Joseph Britt, Arthur Stock, and Will Vehrs
Speech Under Attack, and Not
By Joseph Britt
Posted Thursday, March 15, 2001, at 3:18 PM ETWill and Arthur,
Got my tournament brackets done. I have Michigan State over Stanford in the Final. How does that sound?
I couldn't end this week without another note bragging about Wisconsin, my adopted state. This one is about the University of Wisconsin Badger Herald student newspaper. The Badger Herald recently printed a lengthy paid ad by a fellow named David Horowitz arguing against paying reparations to African-Americans for slavery. I'm not sure I get the point of the ad--the reparations idea isn't going anywhere--but hey, it's a free country.
It's too free according to the demonstrators who tried to intimidate the Herald and other newspapers that ran the ad into apologizing for doing so. Some newspapers, like Berkeley's Daily Cal, did as they were told; the Herald's editors told the demonstrators to buzz off. Good for them.
There are real threats to free speech, and there are the imaginary kind. John McCain's campaign finance reform bill, scheduled for Senate floor action next week, falls squarely into the latter category. To fear for the First Amendment because someone proposes to ban six-figure soft money bribes to the major parties and anonymous, phony issue ads right before elections is to be very easily frightened indeed.
The real obstacle to McCain-Feingold isn't the First Amendment; it's inertia. Washington politicians are used to the campaign finance system we have now; they may not like the unending fund raising, feeling they owe some interest groups and are shaking down others, but they know the rules of the game. They also rely for much of their political advice on the strategists, media consultants, and pollsters to whom so much soft money eventually makes its way. (One would think that advice to be badly devalued currency for Senate Republicans at least after their dismal performance in the 2000 elections, but apparently that is not so.) Inertia argues against reform, and without strong arguments on the other side, inertia always wins.
Strong arguments are there for both Democrats and Republicans. Democrats have reason to fear their progress in raising soft money may be temporary now that Bill Clinton has left the White House. For Republicans officeholders, relying on their larger base of hard (regulated) money donors plays to their greatest fund-raising advantage.
For both Democrats and Republicans, an electorate convinced that only money buys influence is one that is discontented, hence more likely to be volatile. In the boom times of the late 1990s, this was not a great concern, but as the economy worsens, it almost certainly will be. Finally, the ad blitzes possible in the current campaign finance environment have their greatest influence in party primaries with their lower turnout, not in general elections. This makes them useful to incumbent politicians but also makes them a serious potential threat.
McCain-Feingold doesn't drive money out of the political process, despite the rhetoric sometimes used by its supporters. It does make it harder for individual moneyed interests to dominate the electoral process, which is in the interest not only of many politicians but of the rest of us regular people.
That's it for me, guys: I'm pretty sure I've extended the attention span of the most dedicated part of our audience right to its limit. Arthur and Will, you've both been a pleasure to have this online conversation with, and Michael Brus, Maureen Cosgrove, the omniscient Moira Redmond and the other folks at Slate have been real pros right from the start. I'd do this again anytime.
See you in "The Fray,"
Joe
Speech Under Attack, and Not
By Joseph Britt
Posted Thursday, March 15, 2001, at 3:18 PM ETThis week, three "star posters" from "The Fray" (our reader response forum) visit "The Breakfast Table." Joseph Britt is a Wisconsin free-lance writer with over a decade of experience working for state and federal officeholders. Arthur Stock, who uses the cybernym "History Guy," practices law in Philadelphia. Will Vehrs, who posts as "WillV," is a Virginia businessman. Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Hey, guys, wotcha doing up there? Is the air different? We're glad to see you haven't forsaken the Fray. The board is jumping: we are having to send out to the icon sweatshop for more stars, checkmarks and Slate signs, as we are using them up so fast. (For an explanation of the symbols, please click here.) And WillV, we have been known to describe the Fray as a dress-down-Friday kind of board, but now we find you don't wear make-up to post here…there's such a thing as too much informality.
Bluto says it's the end of the Fray as we know it: because all the posters will be writing solely to get checks and stars. That'll be the day Bluto. Helen Weber asks whether there are any women star posters. The answer is no, not right now. There are very few star posters (and if you have read the various explanations you know that the star is for the poster, not for individual posts: it recommends someone who has made good posts in the past), and as it happens no woman has been chosen so far. We hope to change that soon.]
