Come Back To The Blogosphere?
When she quit blogging Hilzoy wrote the following:
The main reason I started blogging, besides the fact that I thought it would be fun, was that starting sometime in 2002, I thought that my country had gone insane. It wasn’t just the insane policies, although that was part of it. It was the sheer level of invective: the way that people who held what seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable views, e.g. that invading Iraq might not be such a smart move, were routinely being described as al Qaeda sympathizers who hated America and all it stood for and wanted us all to die.
I thought: we’ve gone mad. And I have to do something — not because I thought that I personally could have any appreciable effect on this, but because it felt like what Katherine called an all hands on deck moment…
That said, it seems to me that the madness is over. There are lots of people I disagree with, and lots of things I really care about, and even some people who seem to me to have misplaced their sanity, but the country as a whole does not seem to me to be crazy any more.
I submit that the madness is not over.
Yeah, well, I submit she couldn’t possibly have believed it was even as she wrote.
— Kieselguhr Kid · Mar 21, 03:02 AM · #
Looking back on the period between 2002 and 2004 as I remember it (all too vividly), I see a level of invective that dominated the discourse as it now does not. No offence, but in 2002, I did not know the name Conor Friedersdorf. Neither the American Scene, nor any blog quite like it, existed then. Andrew Sullivan I knew as a polite but committed proponent of war with Iraq. John Cole of Balloon Juice started out endorsing the war, as did Josh Trevino of Tacitus (I had the pleasure of crossing swords with him a lot over those years). David Frum worked out of the White House, writing speeches for GW Bush and eventually cooperating with Richard Perle on a book titled, with perhaps record hyperbole, “The End of Evil”. A whole cadre of otherwise sane conservatives, and not a few liberals, seem to have embraced a sense of emergency and the hyperbolic rhetoric and abandonment of the sense of restraint and even decency that goes with it.
Today, most former members of that group have recovered their sense of proportion and decency, and in some cases have a real regret for what they wrote during those years. Others have left political commentary altogether. Extremists remain. Some of these have increased their agitation, their volume, and even, to some extent, their power. But I believe they have lost touch with the overall social consensus. The chorus of shrill voices continues as they always have; in 2003 they had a broad group of sober, respectable voices ready to deplore their excesses but endorse their broad policy goals. They do not have that any more,
That said: I miss the wit and wisdom of Hilzoy, too.
— John Spragge · Mar 21, 06:10 AM · #
I believe the madness is only going to get worse. I fully expect the US to financially collapse, and then what’s offered as a solution will be the true madness. This can avoided, but it doesn’t appear anyone’s trying to avoid it.
— m farmer · Mar 21, 01:04 PM · #
Seconded vocally. Come bok!
— ovaut · Mar 21, 09:24 PM · #
I have a more optimistic outlook than Mr. Farmer. I look at the tea party as the last gasp of a particular kind of conservatism, and I see them engaging in rear-guard actions, attacking not the ideas but the voters and the organizations of their opponents. In the medium term, I think a more sane conservatism has to emerge, because hearings into the dangers of militant Islam among American Muslims will never solve any problems. Unless Republicans want to stay the party of bread and circuses that never accomplishes anything in the real world, they will at some point have to start thinking about real problems and providing real solutions.
— John Spragge · Mar 21, 09:30 PM · #
John Spragge:
I know you have a blog, and you write very long posts—which they really like here at TAS. Long posts means you have lots to say and you can organize it all into thoughtful and I repeat, thoughtful, comments.
But that doesn’t mean your comments are still not moonbat crazy. You can call the tea-party all the names you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that at its core the tea-party is not whatever slanderous name you and all the other lefties here hope it is.
There are lots of intelligent people at TAS who write incredibly stupid things. As Andrew Sullivan’s masthead proclaims: To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.
— jd · Mar 21, 10:13 PM · #
I agree. I miss hilzoy. The internet misses hilzoy. America misses hilzoy.
— Brad · Mar 22, 12:34 AM · #
The Last Gasp Retro-Republicans is filling the air with a nasty stench.
We need sane voices now, and as many as we can persuade to speak publicly.
— Frank Montague · Mar 22, 02:53 AM · #
Whenever you hear someone talk about the decline of civility and sanity in political discourse, you can be pretty sure you’re listening to somebody who can dish it out but can’t take it. These people don’t like it when they no longer have a monopoly on crazed rhetoric.
