[William A. Baurle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DD_8SJKAjc

The interview is an hour and a half. There are other Rubin videos I can recommend, for sedate, relaxed, rational discussion about hot topics: especially those of free speech, Trump's presidency, and the New Left. The one with Dennis Prager (also a former liberal) is good, as are a couple with Milo (before his fall from grace, in full cock-of-the-walk form. He spouts a great deal of stupidity, but there are a few good points in there as well, lost amid the arrogant, flamboyant noise).

Bear in mind: Rubin is a liberal who has been disenchanted with the progressive left, which he calls the "regressive left" - a term he didn't invent but helped popularize. He's most definitely not an ideologue, and he's not waving any flags.

I think he's a model for people, like myself, who are instinctively left and liberal in their political thinking, who are a wee tad concerned about how things are going. On the right as well as the left.

I'm no fan of the far right either. Theocracies and/or militant states are obviously a great threat to humanity at large. Burning people in cages, sawing off heads, and stoning people: these are manifestly evil. I do not think the New Left is evil, only that there is obviously a trend towards political practices - such as demonizing, ad-homs, and acts of destructive and harmful violence - that will inevitably, if taken to their logical conclusion, result in further behavior and conditions/environments I would call evil.

Quotable quote at 35:00 Horowitz: "Corruption is far better than communism". Rubin knows it's eminently quotable. That comment was in reference to the Clinton administration. But you have to watch the whole thing to understand it all in context. By the way - for those who won't watch - Dave Rubin thinks very fondly of the Clinton administration, while Horowitz thinks exactly the opposite. And yet the two can converse peaceably and with good humor.

Time, patience, and a level head, instead of knee-jerk reactions and automatic outrage.

**Another great quote at 42:12: Horowitz: "I can't go to a university without bodyguards."

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

The reason I chose the Albert debate as a starting place, Bill, was that at least he doesn't identify the left with the neo-liberal drool. Though if yiou want to really go to the circus the debate between Horowitz and Zizek is better TV. Despite my large distance from Zizek on many issued, he makes it clear DH has very little idea what he talking about when he brings up things like Palestine, Iraq, Iran etc. The debate is moderated by Assange at it is total clown car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf72TQA0rjg

I wouldn't waste five minutes examining Horowitz except for the fact that powerful people like Sessions, who I believe is one of most practically dangerous people in the present administration, view him as an important thinker.


BTW I think Zizek is mostly out of his mind but he makes me laugh.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf72TQA0rjg

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Horowitz, at his center, wallows in Hobbes. His view of man and the universe is a self-fulfilling nightmare. His view of the causes of inequality and his trust in free play to deliver a fair share of basic decency and simple life is historically untenable.

[William A. Baurle]

Thanks, Andrew, I'll watch the debate you linked to and get back to you. As it's Mother's Day, that won't be until much later in the day.

By the way, Horowitz did say a couple things I was actually surprised by. He has gone far more to the right since the book I read, that came out in 1998. I'll try to mention those things in my next post, later. I'm much more interested in Rubin, as he's younger and, from what I can see, very difficult to upset. Horowitz, judging by the vids I've looked at when he speaks on campus, is quick to indignation, whereas Rubin is extremely cool-headed.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

The Albert thing on the other thread has at least some content. The Zizek bit isn't exactly a debate. It's...them. Take your time. Not that important.

[William A. Baurle]

I'm only ten minutes into the Horowitz/Zizek video and already I see DH getting aggressive, though Zizek is very animated as well. Dramatically different than the Rubin interviews. One problem is that they are not face to face but interacting online: they are at a "safe" remove from one another; another problem is Zizek is forced to argue in a second language, which puts him at a disadvantage. No language that isn't native comes "naturally", and his brain has to do extra work to keep pace. So, my sympathies are almost automatically with him, even though I won't agree with his views.

I doubt this thread will go anywhere. I wanted to initiate a discussion of free speech, along with the theory of rights, as well as touching on other things like Trump's presidency and the whole confusion and distraction of applying labels like 'left' and 'right', 'liberal' and 'conservative'; but using an hour and a half video as a springboard was a bad idea. Few people will want to sit through it.

I certainly don't see the point of having a William/Andrew debate on this thread, if that's all it'll amount to, since we could always do that in private rather than take up public space.

Just one thing though:

DH has very little idea what he talking about when he brings up things like Palestine, Iraq, Iran etc.

Not true. Horowitz is deeply learned and highly informed about those areas. His books are full of scholarly material, and he's written many of them. He may have faults, but ignorance ain't one of them.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

I don't know what to say about that William. Anything I have seen Horowitz write on the Middle East is gross oversimplification and, with the Palestinians, a total disregard for the general population and a total embrace of collective guilt and punishment. His opinions on any of the periods in Iraq that I am most well grounded in (historically) are usually pulled out of talking point style propaganda lists so I find it hard to believe that. I did a fair amount of public speaking on Iraq before the war and I usually pissed everybody in the audience off (except the few Iraqi ex-pats that would show up). I don't have the same grounding in post 2005 stuff but I find his approach to any area he mouths off about that I am familiar with fairly suspect. Of course, I find his basic worldview pretty foul and I don't much care for him as a person so I agree, I am a poor discussion companion. I am happy to bow out here unless something useful comes up to add to it. No worries about letting the thread slide. I am pretty buried in another project anyway. This is my way of procrastinating on that. Ha!

[William A. Baurle]

Sure, let's let it slide down.

Good luck with your project!

[John Whitworth]

Never heard of Horowitz. But if he's a Hobbesian, then he's the right kind of guy. Bowing out, Andrew? Oh surely not. You're four times on this short thread already.

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

Actually....no thanks John. Enjoy the goat and the under-bridge.