Strut that stuff but watch out…
When History Guy announced in this Fray that he was going to propose to Slate a "Breakfast Table" made up of posters on the grounds that most of the BT chatter sent everyone back to bed, I chimed in that it was a terrific idea, since the Fray usually has the most interesting material on Slate. I didn't really think Slate would buy it, but it has and the editors deserve a modest round of applause.
Congratulations, Will, Joe, Arthur. But beware: now that you've been plucked from among the unwashed masses to become card-carrying members of the media elite, agents of the left-wing media conspiracy, lackeys of the right-wing globalist-corporatist masters of the media, uncounted numbers of ordinary folks who have their piece to say already are drawing a bead on you. By week's end, you may feel like an Afghan statue after the Taliban artillery have passed by.
--Publius
(To reply, click here .)
[Tuesday notes from the Fray Editor: History Guy's sister, we salute you. The Mendelsohns of blessed memory would be proud of you. Jennifer Mendelsohn , as WillV says, came into the Fray and said this "Can I viciously flame one of you for no reason? Anyone wanna get married?" Amber is proposing some more unholy alliance with Zeitguy. She also called for more viciousness in the Fray here (ever agreeable, Fray posters called each other names). She is obviously a trouble-causer, argumentative and high maintenance. Just the kind of poster we like, in fact, welcome Amber!
This "Breakfast Table" certainly worked the magic in The Fray. The enigmatic Dola, a sadly-missed poster, re-appeared. There was endless discussion of women posters, for example here: a subject we have never seen mentioned before but which is now a hot topic. There were absolutely stellar discussions, for example on military training and campaign finance, here, and on estate tax, here. The "Breakfast Table" participants did not disdain their spiritual home: they are to be congratulated for answering critics and friends and encouraging discussions in the most good-humored way.
We're just mentioning this: there is a very very bad taste set of jokes about military training accidents here: don't read if you are easily shocked or a Yankees fan.]
Full disclosure here: Arthur Stock is my brother. And though I would be stretching the point to say, as does the junior Senator from New York, that my brother "saddens me," I must say about this stance on the inheritance tax: enough! I am certainly as knee-jerk a liberal as anyone else in my family (who can forget mom's explanation in the voting both: "you can vote for whomever you like, but if you pull the Republican lever your arm will fall off?"), but must you be quite so adamant? Did our loving parents sweat and toil their 3-day-a-week jobs as professors so their hard-earned money could buy oversized berets for an armed service with astonishingly poor aim? I think not. I offer constructive advice: if you find the law unjust, just hand over your share of the inheritance to me. I'll take care of it. You're welcome to pay my taxes on it. As the junior Senator of New York would surely deny saying: That's what family is for!"
--Lil sis
(To reply, click here .)
[Final notes from the Fray Editor: Arthur Stock really got quite enough exposure this week, but we can't resist his leftovers post, here (and after all, he is a friend of both Marty Peretz and Scott Shuger, apparently). The idea of the peasants with pitchforks representing the Fray will amuse us in some long working day ahead.
This has been a great "Breakfast Table" and a fabulous Fray, interaction at its finest, and more stars, checks and icons than you could shake a stick at. Well done all round: for this week you all deserved gold stars. (You're not getting them, but that's another matter. Oh, except for WillV…)]
A wonderful conversation, easily the equal to anything we've seen from the "pros".
One thing that is particularly heartening to me is that although these three fellows claim to have different political affiliations and tendencies; their thoughts, suggestions, and exchanges abound with common sense and good-faith. Given the posturing that is common among professional pundits, and given the histrionics of the average webboard poster, this week's "Breakfast Table" is far and away better than anything I might have expected. This reflects well on the participants, of course, but it also says something complimentary about Slate's editorial staff.
Good job
--Keith M. Ellis
(To reply, click here.)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
The Least Fun Thing About Video Games: Friendly Fire
Why Is It Such a Big Deal That We Found Water on the Moon?
A Place So Beautifully Sad, It Makes Me Want To Paint
Help! I Got My Co-Worker's Sister Pregnant!
So Will Harry Reid's Health Reform Bill Ruin Medicare or Not?
The Obama Administration Is Giving This Gitmo Detainee a Raw Deal
Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: Hey, guys, wotcha doing up there? Is the air different? We're glad to see you haven't forsaken the Fray. The board is jumping: we are having to send out to the icon sweatshop for more stars, checkmarks and Slate signs, as we are using them up so fast. (For an explanation of the symbols, please click here.) And WillV, we have been known to describe the Fray as a dress-down-Friday kind of board, but now we find you don't wear make-up to post here…there's such a thing as too much informality.
