the firepower the left has. They still use the firehoses and police dogs on the Pettis Bridge imagery to guilt swing voters and sheltered, no black nearby whites (like Maine or North Dakota whites). Forget that it’s been decades between the suited up and dress wearing nonviolent protestors. You could do the same with women’s issues, where to set the situation up as if it is 2012 and not 1952, they lose their guilt and crapola imagery. They do this with single women every election, where a GOP POTUS would remove the right to abortion and send them to the kitchen forever. The left would never agree to this, which is why they cloak all discussions in pre-68 imagery to guilt ro shame opposition.
Why debate anything? The left won but the segationists were right about the future. Clearly being right about something means nothing in america.
The problem I anticipate is that left-debating tactics include refusing to yield the floor, deliberate mischaracterization, strawmen, sloganeering, and a resort to feelings over facts. Debating a leftist is exhausting and unpleasant.
Which is not to say that such a debate wouldn’t be revealing. Of your suggestions, I’d most like to see Sailer vs. Coates.
Debate is a reasoning combat game, which you could liken to fencing, boxing, or wrestling. Debating the left, especially the black left, is useless. Dirty tactics aside, if the debator is roundly defeated, admits his defeat, and publicly voices a correction to his views, his followers’ mob will not disperse; for they had only assembled under emotion, not reason.
Actually diabetes is on the increase in America.
A debate between Sailer and Coates would probably play out a lot like this debate between Jared Taylor and Tim Wise, which I assume many who are commenting here are familiar with, did:
Taylor frequently challenges people to debates. Most people decline. I wonder what would happen if someone like Derb, given his recent 15 minutes, publicly challenged Coates or someone like him to a debate?
This could happen.
I’ve gotta say: Jared Taylor’s hhwite is one addictive earworm.
absolutely bring back firing line as late as –when?– the 1980s? firing line formal debates were still on the air, with kinsley playing the role of the anti buckley, arianna when a fierce conservative, etc. it was brilliant and, as you point out, totally at odds with the 24/7 spin culture. so yeah bring it on. i think it will work nowadays precisely because we’ve rotted so far to the other side we can’t go futher and an auto correct is inevitable.
During my high conservative days, I’d put on old firing line episodes and use it as a calming experience. Even with hacks like Chomsky, hearing them forced into high minded debate was always a good feeling. Now, you can barely say “lower corporate taxes” without Godwin’s Law taking immediate effect.
I remember this watching this debate when I was back in high school. I was hoping at the time that Suzuki would give a decent rebuttal. Unfortunately, he mostly resorted to shaming the man for daring to ask the question. I knew then, that we were never going to resolve the issue and that Suzuki was only looking out for his best interests.
the left is much more media savvy than the right. Toure or Coates appear in the media regularly and have had media training. Sailer and Derbyshire have not. It would be a blood bath of the right-wing person using boring facts while Toure or Coastes using demagoguery. The debate would also have to be done without an audience because if not, the audience will be stacked for the left.
What I have always found odd is how the right over estimates their own ability to look good in the media and how much the right underestimates the eft in their ability to bend the rules to their advantage.
Toure or Coates appear in the media regularly and have had media training. Sailer and Derbyshire have not.
Reading your comments I would have to assume you do not know who controls the media.
I saw a debate on YouTube where Shockley was promoting racial eugenics to two black presenters. Could you imagine that today?
Pingback: Randoms « Foseti
Pingback: Links « Gucci Little Piggy