New at Reason

April 20, 2007

Nick Gillespie sits down for a lengthy interview with award-winning journalist Jonathan Rauch.

Comments

VM|4.20.07 @ 3:21PM|#

Thanks, Nick!

|4.20.07 @ 4:15PM|#

Great interview. I like seeing the inner workings of people's minds and you brought that out nicely.

Kevin B. O\'Reilly|4.20.07 @ 4:36PM|#

Jon Rauch is great, and a great interview. One question I would have asked is how Rauch squares his trial-and-error, incrementalist view of government with his belief that it's nearly impossible to get rid of failed programs. Shouldn't that strongly, strongly discourage the kind of tinkerism he seems to endorse?

Paul|4.20.07 @ 5:02PM|#

I'm well aware I may not understand why they do the things they do, and that if something's been around the way it has been for a long time, that doesn't make it immune to criticism. But I think it deserves at least a second or third look, so I'm no radical. I'm very anti-radical.

I think what Rauch is trying to describe here, if I may, is that he is not anti-establishment, he's more anti-authoritarian, which is the way many libertarians lean.

Most left-leaning people that I've known over the years despise (an often vaguely described) establishment, but are perfectly comfortable with authority. For instance, often times the left will want to tear down a particular administration, but they're more than comfortable with government as an institution-- especially one that controls the lives and behaviors of its citizens. On the other hand, one could argue that the right are often pro-establishment and pro-authority. Yeah, bad combo, in my opinion.

Libertarians often don't have trouble with many establishments, especially if they work. We just don't like being told what to do or how to do it.

|4.20.07 @ 5:16PM|#

[slavery] was a terrible, terrible evil and it was historically almost unique in this country.

This comment puzzles me. It sounds like he is saying slavery was unique to this country, which is clearly not true; acceptance of slavery used to be the normal state, until the British and Americans started agitating to abolish it. It endures today in a number of countries. I wonder if he means that abolition of slavery is unique to this country? That's also not completely true, but it's more justifiable, especially since he was talking about the Civil War era just prior to that comment.

|4.20.07 @ 5:49PM|#

Very interesting interview. One nitpick: his recent essay in the National Journal arguing that global warming is no big deal came out the week before the IPCC study detailing all sorts of gruesome effects of global warming. That was not one of his finest moments.

|4.20.07 @ 6:40PM|#

John,
I didn't get the impression that he felt either the practice of slavery nor the state sponsored abolition was unique. I think he was referring to the national division that existed over the practice as being "unique". The preceding portion of the paragraph emphasized that he would have likely acted as Lincoln suggested, preserve the Union first and let slavery take it's natural course into extinction.

|4.20.07 @ 8:20PM|#

Excellent interview, but Rauch never seems to consider that the growing recognition of gay rights is one of the things that most infuriates the right wing about America. Is Rauch's position on gay rights closer to Pelosi's or Delay's? I wonder. He seems to be moderate about everything except what concerns him personally.

LarryA|4.21.07 @ 11:01AM|#

Excellent interview, but Rauch never seems to consider that the growing recognition of gay rights is one of the things that most infuriates the right wing about America.

Recognition of gay rights infuriates the radical right wing, but then so do a dozen other topics. Abortion, immigration, et al. And there's a similar list of subjects infuriating the radical left. A growing acceptance of gun rights, the environment, health care, et al.

He seems to be moderate about everything except what concerns him personally.

How is, "I'm a big advocate of gay marriage, but I square that circle by saying the right way is to try it in a few states, to do it slowly." immoderate. Many gay activists would rather have an ERA-style Constitutional amendment.

I distinctly remember reading all the way to the bottom of a Rauch article about gays before finding out in the bio line that he was too. That's what alerted me to his being a writer I'll read on almost any subject.

Luke Ford|4.23.07 @ 3:58PM|#

Why is Jonathan Rauch regarded as so smart? He exhibits some of the dumbest, most cliched analysis I've ever read about journalism.

His primary economic question is: "Who's going to fund the real reporting?"

Well, who's going to fund the real orange juice? Who's going to fund the real cars? Who's going to fund the real rock 'n' roll?

I'm not as smart or as accomplished as Jonathan Rauch, but I think I know the answer to all these questions, including the journalism one: The free market will fund reporting/rock/OJ as long as there is a demand for it. There will always be a demand for reporting and a free market will always fill it.

There's no barrier to entry to reporting. Anybody can get into it and anybody with valuable information or analysis that has not been previously published can make a valuable contribution to reporting, whether they do it via fax/internet/Washington Post/church bulletin.

Many of the rewards for reporting are not monetary. They include fame, prestige, and the inner feeling of making the world a better place by giving people better information to make decisions by. Only a pompous blowhard such as Rauch and those who enable him (Gillespie and Reason et al) would every worry about "Who's going to fund the real reporting?"

Luke Ford|4.23.07 @ 5:12PM|#

Gillespie asks some lame questions but the lamest of all was this: "Do you think politics--or maybe just political discourse, which is a slightly different thing--are too extreme right now, too fragmented and divisive?"

Only a wuss worries about politics being too divisive. Real men love a good fight. And real men ask questions of gay-marriage supporters such as: "Do you think it should be legal to have sex with dogs/brothers/mothers?"

|4.25.07 @ 11:11AM|#

"I honestly thought that Bush would look at the prospect of losing one or both houses of Congress and decide that he just didn't want that and that it would be better to get on the right side of the voters".

Most people make this mistake. Bush is not a politician. He generally says what he means and does it. Then people are surprised and act shocked.
Bush is less interested in getting on the right side of fickle voters than the right side of history.