— The Reticulator · Mar 22, 05:06 AM · #
I like your thought, The Reticulator, but I agree that you can only be “pretty sure” of that.
Some people just get exhausted by arguments that never end. Steven Den Beste went out like that. He wasn’t particularly civil himself, but he just decided life was too short to keep arguing with people who thought he didn’t understand why a space elevator or viable solar power at mass quantities was viable.
I don’t have any idea whether he was right on the underlying questions, but I believe him when he says the arguments didn’t seem worth his time.
— J Mann · Mar 22, 02:13 PM · #
@jd: Calling a movement a last gasp hardly qualifies as slander. Whatever I call the tea party will not change the realities your country faces: you have a government debt amounting to well over half your GDP, an aggregate government and private debt much larger than that, a transportation infrastructure that depends on a commodity (fossil oil) you have to import, and a long-standing trade deficit. You also have an under-performing education system relative to your economic competitors, one of the most if not the most health and long term care systems on the planet, and the largest single generation in your history hitting retirement age.
At some point, I suggest that it will dawn on most Americans that holding hearings on the dangers of radicalization among a third of one percent of your population will not suffice to address the real problems your country now suffers from. If it doesn’t, then a very high probability exists that the problems you have not so far made a serious move to treat will lead to an economic event that millions of Americans cannot ignore and which the United States government cannot provide a relief program to deal with.
The simple numbers point very strongly to a conclusion: that in fairly short order, the so-called tea party movement will face a stark choice: stop distracting themselves and the public with imaginary dangers (look! a Masjid!) and face the real problems of the United States in the new millennium, give way to a party and a movement that will, or see American quality of life numbers drop much more precipitously than they already have. This has nothing to do with my wishes, or with the wishes or the identity of the so-called tea party.
— John Spragge · Mar 23, 12:12 PM · #
spragge:
the so-called tea party movement will face a stark choice: stop distracting themselves and the public with imaginary dangers (look! a Masjid!) and face the real problems of the United States in the new millennium,,
You just demonstrated your slander again. You are basically calling the tea party racists. Not in so many words of course.
The tea party is not about “imaginary dangers”, and just saying so—as so many people on your side do—does not make it so.
I mean what the hell does the Tea Party have to do with Peter King’s hearings? Where do you get your news? CBC?
At its core the tea party is about a government that’s too big and spending way too much. It’s about facing the real problems of the new millenium. Just out of curiosity, I’d like to know if you can name the single incident that inspired the Tea Party.
Your refusal to see the real reason for the Tea Party movement is very sad—and amazingly consistent across the left.
Again, to see what’s obvious needs constant struggle.
— jd · Mar 23, 12:55 PM · #
@jd: well, if you want to know what the so-called “tea party” movement has to do with Peter King, and his hearings, I’ll let some of them speak up in their own words on the subject.
This gets us to a problem: since, unlike the Republican or Democrat parties, the so-called tea party does not have a real center, we cannot determine with certainty what the movement stands for, or whether in fact a person claiming to speak for it does so. In my experience, after 2008, the American conservative community roughly split. Some, such as David Frum, Conor Friedersdorf and others chose to face the failures and some of the irresponsibility of the Bush years. Others, such as Pam Gellar, decided to double down on the distractions. Some of the latter group has identified themselves with the so-called tea party movement, and from what I can tell, the movement has not disavowed them. I’ve linked to someone purporting to speak for the “tea party” praising Representative King’s hearings. Can you provide a similar link from a member of the “tea party” denouncing them as an unwelcome distraction from the job of shrinking government?
In any case, in the medium term, your fiscal situation means that Americans need to improve your schools if you hope to have your children competing in the global economy; you will probably have to reduce your need for imported commodities, particularly fossil fuels, and some combination of Americans will have to pay more taxes and make do with less in services. So far, I have seen very little progress in any of these areas.
— John Spragge · Mar 23, 02:51 PM · #
The Reticulator wrote,
“Whenever you hear someone talk about the decline of civility and sanity in political discourse, you can be pretty sure you’re listening to somebody who can dish it out but can’t take it. These people don’t like it when they no longer have a monopoly on crazed rhetoric.”
Based on that paragraph, I think it’s safe to assume The Reticulator was not a Hilzoy reader. I’m not sure I could name any blogger who more civilly “dished it” or more civilly “took it” than Hilzoy.
— keatssycamore · Mar 23, 04:31 PM · #
Spragge:
unlike the Republican or Democrat parties, the so-called tea party does not have a real center, we cannot determine with certainty what the movement stands for, or whether in fact a person claiming to speak for it does so.
