If the right is smart they'll take my advice (not that they asked for it) and listen to Ross and Reihan. It's clear that the McCain/Palin campaign shrank the base. Somebody like Jindal might be a good pick next cycle. His proposed medicare overhaul will be something to watch closely going forward.

one medicare policy isn't going to change anything.
the republican party has a PR problem.
they have always been the "evil" party according to the left.
but now the perception is not only are they evil, but they're also stupid.
college support for democrats are 2 to 1. and that's the future of america. the republican base is dying off. don't let that 52-46 number fool you.
palin 2012 will bring numbers like 60-36 for obama, as long as he doesn't screw things up. either we have to re-educate people about why trade and free markets are good. AND/OR a new social conservatism that includes people of all races is introduced. self-reliance, responsibility, saving money. these core principles can be universal, and yet they've disappeared from the message.

Quoting sugarkang: one medicare policy isn't going to change anything.
the republican party has a PR problem....
...either we have to re-educate people about why trade and free markets are good AND/OR a new social conservatism that includes people of all races is introduced. self-reliance, responsibility, saving money. these core principles can be universal, and yet they've disappeared from the message.

Those are fine ideas, and you're right, one medicare policy won't change anything. However it's a step in the right direction. The right will be left in the dust if they do nothing to reform healthcare and Obama gets his proposal through and working well. The truth is that while the core principles you talk about are worth keeping around, they aren't new ideas, and that's what the Republicans need the most right now.

"Will conservatives rally around Sarah Palin or Ross Douthat?" Question that kinda answers itself...

Quoting industwetrust: The truth is that while the core principles you talk about are worth keeping around, they aren't new ideas, and that's what the Republicans need the most right now.

disagree. i said its a PR problem, not an idea problem.
when people think repubican, they think racist and ignorant. republicans need to build an image of inclusiveness.
and the only way to do that is with a large smack of sincerity.
that means really engaging non-white americans and getting
over their xenophobia. in the end, social conservatives will
remain the way they are until they die. that's just the nature of conservatism. fiscal conservatives however, will shift to the left... as brink lindsey has.
the most likely scenario will be that republicans will die a slow painful death.
and hopefully, fiscal cons like brink will be able to sway pelosi and reid not to be such fucking retards.

I loved the discussion of reality-based conservatism. That's really the choice conservatives have to make right now.

[Added]- Looks like Claymisher just posted almost the exact same Dingalink. You have impeccable taste, Clay! Cheers-- UE I felt like Jay should have been in a dark room with a flashlight under his chin, ghost-story style: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...9:23&out=24:27 I Really enjoyed this diavlog and both participants.

I agree with clay and uncle eb. Fascinating conversation. It was great to have Jay Rosen on. Let's have him back soon. Maybe pair him with Eric Alterman on where the SCLM needs to go? At first thought, they'd seem to agree on "everything," but I bet it would make for an interesting hour. I wish Conor and Culture11 luck. I'm trying to get into the habit of checking it regularly. Thanks for the reminder that James Poulos is part of the group. That gives me more incentive. I had a bit of a problem when the conversation turned to the idea of getting more conservative reporters (as opposed to reporters who happen to be conservative). The example that Conor used, where a story on rent control doesn't include enough about "unintended consequences," seemed awfully weak. Right off the bat, you're already straying into analysis and even bordering on advocacy. Not that there's anything wrong with either, but this is not reporting the news. I don't want to beat the example to death, but I did think it was telling that Conor couldn't come up with anything better when asked how the so-called liberal media problem should be addressed. As

In support of Conor's views, this catch by Sully is pretty funny. And telling.

The first 15 minutes of this are a waste. Believe it or not I'm not that interested in why you founded your website and what it stands for. I come here for political discussions. Everything else was enjoyable.

