Feldman Fights Back
An angry Feldman finally gets to speak.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Posts
Buck Jones: French Are Stupid Too
Josh: Kevin Booth
Jack Lindberg: Kevin Booth
Kevin Booth Interview on The David Feldman Show : American Drug War 2 - Premiering June 6th, 2013: HOW TO LISTEN
About David Feldman
Follow David Feldman on Twitter
Re: “Feldman Fights Back”
We can hear what conservatives think any time we like, 24/7; they have their own media bubble, complete with radio shows, television networks, websites, etc. And many of us do — I don’t know about the other listeners but I’ve certainly spent more than enough time listening to conservative talking points and right-wing arguments over the past 10+ years.
Anyone can watch Meet the Press (or a dozen other mainstream shows) if they want to see right-wing talking points legitimized and left basically unchallenged.
—–
Also, in David’s opening monologue, he says:
“Fox News is subtle”, “MSNBC is way more partisan [than Fox]“, “there’s no pretense at MSNBC”
I think David needs to spend more time (or any time at all) actually consuming right-wing media: watching/listening to Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, The Five; pick up an issue of National Review, tune into Rush once a day, etc.
David said in a recent episode that he hasn’t even watched (and has no interest in watching) the whole Karl Rove election night meltdown — I personally saw this happen in real-time (and it was delightful).
There are plenty of us lefties who take in more than our fair share of right-wing viewpoints on a regular basis… If David’s show is going to start featuring more of them, I do hope he brings Jimmy back on and actually lets him debunk some of it (which isn’t what happened on the last episode).
I have lived in the south my whole life David, and believe me when I tell you, you are in for a huge shock if you think you can have an intellectual conversation with a true conservative. I have this conversation every friday night at my home. The first thing they will do is tell you that what you are saying is wrong, and will just be obsenant about it. Example last week I had to explain that we are paying the lowest taxes in history, pulled it up right away, guess what conversation over. Opinion changed right, nope! So I now bring my laptop already pulled up when I start a conversation. Then once you show them the facts, they are staring at the facts in their face they will say ok, or change the subject. The next week even after you have proved them wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt they will try to have the argument again only this time with a new angle. So in this case how 47% don’t pay ‘any’ taxes. Again I nicely pulled up the wealth distribution and the payroll tax rate data. Again no answer. I have done this with one friend for over a year. And even though I debunked his whole system of beliefs he still voted for all republicans. Why because it is a BELIEF, not and a difference of opinion. Eventually they just try to stop talking politics with you and disassociate with you all together. You can’t change a BELIEF over night unless you get a shock to the system, like loose their life savings do to medical bills or watch as you start to lose more rights. I like to believe that my idea’s are independent and can be changed based on facts, but I have yet to see many good arguments as to why anyone would support conservatives on fiscal policy, the other stuff is just unimportant. The ones that are single issue voters are like Jimmy said Ignorant and are not win able.
It sounds like you are at a crossroads of how you want to proceed with the
show as far as being an intellectual or being a hard core progressive. as a listener I perfer the “reigning in 20 years of progressivism” David over the both sides deserve a voice guy you are trying to be. This will only end in frustration for you, and will lose listeners and spots in best of the left. We want someone to fight for us David. We want Keith Oberman not Jim Leher. You want to give us red meat, please moderate Jimmy vs. Unknown conservative. I bet your friend doesn’t have the stones to debate Jimmy even if you offer him money, cause deep down he knows he is wrong, just like every other conservative, they are afraid of liberals with brains.
David,
I appreciate what you are trying to do. It is my nature too to try and find some understanding, however, after watching the right wing methodically dismantle our democracy since my young adulthood (turned politically active in 1981, turned 18 in 1986) I tend to get angry and respond from an emotional place (though not as angry as Jimmy did on your show).