Bluto says it's the end of the Fray as we know it: because all the posters will be writing solely to get checks and stars. That'll be the day Bluto. Helen Weber asks whether there are any women star posters. The answer is no, not right now. There are very few star posters (and if you have read the various explanations you know that the star is for the poster, not for individual posts: it recommends someone who has made good posts in the past), and as it happens no woman has been chosen so far. We hope to change that soon.]
Strut that stuff but watch out…
When History Guy announced in this Fray that he was going to propose to Slate a "Breakfast Table" made up of posters on the grounds that most of the BT chatter sent everyone back to bed, I chimed in that it was a terrific idea, since the Fray usually has the most interesting material on Slate. I didn't really think Slate would buy it, but it has and the editors deserve a modest round of applause.
Congratulations, Will, Joe, Arthur. But beware: now that you've been plucked from among the unwashed masses to become card-carrying members of the media elite, agents of the left-wing media conspiracy, lackeys of the right-wing globalist-corporatist masters of the media, uncounted numbers of ordinary folks who have their piece to say already are drawing a bead on you. By week's end, you may feel like an Afghan statue after the Taliban artillery have passed by.
--Publius
(To reply, click here .)
[Tuesday notes from the Fray Editor: History Guy's sister, we salute you. The Mendelsohns of blessed memory would be proud of you. Jennifer Mendelsohn , as WillV says, came into the Fray and said this "Can I viciously flame one of you for no reason? Anyone wanna get married?" Amber is proposing some more unholy alliance with Zeitguy. She also called for more viciousness in the Fray here (ever agreeable, Fray posters called each other names). She is obviously a trouble-causer, argumentative and high maintenance. Just the kind of poster we like, in fact, welcome Amber!
This "Breakfast Table" certainly worked the magic in The Fray. The enigmatic Dola, a sadly-missed poster, re-appeared. There was endless discussion of women posters, for example here: a subject we have never seen mentioned before but which is now a hot topic. There were absolutely stellar discussions, for example on military training and campaign finance, here, and on estate tax, here. The "Breakfast Table" participants did not disdain their spiritual home: they are to be congratulated for answering critics and friends and encouraging discussions in the most good-humored way.
We're just mentioning this: there is a very very bad taste set of jokes about military training accidents here: don't read if you are easily shocked or a Yankees fan.]
Full disclosure here: Arthur Stock is my brother. And though I would be stretching the point to say, as does the junior Senator from New York, that my brother "saddens me," I must say about this stance on the inheritance tax: enough! I am certainly as knee-jerk a liberal as anyone else in my family (who can forget mom's explanation in the voting both: "you can vote for whomever you like, but if you pull the Republican lever your arm will fall off?"), but must you be quite so adamant? Did our loving parents sweat and toil their 3-day-a-week jobs as professors so their hard-earned money could buy oversized berets for an armed service with astonishingly poor aim? I think not. I offer constructive advice: if you find the law unjust, just hand over your share of the inheritance to me. I'll take care of it. You're welcome to pay my taxes on it. As the junior Senator of New York would surely deny saying: That's what family is for!"
--Lil sis
(To reply, click here .)
[Final notes from the Fray Editor: Arthur Stock really got quite enough exposure this week, but we can't resist his leftovers post, here (and after all, he is a friend of both Marty Peretz and Scott Shuger, apparently). The idea of the peasants with pitchforks representing the Fray will amuse us in some long working day ahead.
This has been a great "Breakfast Table" and a fabulous Fray, interaction at its finest, and more stars, checks and icons than you could shake a stick at. Well done all round: for this week you all deserved gold stars. (You're not getting them, but that's another matter. Oh, except for WillV…)]
A wonderful conversation, easily the equal to anything we've seen from the "pros".
One thing that is particularly heartening to me is that although these three fellows claim to have different political affiliations and tendencies; their thoughts, suggestions, and exchanges abound with common sense and good-faith. Given the posturing that is common among professional pundits, and given the histrionics of the average webboard poster, this week's "Breakfast Table" is far and away better than anything I might have expected. This reflects well on the participants, of course, but it also says something complimentary about Slate's editorial staff.
Good job
--Keith M. Ellis
(To reply, click here.)