Yeah, this was SUCH a great diavlog that I may just have to watch it again. Thank you Conor, for being one of the first conservatives (that I am aware of) to call Bullshit on the gotcha journalism narrative. It really made me sad that so many, normally reasonable conservatives, held their tongues when that ridiculous excuse for Palin started coming out. It's like an angry parent blaming your child's teacher for asking when the Declaration of Independence was signed, on the quiz that their child failed. I too thought Conor's rent-control example was a bit insufficient (I mean if that's everything that's wrong with liberal media then it's not a very significant problem) and Jay's distinction between "news" and "truth" seemed pretty on-the-mark. Anyways, the discussion of why there aren't more conservative reporters, is an interesting mystery. I would guess that there are many cultural reasons: if you are raised hearing about how evil and liberal reporters are, and how economic incentives are the main driving human motivation, journalism probably won't be too attractive as potential career. I also enjoyed the discussion of McCain's mistake in demonizing the media. I also really enjoyed the discussion of creating a web-based

A demilitarized zone: Long may it wave!
Agree with all the foregoing on the engaging nature of the pairing and the conversation, and the weakness of Conor’s assertion of media bias.
The American Scene already functions for me as such a place, where I with my quasi-socialist Canadian left sympathies can go to find intelligent observation and thought and only occasionally be bored and almost never appalled.
Almost like bloggingheads, eh?
Anyway, the more, the better, unconditionally; and with them, improved chances for productive conversation between contending persuasions: That sounds like a better remedy for our ills, national and blogospheric, than what we were inured to, which was more and more manipulative malice. Best blessings on culture 11. And thanks to Jay and Conor for their grace and honesty.

I don't think the Republicans are dead. Granted, they are not too lively but I see some movement on the Net. Some conservatived websites that aren't totally right wing wacko are pajamasmedia (Conor mentioned this one), townhall, newsmax, and to a degree realclearpolitics. Sure, the Democrats are ruling the day but amongst them are the Bluedogs in the House, and a few Senators who don't line up with Ted Kennedy. I may be wrong but I think party affilitation is on the downswing evidenced by the growing independent registration. John

Quoting sugarkang: republicans need to build an image of inclusiveness. and the only way to do that is with a large smack of sincerity. that means really engaging non-white americans and getting over their xenophobia.

I'm curious to know what you mean about "getting over their [Republicans'] xenophobia." Are you referring to the stance a lot of Republicans take against illegal immigration? If so, why should being against illegal immigration amount to xenophobia? I presume it's not xenophobic to think that there should be some regulation of who comes into America's borders. But if you grant this much (though I'm not sure you would), then when does it become xenophobic?

in the end, social conservatives will remain the way they are until they die. that's just the nature of conservatism.

What do you mean, "that's just the nature of conservatism"? There are clearly some beliefs about which liberals will not compromise either. Gay marriage, abortion rights, euthanasia, welfare, universal healthcare, the list could go on.

fiscal conservatives however, will shift to the left... as brink lindsey has. the most likely scenario will be that republicans will die a slow painful death. and hopefully, fiscal cons like brink will be able to sway

re: xenophobia i lean left, but i'm also aware of the importance of social conservatism. i'm just saying we need those values to transcend racial lines. you might find that i actually agree with you on a lot of things. i believe in a giant US/Mexico border and making immigration really difficult. that said, i would then grant all people in the US amnesty and start treating them all like americans. in many ways obama is that ideal, but he doesn't preach conservatism. he just lives it. immigrants have this need to retain traditional culture that i think is just bullshit. there was a recent diavlog on this issue. lefties think that diversity is always a good thing, and i disagree. if we don't have a unified american culture, no one will ever agree on anything. re: compromise i look at the issues from a pragmatic lens. 1.2-1.4 million abortions happen each year. what would happen if all of these children are born into a social structure that cannot support it? single mothers = poverty = crime = prisons = higher taxes. the 1950s aren't coming back. lets get real about it. terry schaivo was a waste of resources from a numbers

Quoting sugarkang: i lean left, but i'm also aware of the importance of social conservatism. i'm just saying we need those values to transcend racial lines. you might find that i actually agree with you on a lot of things. i believe in a giant US/Mexico border and making immigration really difficult. that said, i would then grant all people in the US amnesty and start treating them all like americans. in many ways obama is that ideal, but he doesn't preach conservatism. he just lives it.