I wish Jimmy could have kept it together to actually be able to address your points, as I feel he’s done a disservice to the left by flying off of the handle. Really he came off as a left-wing version of those wing-nuts on the right that we use to typify the whole party. I think he should turn off the bubble for a while, partake of a media fast, and then come back to it with a calmer mind.
I wish he could have kept it together, because I know he is intelligent and thoughtful enough to have dismantled your ‘own interest argument’. He was about to get there. Since he didn’t I’ll pick up where he left off. It is a false equivalency that assumes that our only self interest is an economic one. Even if that were the case Mr. Geffen might recognize that he benefits more financially if he takes the 3% tax increase on earnings over 250,000 (or whatever it turns out to be) but gains significantly more income by having a broader affluent society that can afford to purchase his product. It may also be the case that Mr. Geffen sees the honoring of the Social Contract as being in his best interest as he may be sympathetic to the plight of his fellow human being, that he would like to see that rising tide lift all boats, not just the yachts of the 1% (It’s possible that this rising tide is related to climate change, but that is another topic that apparently we are not discussing in polite company.)
I love your show keep it up.
Kind regards, Michael.
I was critical of David Feldman in my comment that I left yesterday about the show. Having heard todays episode and considered his position more I can see where he is coming from. I like his idea of letting republicans speak and thereby forcing them to consider their own positions more carefully, however I don’t think that will be as fruitful a strategy as David envisions it as being. To each his own though.
That being said though, I think the episode from yesterday would have gone a lot better if David was either more to the point, and delivered his ideas more succinctly, or if that is not possible, then at least make it clear to the person you are speaking to that you are trying to make a broader point and that it will take some time to do this. Your guests are reasonable enough to allow you time to finish your point if they know what that is what you are trying to do, but if you slowly repeat the long beginning of the point you were in the middle of making without any hint as to where you are going, or how long it will take to get there, then it is easy to lose your cool and try to “head off” what seems like an overly drawn out statement to get to a point.
At several points during the show when Jimmy interrupted your question, it seemed obvious where you were going with the question and so in the interest of time, he began answering it when he thought he knew where it was going (and I thought as he did). It turns out that he was mistaken about this and you were making a much grander (and eloquent) point about the republican mind, but you gave no indication that your question was anything more than what it looked like on its face (which seemed like just a simple question, not worth taking 5 minutes to lay out). I think this misunderstanding was the root of almost all of the problems in the episode. In the future just try to be either more succinct, or at least warn them that you will need some time to lay out the point and ask them to wait until you have laid it out (and as a courtesy, you should let them know how long this will likely take). Your point was a good one had it been given 5 minutes to be laid out, but you never asked for 5 minutes to do so, so it is unsurprising that the end result did not turn out well.
-Buck
David,
If you want to hear a lot a reasoned arguments from conservatives, you might try listening to the the Federalists Society Podcasts. You could find some guests. That is one of my sources to listen to people present ideas that I disagree with. I am sure there are others. I guess I would rather hear the conservative talking points from the people writing the first draft.
I listen to you all the time and I can’t say I really understand where you are trying to go. I think you need to show rather than tell.
Have some conservatives on where you have a reasoned discussion. It is possible to present opposing points of view and still be good-natured.
It might be interesting to find ideas that you would think liberals would support, but evidence shows that many don’t.
Like, I was surprised to hear the Supreme Court eminent domain ruling in Kelo v. City of New London had the liberals on the side of taking “land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.” To me those actions are anti-democratic.
Or I know many Libertarians oppose the drug war.
Feldo:
YES!
I mean no.
…..err maybe.
Pacifica (KPFA, KPFK, etc) was started by a bunch of pacifists that were convinced that, if you couldn’t prevent war, at least you could delay it by dialogue with “the enemy”. Well, Lew wouldn’t have said “the enemy”, but you get the idea. So, if I am to believe all of this, your program philosophy is truly in the spirit of Pacifica, and you have my support. But I still say that you should try to exercise the same patience displayed in conversation with “the enemy” with your friends as well. I know it’s harder, since you know their weak spots, but it is unfair to hold your friends to higher standards than you have for the goddamn ignorant moronic assholes we have to share this planet with.