Yes. And since we can’t say with certainty, well, it’s expedient for people like you to say (or imply) that the tea-party is racist or insane. David Sessions of TAS has repeatedly said so.
You can’t even mention the tea-party without the condescending qualifier so-called.
You gave me one example (not some as you offered) of a teapartier writing quite rationally and praising Peter King. That was the second part of his article. The first part was about fiscal responsibility praising those fighting against public sector unions.
I said before that it is sad that so many people want to paint the tea party as racists. But on second thought it’s kind of comforting. It means the tea party really scares them. This is a true grass roots movement—the kind that lefties have been trying to reenact since the sixties and before.
I’m not a member of the tea-party, but I actually gave money to a tea-party candidate. I don’t know much about them, other than what is so obvious to anyone willing to look. They are outraged by the over-reaching and over-spending of the federal government. They don’t trust politicians, especially those in DC. They are sick of being told that in order to fix our problems we need to send more money to DC. Been there. Done that. It’s stupid.
And, you know, as Foghorn Leghorn said, there’s something kinda eeewwww about a Canadian lecturing us about our fiscal problems. If we go down, you’ll be right back to trapping beaver and thumping harp seals.
— jd · Mar 23, 05:37 PM · #
and i’m still waiting on that incident that sparked the Tea Party.
Crickets chirping.
— jd · Mar 23, 05:40 PM · #
@jd: I don’t know what “incident” sparked the Tea Party. The Koch brothers didn’t like their municipal tax bill, maybe? I don’t know how anyone could sort out the claims of having “founded” a movement that claims to have spontaneously sprung from the frustrations of millions of middle class Americans; I don’t care what single incident gets credited as the catalyst. I see accusations of taking the tea party trademark in vain as just another in an increasingly futile set of distractions. I’ve already listed what I see as some of the real problems facing the United States, and holding hearings on the American Muslim community will not solve them. In the long run, ideas only have power if they lead to solutions; a glance at history shows that short term popularity makes a very poor test for the staying power of an idea.
On the actual topic of this post, the question of whether we need Hilzoy’s voice back in the so-called “blogsphere”, as opposed to wanting to hear from her, my opinion hasn’t changed. As long as we have voices like Conor Friedersdorf and Adam Serwer, and as long as commentators who disagree, even on fundamentals, can sit down on “blogging heads” and clarify their positions with more light than heat, then as much as I miss the wit, wisdom, and gravitas of the blogger known as Hilzoy, I think the Intenet and the political scene generally can manage to sputter along without her.
@Reticulator: As I recall, one of the last times I mentioned a lack of civility on the Internet, I did so in a post deploring people eagerly anticipating the gang rape of Tom DeLay in a prison shower, and I assure you I have no brief for Mr. DeLay or any political position he has ever stood for. In the end, uncivil persons harm only themselves, for incivility almost always masks an unwillingness to let go of certainty and to try to grapple with the issues and to try to learn.
— John Spragge · Mar 24, 03:22 PM · #
Spragge:
I don’t know how anyone could sort out the claims of having “founded” a movement that claims to have spontaneously sprung from the frustrations of millions of middle class Americans;
Your answer is perfect. Just perfect. You make the point, a point which you just don’t get. No one has claimed to have founded the movement. No one cares who founded the movement. It’s not astroturfed a la David Axelrod. It’s not bussed in a la SEIU thugs. It is exactly what you guys have always wanted: a true grass roots movement.
In fact, the person who sparked the movement has never claimed to have started it, and I’ve never even heard him talk about it. For all I know, he may have believed all the lies about the movement and doesn’t want to be associated with it.
And ohhhh, that Koch brothers comment—that’s just icing on the cake. There just has to be an evil capitalist at the root of it.
And again, you keep insisting that it’s a distraction. You seem to be intentionally clueless as to what they are angry about. But it is so nice to have someone as magnanimous as you making sure that we Yanks get busy with the important things like free health care and assimilating terrorists.
— jd · Mar 24, 07:32 PM · #
My impressions of the tea party or of the priorities of the Left lie mostly outside this discussion; however, I will point out in passing that for me, as I suspect for many other leftists, the question of whether or not a political position has widespread support matters less than its truth. Dr. Martin Luther King never demanded support for the equality and dignity of African Americans because millions of people had spontaneously taken up his cause; he argued for his position as the ethical one. I do not consider most of the positions generally associated with the tea party either ethical or practical; in many cases, such as measures against Muslims, I also consider them unlawful. Truth comes before popularity; a unanimous vote by every American could not change a single digit of pi. Ethics comes before popularity; plenty of popular movements have championed horrendously unethical measures.
