Re: D Magazine profile/interview

The Mark Davis Show

8:30 am - 11 am CT

WBAP News/Talk 820 AM 96.7 FM

Dallas- Ft. Worth TX

#1 since 1994

Listen at wbap.com

Dallas Morning News columns:

www.dallasnews.com/opinion

Twitter: @markdavis

On Aug 12, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Mr. Davis-

My name is Barrett Brown, and I've been asked by Tim Rogers at D Magazine to do a profile on you for publication in an upcoming issue. The piece would be short (about 1,500 words) and I've already gotten all of the background material that would be necessary for an article of that length (I attended the rally at Hillcrest the other evening, incidentally), but I was wondering if you'd be willing to answer a couple of quick questions, which I've pasted below my signature. Feel free to give me a ring or e-mail me if you have any questions of your own, and if there's anything else you'd like to address, go ahead and add it in at will.

--
Regards,

Barrett Brown
512-560-2302

1. Is there significant danger of the Tea Party movement being effectively co-opted by establishment Republicans, or is it more likely that the Tea Party will have a lasting and positive impact on the GOP establishment and the manner in which Republicans govern? Or is it too soon to tell?

The relationship between the Tea Party movement and the Republican party is a delicious combination of mutual benefit and mutual discomfort. The GOP knows it has a large and motivated voter base among the Tea party ranks, and the Tea Party folks know that only Republicans will carry out their policy goals. But the Tea Party ethic contains a disdain for unreliable Republicans that can match its disregard for Democrats. As for the Republican power establishment, it loves the electoral energy the Tea party movement brings, but it is terrified of its demand for devotion to libertarian levels of taxes and spending. Republicans true to genuinely limited government and devotion to the Constitution will be elevated by Tea Party passion. Those who have built careers on squishy moderation could be eaten alive by it.

To the extent that the Tea Party can rivet the GOP to truly conservative and constitutional roots, it is only a good thing. But once elected, tea party-friendly candidates will have to resist the temptation that has devoured so many previous candidates who have talked a good game about cutting the growth of government but done the opposite.

The "Tea Party Caucus" in Congress is a noble but bad idea. It is too easy for politicians to join in an attempt to garner unearned Tea Party cred. Elected officials who are true to Tea Party ideals will always be easy to identify without creating some clubhouse to confer that distinction without merit.

2. You wrote recently about Obama's decision to reduce America's nuclear arsenal in tandem with Russia. What do you think motivates those who speak darkly of nuclear weapons as whole rather than differentiating between those possessed by the U.S. and those possessed by Russia, or who regularly talk of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether? Is it simple naiveté or something else altogether?

Condemning nuclear weapons without distinguishing who wields them is as morally stupid as equating all guns. A brief cold war lesson: Soviet nukes bad, American nukes good. Their warheads were intended to tyrannize the world, ours were meant to curtail that tyranny. Ours worked.

There is no longer a Soviet Union, but reducing the American nuclear arsenal is not automatically wise. Iran looms as a potential new player on the nuclear weaponry scene, and al Qaeda will no doubt notice any area in which the U.S. seeks to disarm. The American nuclear arsenal has made evil nations consider their actions for 65 years. There will always be factions around the world who will be energized by a weaker American arsenal.

I would love to think we have gotten past the juvenile false equivalency of America's nuclear goals and those of our enemies, but we haven't.

3. Speaking of moral equivalence, there seems to have been a significant rise in rhetoric against Israel on such occasions as it reacts against outside threats in which that nation's actions are equated with those of Nazi Germany. Is such deliberate use of that kind of terminology the result of mere sloppy thinking or is it something worse?

Nazi Germany and Hitler have sadly become the go-to references when rhetorical bullies seek to end debate with a cheap shot. Whether it's an Obama critic suggesting his socialism has a Hitler flavor, or a Bush-basher attaching Hitler-style motivations to George W's exercise of executive power, these playground taunts achieve nothing to advance discourse. It stems from two common characteristics of today: immaturity and laziness. The thin-skinned adolescent rants of much of today's dialogue show that we often prefer to use flamethrowers to incinerate opponents rather than scalpels to dissect what they are saying.

4. Which national pundits do you think deserve wider attention?

Not many. Any idiot with a laptop can stake some claim to a slice of today's user-generated punditry pie. But of the people who actually think critically for a living, here's who should be consumed by anyone seeking to refresh or instill an appreciation for liberty and limited government:

Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post, Weekly Standard, New Republic): always thoughtful and skillful in his phraseology, but tireless in spotlighting lazy thinking and moral inconsistency.

Dr. Walter Williams, who has made it his life's work to remind the inattentive of what the Constitution actually says and what America would look like if we followed it. A hero to all who value free markets.

Andrew McCarthy, National Review. One of the most valuable voices of clarity on the war against terror.

Supplemental stuff:

If there is a signature battle of our time in the opinion world, it is the effort to once and for all defeat the slander that attaches ulterior motives to conservatism. Support strong borders, and you are a xenophobe. Oppose affirmative action and you are a racist. Stand up for the definition of marriage that has lasted throughout recorded history, and you are a homophobe. Fight for smaller government, and you hate poor people. These lies are the tactics of cowards who find it easier to demonize opponents than to engage them.

If there is anything I'm proud of, it is making these points without rancor and with a large capacity for respectfully absorbing opposing views before taking issue with them. I say this not to pat myself on the back, but to identify it as the skill set which conservatives can use to attract others. We have to do more than just energize our cheering base. We have to thoughtfully and respectfully make strong points that will get people past labels like "conservative" or "Republican" and resonate with the majority taste for more economic freedom and less wasteful spending.

Well, Barrett, this is either the kind of thing you were thinking of or or a wild departure from it. Let me know and I can give you more that is similar or different.

Thanks again,

Mark Davis