Nice job all around. And tell Dore he was very convincing.
For those listeners come lately, I suggest a listen to http://davidfeldmanshow.com/high-lights-from-2012/.
So much of this fascinating battle comes down to style. David, as a longtime fan, I feel entitled to put my two cents in about the way you handled the discussions with Unknown (why, by the way, was it not safe for this dude to reveal his identity? Are liberals THAT volatile?), and Jimmy, as well as today’s solo performance.
You seem to feel your ideas and theories have not come through. This is not the case. You made yourself perfectly clear, even in the fight with Jimmy, during which you apparently felt you were the one who didn’t get a chance to speak.
But your tendency to pontificate, even when asking a question, was particularly maddening in this event. And while I would have enjoyed a more constructive discussion, my feeling is that you were the one who screwed this one up. You should have let Dore speak right away and then reacted, instead of trying to teach him a lesson.
Your endeavour to give conservatives a chance to speak is noble. But I am not listening to your podcast to hear their views one more time. I’m listening to it to hear them put into perspective in a fair and factual manner. Unknown filibustered and got away with a sh tload of lies. And it really is quite naive to think that helped anybody but him.
Why not have a discussion with Unknown AND Dore? You could concentrate on moderating, instead of asking five minute questions.
Again: You’re trying to do something worth while here, but your style as a broadcaster doesn’t seem to serve the attempt. To be perfectly blunt: I think you may be a little too much in love with the sound of your voice and the brilliance of your intellectual discoveries to pull this one off.
Please prove me wrong soon.
Hello David,
I’m a huge fan of both your show and Jimmy’s, so the other day’s episode which had the two of you at each other’s throats was difficult to listen to. And David, as much as I appreciate your attempt to bring civility to an atmosphere that is too often clouded by extremism, I gotta agree with Jimmy on this one.
I don’t think it’s ever a bad idea to open a dialogue with the other side, which is why I was happy to hear your discussion with the Unknown Conservative last week. Knowing what the folks on the other side are thinking—or, at the very least, what they want you to think about them—is better than just assuming the worst about them. But when it all comes down, the point of view that Unknown harbored, no matter how pleasantly he delivered it, is unacceptable. It’s fundamentally flawed, outdated, dangerous, and wrong.
I appreciate your call to all liberals to keep calm and let Republicans dig their own graves, but this was not what you exhibited in your conversation with Jimmy. I find it a little disingenuous that you insist that he “never let you speak”; from what I could tell, your voice was heard, and you used most of your airtime to bash Jimmy’s demeanor rather than make your point. You showed the same technique that the media did in their analysis of the Presidential debates: all references to the theatrics, completely ignoring the substance.
Instead of letting him make his point, you labeled Jimmy an “extremist,” and to combat him you played the exact game that the Republicans do: you muddied the waters. You attacked Jimmy for “always thinking he’s right” and called attention to his anger rather than his argument. You defamed your opponent rather than defending your own principle. You hit him with a personal hypothetical that didn’t really seem relevant (no, I don’t think asking the wealthy to pay a little more in taxes is the same as asking a comedian to personally take care of a homeless person). You brought in that holiest of Fox News tricks: the false equivalency, the “both sides do it” card.
To say with certitude that Republicans are wrong is not to presume that we liberals are always right. This is the false equivalency that bothered me the most: your unfounded attack on Jimmy for “certainty” was only loosely connected to the substance of his argument. Jimmy’s not always right, but on this he is dead on: Republicanism – is – wrong. I have listened to, studied, and watched Republicans. They are wrong. Their philosophies and tenets are fundamentally wrong. That is not a prejudicial statement but one of researched evidence. If we can’t point out that half our government is run by Looney Tunes, what good are we?
