This is the place on the site where I guess I'm supposed to blog—except that I don't. Rather than share all my idle thoughts (fascinating as they are), I'd rather use this space to hear yours. So please send me any thoughts on what I’ve been writing, be it the book or my magazine pieces, and I'll try to get back to you in the space below. (If you don't want me to post it or to use your name, please let me know.) Thanks.
Also, if you really do want to hear all my idle thoughts, at least as they pertain to the presidential campaign, please do visit my weekly online column, The Primary Argument, on the New York Times site. Thanks again.
TALK BACK
Hillary Clinton was recently interviewed by Bill O'Reilly on Fox. Why now? Some say that she is abandoning the liberal left base (moveon, dailykos) to appeal to moderates and centrists. What do u think. By the way I read "the Argument" -- good read.
Thanks, Richard. Sorry to get to this a little late. I think what you say about Senator Clinton is true, with a few caveats. One, she never really belonged in the MoveOn, DailyKos world to begin with--she made some overtures, but her support there was very limited. And second, I think she's reacting to the political reality. Moderates and centrists are her only base in primary states, partly because Senator Obama is so popular among the left, and partly perhaps because she benefits from some racial tension (whether or not she herself fans it). You saw this in North Carolina, where she sat on the back of pickup trucks and attacked the "elites" and tried to appeal to the most populist side of working America, in ways that could make you cringe. It doesn't seem to have worked.
on May 7, 2008
I wanted to write you and tell you how much I love The Argument. I'm a recent law school grad, and I've always been a big political junkie who loved to talk politics with his friends. However, your book crystallized my understanding of the Democratic Party, where it's been, where it is, where it's going and who might take it there. And it was damn funny, too. The stuff with Rob Reiner in particular is a personal favorite.
In a strange twist of fate, I've actually ended up becoming a Field Organizer for Hillary Clinton's campaign in North Carolina. Already I can see, as I reflect on the broader issues in the campaign and my view from my little part of it, just how accurate your insights were and how they apply to politics today.
Thanks, Ben. You've got a big week or two coming up, huh. I found Senator Clinton's closed-door comments on MoveOn to be incredibly relevant to the book, as I'm sure you did. Good luck organizing.
on April 21, 2008
I just wanted to drop you a line and say thanks for writing The Argument. I've just put the finishing touches on my senior honors thesis, studying the netroots (and to a broader extent, the Internet) in politics. The Argument proved an invaluable guide, and you proved very quotable. Have you considered a sequel if Obama wins in November? He appears to have learned from and built on Dean's lessons. Also, if you haven't, take a long look at both Obama and McCain's websites, especially their use of them as tools for GOTV and grassroots. Obama's winning that battle hands down; McCain looks like he's ceding the under-40 crowd already. Thanks again.
Thank you Gill, glad I could help with the thesis. A sequel? No way. I'm hoping there are other stories to tell, but I've got no great ideas yet. Appreciate your reading.
on April 21, 2008
I've read some of your Times articles, the blog, and just read the Harper's interview - good work. And since you correctly point out in the interview that most people like their existing beliefs reinforced by their news sources, I would note that I am a libertarian-leaning conservative, so that's some evidence that you are achieving your stated goal of challenging preconceptions . So I ordered your book and plan to devote some of my time to your thoughts (one comment before reading it - were 300+ pages needed here?).
I would like to offer a different thought for how Democrats could create a coherent-intellectually-motivated movement (which is what I think you and others see as distinguishing the conservative movement from the disparate, pluralistic Democratic alliance). Perhaps Democrats should think on the roots of conservative ideology - not the maxims and conclusions, but just the first questions and the logical structure. What is the proper role of
government, ie why should free men constitute government? There is plenty of room to answer this question identically to a Milton Friedman (ie to accomplish those of our several goals which we can more effectively achieve through collective, coerced action) while still pushing for Democratic party values. You may find this simplistic or idiosyncratic, but ANY coherent political party will have to have common ground on why we have government if they are to hope for unity in the various proposals for what government should do. I don't think that most Democrats consider this question paramount and I think it is at the root of their seeming disorder and equally at the root of what unity there is in the conservative movement.
Bob, thanks for reading. I suspect you will find that your point is sufficiently addressed throughout the book, actually, especially in chapter 5. I'm not sure Democrats in office can or should spend a lot of time on these broader philosophical questions, but you would think that so-called think tanks might, or even some of the bloggers. There doesn't seem to be a lot of intellectual curiosity there--maybe because we're in a period where winning is always within reach for either party (which it wasn't for the conservatives), or maybe because thinking philosophically might mean having to reexamine some of the old ideas to which the party has clung for decades. As for the pages, no one who reads the book seems to find it excessive--it's a narrative and covers a lot of ground. Hope you like it.
on April 3, 2008