Hilzoy, among many other good people, stood for simple and solid propositions like this. I miss her, but I have a basic trust that we can still stand for the right things without her.
— John Spragge · Mar 24, 10:47 PM · #
I do not consider most of the positions generally associated with the tea party either ethical or practical;
Three questions:
I hesitate to ask but what would those positions be?
Would it matter if none of your positions generally associated with the tea party had any basis in truth?
Have you ever seen the play The Importance of Being Earnest?
— jd · Mar 24, 11:25 PM · #
Impractical and unethical policies, in my opinion, include extending tax cuts when your country faces a record deficit, reneging on contracts negotiated in good faith by current and former government employees, and using the powers of Congress to hold hearings on Islam in defiance of the very plain prohibition in the United States Constitution against lawmaking that prevents the free exercise of religion. Add to that bills aimed explicitly at violating the fourteenth amendment to your constitution as in stands in order to force a judicial review, namely the so-called “birthright citizenship” bills, which at least some members of the tea party appear to support. Another legislator, also identified as a tea party supporter, supports efforts to deny the right to vote to persons who vote the “wrong” way.
— John Spragge · Mar 25, 03:35 PM · #
I reject your characterizations of tax cuts, reneging on contracts and holding hearings because I don’t agree with any of your presuppositions.
WE CAN’T AFFORD WHAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD PAY!!
I think I’d like to see the fourteenth amendment amended.
— jd · Mar 25, 04:45 PM · #
I base my assessment of the policies generally identified with the so-called “tea party” movement on two principles:
I believe all people who individually or collectively contract to pay debts, including salaries and pensions, undertake an obligation to make a credible effort to repay those debts, including where necessary making appropriate sacrifices.
The constitution of the United States states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Since Congress has power to hold hearings and conduct investigations pursuant to their law-making function, it seems to me they lack the power to investigate or to hold hearings on matters, such as religious beliefs, where your constitution explicitly denies them the authority to legislate.
Now, if you disagree with my first principle, please note that many millions of people, including myself, I pay our credit card bill and other bills because we have agreed to do so. Do you think we ought to stiff our banks or hand the debt on to our kids? Do you consider American citizens collectively have a different set of ethical rules from the ones that bind people individually? As for my second principle, I consider the language of your constitution extremely clear. It has a clarity that inspires good writing. I see no way you can justify anyone using the powers of Congress to prepare to do something your constitution clearly forbids.
— John Spragge · Mar 25, 05:39 PM · #
Now wait just a minute. No way our Constitution is clear. Ezra Klein said it was written over 200 years ago and us ordinary folks can’t understand it.
Oh, that’s it. Ordinary Americans can’t understand it, but brilliant folks like Spragge and Klein decide when the Constitution is clear and when it isn’t. Is the Second Amendment clear to you? How about the first?
It’s not likely that I will ever agree with your interpretation of our constitution.
And really, John Spragge, there’s just something weird about Canadians preaching at Americans. As a famous American once said, “Virtue, for most people, is simply lack of opportunity.”
— jd · Mar 25, 08:08 PM · #
Please identify the ambiguity in the first amendment to your constitution that would permit a congressional investigation into religious matters. As a bonus, please explain the value of spending time in the US Congress, when so many pressing matters need the attention of law makers, to worry about a negligible number of radicals among a third of one percent of the American population.
As for your other comment, if you don’t think what I have to say should matter, you have, as always, the freedom to ignore it.
— John Spragge · Mar 25, 08:48 PM · #
I think I shall.
— jd · Mar 26, 02:24 PM · #
John Spragge has a lucid moment: Please identify the ambiguity in the first amendment to your constitution that would permit a congressional investigation into religious matters.
I agree with Mr. Spragge on this. But unlike leftists, I’m somewhat consistent. The same prohibition that should keep Congress from investigating Islam should keep it from funding NPR.
— The Reticulator · Mar 26, 05:07 PM · #
I believe all people who individually or collectively contract to pay debts, including salaries and pensions, undertake an obligation to make a credible effort to repay those debts, including where necessary making appropriate sacrifices.