I agree with you on most of this. I'm leery of granting a blanket amnesty to all people in the country because (1) this sends a message that illegal immigration is permitted to continue, because in the future there will just have to be another amnesty (especially if all people in the US now become consolidated to the Dem voting block); (2) it seems a bit unfair to me to all the people who want to get into the USA but can't because they've been kept out by past USA immigration restrictions. For instance, some Filipinos have been waiting 18 years to get into the USA, whereas a lot

re: blanket amnesty. agreed it would unfairly benefit mexicans. but once you have the big ass wall, people wouldn't be able to get in. then you can usher in other people who want to immigrate legally. i agree a fairer approach is better. but this is politics where 1/3 of americans believe obama is a muslim. building a wall and granting amnesty is the only feasible way to send the message "hey, we want you to be americans, but illegal immigration has to stop." re: traditional culture agreed. i just didn't want to get into the intricacies on a msg board. i'm pretty sure we're on the same page. re: abortion yeah i don't like abortions either. but the religious right doesn't allow for contraception and sex education. if we can reduce abortion numbers by 95%, i would have no problem with tougher laws. the end goal is to not need the laws at all. re: war on drugs come on. do you think sarah palin will ever say "lets rethink the war on drugs?" yes, the libertarians are quite a different animal than the republican base. smoking is down to just 20% of americans. the best way to control drugs is

I have to learn to write like you. Pithy but understandable. I refuse to give up my capitalization, however.

George Zornick has a post worth reading. It's a reaction to Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell's recent griping about "liberal bias" at her own paper.

Hey guys, good discussion. I agree with most of your points. Regarding culture i would only say that embracing multiple cultural influences doesn't have to necesarrily diminish the presence of others. My Italian family retains plenty. My Jewish friends families do the same, etc. If something is worthwile we hold onto it. But I think that viewing culture as a zero-sum competition isn't the most accurate portrait of how these things work in reality. Re Drugs: "make them boring and stupid" is a brilliant approach. Unfortunately the first part might be tough PS I would agree with SK on ending the war on drugs, if only because the base of the GOP would be much slower to come around to that point of view. Libertarians are on board, but they are not the ones that the GOP generally caters to (see Palin.) Anyways, great thread!

For instance, some Filipinos have been waiting 18 years to get into the USA, whereas a lot of Mexicans, owing to their geographical proximity, can fairly easily get into the USA. So, a blanket amnesty would disproportionately benefit Mexicans.

This is debatable. Mexicans would benefit disproportionately by decriminalization of their status, but that's ok, considering they never did anything wrong in the first place. They just answered a help wanted offer. The proximity gave them an edge, but a) that's a fact of geography and b) it's a fact of the historical relationship between the two countries (including the US taking the entire Southwest from Mexico, in what today we would call occupation and war crimes).

That said, I think that forces in the USA that encourage immigrants to hold onto their traditional culture and bequeath it to their children, while again understandable, will overall lead to destablization.

What forces are those? And why would they destabilize? Do you think Jews who send their kids to Hebrew school or French people who send theirs to summer camp in Paris to learn French and Parisian cuisine are "destabilizing"?

Third, you don't need to criminalize abortion utterly--how about putting restrictions on

Quoting Wonderment: The proximity gave them an edge, but a) that's a fact of geography and b) it's a fact of the historical relationship between the two countries (including the US taking the entire Southwest from Mexico, in what today we would call occupation and war crimes).

This is argument against letting large number of Mexicans in the country. It has been repeated by Mickey ad nauseam, but you apparently still don't get it. How strong the argument is depends on the facts on the ground, i.e. are Mexicans assimilating or are they forming a separate nation within American borders. I am not familiar with what is actually going on with Mexican immigrants, so I can't say how serious this issue is. But if Mickey's fears are true, I see rivers foaming with much blood.

I am not familiar with what is actually going on with Mexican immigrants, so I can't say how serious this issue is. But if Mickey's fears are true, I see rivers foaming with much blood.

Well, I am at least glad that you understand Mickey's message in its raw form without the hypocritical caveats he sometimes throws in to try to distance himself from the most grotesque forms of blatant racism. But rest assured, there won't be any foaming rivers of blood. Mickey is full of shit, and his xenophobic fears and provocations are ludicrous.