Yes, we should be able to have civil discourse about politics in this country. And yes, even when Democrats are in charge, we need people to check on them. But I reject the Republicans for that job. We’re a long way from Bob Dole; since his time the party has been bought and sold by every Bond villain in the country. It has no principles other than to beef up the bank accounts of those who don’t need it. Republicanism no longer deserves a presence in our political discourse. I don’t need to be certain of everything to realize that.
I’ll hang up and listen.
Jim
Thanks Jim. I am sorting it all out.
Wow, I’m surprised by how many negative comments there are in response to this episode. I suppose I have a different viewpoint. And to be clear, I’m Canadian, so I come at this from a different perspective.
David, your and Jimmy Dore’s podcasts are the only two podcasts I donate money to every single month, and as much as I love Jimmy Dore and his passion for defending liberal points of view, I didn’t even download his response to the unknown conservative because I feared that he was gonna lose his shit. Sounds like he did, from those comments.
I think this episode you posted was brilliant. Truly brilliant. Not to blow too much smoke up your ass, but I think you have a very, very wise way of cutting this stuff apart, and the approach you take to developing an honest dialogue between what you accurately identify as two opposing sports teams is terribly apt. I really think you’re speaking the truth here, and I believe in a very profound way that the sort of objectivity you’re espousing here is a critical first step in establishing any kind of meaningful, reasonable dialogue between both sides.
I’m surprised that more of your listeners weren’t similarly moved by this episode, but I’m totally happy to comment clearly and loudly about it. This is one of your best, most concise, and truth-telling monologues I’ve heard yet from you. It wasn’t very funny… But it was great.
I love you and I love your show. You’re doing a great service for us.
For the record, I feel similarly about Jimmy Dore, too. He has such a fire in his belly about this stuff that he has some trouble keeping a lid on it sometimes, but I really don’t fault him for that. Even if it occasionally decreases his effectiveness at debate, I’d rather see that passion on full display than the apathy and lack of investigative insight that’s too often in evidence in discussions on this topic.
Great work! Thanks for the opportunity to give my $0.02.
David-
I get what you desire to do; I too have a friend who considers himself a “conservative”. We go way back. We usually discuss and argue political points civilly. I would add “rationally”, but he gets far too many of his talking points from Fox “News” for me to consider him rational when it comes to his politics. I try and lay out facts for him, but his mind is made up – I can’t get through. Mainly we just have to agree to disagree. I hope to get through to him one day, but I doubt it.
It is difficult at best – and impossible in the main – to have a rational conversation with members of a group who, for example, would label me a “baby killer” (as was shouted at me by a throng of counter-protesters at the March to Save Women’s Lives in DC in 2004) for my stand on reproductive choice.
Seems to me that the people you are looking to have conversations with are not the ones driving the conservative agenda. If they are rational, they may be in the voting mainstream, but they are not the ones shaping their party’s monologue.
I admire your intent, but think you would need to resort to public self immolation to make an impression on most of these people, and I don’t think even that would do much to get them to examine your point of view in depth – quite the contrary, I think it would shore up their attitude that you must’ve been delusional, after all, just look at your values.
- Fishguy
My thoughts on the unknown liberal episode:
Jimmy seemed to be under the impression that the episode would his opportunity to respond to the unknown conservative episode, you said your intent was to use the Socratic Method to make some point with him instead. Did Jimmy know that was going to be the point of the podcast?
Personally I don’t blame Jimmy a bit. I was getting so irritated with you David that I considered turning off the podcast myself.
Conservatives have plenty of opportunities to get their views across. Your listeners have heard them. We go to your podcast (among other reasons) to hear their hypocrisy and ignorance called out for what it is. You will do your listeners no service by allowing them another forum to repeat their views and then insult your friends for calling you on it.
Maybe. It is easier to mess around with your closest friends, which Jimmy is. Maybe I violated some borders.
Wow, can you talk. It was riveting. Not funny, but it was great hearing you ramble for an hour.