I find this difficult to believe. You want us to go back on a gold standard? You have called for Ben Bernanke to cease his nullification of contracts through inflation? You publicly opposed the government’s takeover of GM in which bondholders were forced to take big losses while favored political constituencies had to make no such sacrifices?
It is interesting, btw, that so far not a single one of the negotiators who agreed to these unsustainable sweetheart deals in Wisconsin and other states has gone to jail for his/her role in setting up these arrangements. And to think, these were done by the class of people who like to denounce corporate greed and the lack of regulation. These geniuses can’t self-regulate a sustainable compensation system, yet they still think their types should regulate the banking industry, the environment, and anything else that comes to mind.
It’s also interesting that if, when they denounce corporate greed, you point out that governments are corporations, too, except with greater monopoly powers, they protest that governments are different. So if you agree that governments are different, and that therefore public employee unions might not be required since govt is so kind and gentle, they will then say governments are just as bad at exploiting workers as private industry, and that public unions need all the collective bargaining rights as those in private industry.
Buncha two-tuned wonders.
— The Reticulator · Mar 27, 06:27 AM · #
This discussion has grown far apart from the question of whether political civility, if not sanity, in political discussions of American topics on the Internet would improve if Hilzoy returned.
However, just to deal with some of the tangential topics as quickly as I can: I had and have very little to say about the whole topic of bailouts, including that of GM. I will say this: that once GM had announced its insolvency and applied to reorganize, the government had no obligation to pay any of its debts, and the government had no obligation to refrain from paying any of its debts.
As for the question of the union contracts in several states: first, I will note that the question of whether to term the contracts or the tax levels “unsustainable” involves a value judgment. Those who consider the advocates of deep tax cuts guilty of political malfeasance can certainly find facts to support their arguments. However, the facts we have appear to weigh against any contention that Americans have overpaid for government services: a survey published on American Scene suggested that, at the very least, salaries and benefits paid to civil servants did not markedly outpace those the private sector paid to similarly qualified individuals, and actual public services do not seem to benefit from an abundance of funding. Indeed, in one key area of economic competition, the general level of primary and high school education delivered to American youth, you lag behind most OECD nations.
On the question of whether the US Constitution prohibits funding to NPR and CPB: I will leave that up to your courts and legislatures. I will observe that no analogy to the language in the First Amendment that flatly forbids Congress to prohibit the free exercise of religion appears anywhere in your constitution in relation to any form of funding for the press or the media.
— John Spragge · Mar 27, 08:56 PM · #
And on topic: it should go without saying that the sanity, civility and intelligence in the discussions of American politics and related topics in Internet web logs would improve considerably if Hilzoy came back. I retain my faith, however, that we can keep an adequate level of civility and sanity without her.
— John Spragge · Mar 28, 12:01 AM · #
The text of the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”
If Congress funds something, that means it controls it to an extent that abridges its freedom. See Grove City v. Bell for a particular example, ObamaCare for another, and the history of the human species for the more general case. There is no such thing as federal funding without federal control, nor should there be, nor can there be.
— The Reticulator · Mar 28, 02:09 AM · #
BTW, I find it personally gratifying that you pick now as a time to point out that the topic has drifted.
— The Reticulator · Mar 28, 02:11 AM · #
Reality check: governments allocate the airwaves. They do this for safety of life reasons: trust me, you don’t want to find yourself flying into Newark in seat 26A at the moment someone decides to set up a pirate radio station on New York Approach frequency; They also do it for technical reasons. But it means that the government allocates frequencies and can take them away, which gives governments a level of control far beyond the famous seven dirty words. Also, government economic power shapes national debate in thousands of ways, subtle and overt, legitimate and less so— major military projects like the B1 bomber don’t have a contractor or subcontractor and payroll in every congressional district in the United States by chance. NPR reportedly gets no direct funding from the government. In that context, does congressional funding of an arm-length body for public broadcasting intolerably violate the tenets of free speech? I consider the constitutional imperative on that question vague enough that fair minded, reasonable people can come down on either side. On the other hand, I see no ambiguity on the question of whether people have the freedom to believe as their conscience dictates and to practice what they believe; your constitution and mine flatly forbids government repression of religion, even if our two respective governments have failed to uphold those freedoms on occasion.
— John Spragge · Mar 28, 10:05 PM · #
The Tea Party boils down to “Taxed Enough Already” (despite a relatively low-tax environment, in the context of the last, oh, century of US history).
The catalyst was, of course, the election of Barack Obama. The Dems won a couple of elections. A backlash was to be expected, don’t you think? And that’s exactly what the “Tea Party” is: the backlash of the core of the GOP. Every survey done one the views of people who self-identify as Tea Partiers backs this up. The Tea Party is the base of the Republican Party. There is the same simmering resentment, the same self-righteous victim complex, and of course the same opinions on issues/policy. They match almost perfectly (I say almost only b/c a handful of Tea Party candidates have displayed at least some civil libertarian impulses and have made some minor noises about military spending). This is not hard to figure out.
— Rob in CT · Mar 29, 05:37 PM · #
Nobody read my post, but just for the record, Den Beste was frustrated with explaining to people why mass volume solar power or an orbital elevator was ‘‘not’‘ viable, rather than the opposite.
— J Mann · Mar 29, 06:01 PM · #
J Mann — I read your post and found it interesting, but I fear that for me, Den Beste falls into the category of Internet actors about whom I have nothing to say.
— John Spragge · Mar 30, 01:35 AM · #
Rob:
you just can’t face the fact that the tea-party is a true grass-roots movement that at its core wants less government spending. All the other criticisms that you lefties throw are simply the same old crap you’ve always thrown: and again with no proof. With all the accusations of racism, there hasn’t been one instance caught on tape. There was tape of that congressman complaining of being spat upon, but there wasn’t any spit. Pelosi and the gang complained of racial epithets when they walked through the anti-health care protesters, but none could be heard on tape. In fact, the most blatant example of “racism” connected with any Tea Party event was Ken Gladney being beaten by your proxies: union thugs.
Just out of curiosity—do YOU know the answer to my question? Who was the person who sparked the tea party movement?
— jd · Mar 30, 12:20 PM · #
Spragge:
After sparring with you for the last few days on this issue, and noticing your robotic return to Hilzoy being the true reason for the post, you have made yourself abundantly clear: You miss the “wit, wisdom and humor” of Hilzoy when she quit blogging. However, I’m pretty sure you missed the wit, wisdom and humor of Hilzoy before she quit blogging.
— jd · Mar 30, 12:26 PM · #
One clear sign of the decay of an intellectual or political movement appears as an increased focus on symbols over concepts, on the vague and romantic notion of “sides” versus a reasoned adherence to principles. I had the opportunity, as a teenager, to observe a large part of the left implode in this way in the 1970s: I watched principle subordinated to symbols in the sense Orwell spoke of in his Notes on Nationalism. When this happened the movement fragmented with some people staying on the side of principle, while others continued to obsess about tactics, goals, and ultimately symbols. I see a transformation a lot like this among conservatives today. A major reason for optimism about the future of conservative thought comes from the presence of a core of principled conservatives, from Radley Balko to Connor Friedersdorf, from Andrew Sullivan to Rod Dreher. These people would not agree with each other about much, but they know the principles they believe in, and their writing serves those principles: a necessity for coherent discussion.
These voices give me hope that a civil Internet discussion can go on, even without the invaluable contributions provided by Hilzoy. I will leave the other part of the debate, the obsession with rebutting charges not made and scoring imaginary points against some vague set of opponents, to those who pop up on discussion boards again and again, even after announcing they will ignore other participants for some imagined offence, such as blogging while Canadian.
— John Spragge · Mar 30, 05:41 PM · #
Thanks, John – I didn’t mean to sound as self-pitying as I ended up sounding, and possibly as I in fact am ;), but I appreciate the warm fuzzies.
— J Mann · Mar 30, 06:22 PM · #
NPR reportedly gets no direct funding from the government. In that context, does congressional funding of an arm-length body for public broadcasting intolerably violate the tenets of free speech?
I refer you again to the principle established by Grove City v Bell, where the general government decided that indirect funding meant it was entitled to control of aspects of higher education in which it decided to assert control. I also refer you to the debates over school vouchers. Those would also provide indirect funding for religion, which to many on the left is plenty of reason to consider them in violation of 1A.
So my unequivocal answer is that yes, indirect funding of NPR is an intolerable violation of 1A. However, if the government wanted to provide each citizen with a voucher to support the news outlet of his/her choice, we could talk about some mechanism to do it while avoiding another Grove City/Title IX debacle.
But the government’s “indirect” funding of NPR is different. It’s just a money laundering mechanism to provide funding to a particular news entity. If you don’t believe me, believe those who react in outrage when funding cuts are proposed. They think the money is in support of NPR.
— The Reticulator · Apr 1, 06:32 AM · #