Posted by
Michael on Friday, May 18, 2007 9:11:32 PM
Dan Carlin is
a veteran of media, working as a radio talk show host for the last
dozen years. Carlin has taken great advantage of new media, running a
large website with a large discussion board, regularly updated blog and
user-friendly layout. He runs two podcasts,
Common Sense with Dan Carlin, which showcases his independent political commentary, and
Hardcore History, which uses the podcast medium to entertainingly bring history to listeners.
Carlin
is fiercely independent, and you'll likely find as much that you
disagree with him over as you agree with. One thing you won't find
yourself thinking is how dull he is, because he most definitely is not
that.
I managed to get Carlin to answer a few questions on the
current political scene, ranging from American politics to education.
The only previous interview that's appeared at Deschamps was with the
guys at
Fantagraphics Books, so this is a definite step in a new direction. I hope you enjoy it.
Deschamps: For those that don't know, how would you describe your political ideology?
Dan
Carlin: I like to say I'm a “forward-thinking pragmatist”. Inventing
unique adjective combinations to describe one's self seems mandatory
today because the terms that we have traditionally used to describe
people politically seem less and less relevant. We have to say “I'm a
conservative on this...I am liberal on that” or “I'm basically a
liberal, but I disagree with them on this, that, and the other
thing...”.
If you go
that route, I'm a fiscally conservative, socially libertarian, small
government, pro-Constitution, America First, non-interventionist,
political independent who thinks we need to worry about the average
working stiff more.I'm sure that clears things up.D:
Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani really went at it in the last Republican
debate. Who do you think looked better and who do you suppose the
average American walked away thinking was the better man?
DC:
Well...it depends upon the audience. Let's remember that these guys are
competing for the Republican nomination in these debates, not the
presidency. Nixon used to say that you “run to the right” in the
primaries and head back to the political Center for the general
election. Ron Paul would be the candidate that most Americans would
want representing the Republicans...but that number would include a
great many Democrats and Independents (and I suspect accounts for some
of the reason Paul is polling so highly in the post-debate
surveys...you don't have to be a registered Republican to vote in
them). I suspect that if you only polled current registered Republicans
that Paul would not have done nearly as well.
So, I guess what I'm saying is that Giuliani looked better to the Republican “base” and Paul looked better to everyone else.D: Fox News viewers voted Ron Paul as the winner of the South Carolina debate. Could Paul actually be a viable candidate?
DC: No.
Heck,
the Republicans even want to bar him from future debates. These actions
are proving that the idea that someone like Paul could come into the
Republican party and move it more in a Libertarian direction is (at
least for the time being) false. The fact that the Republican
establishment is so upset at how Paul's message is resonating shows how
afraid they are, and how far they would go to keep such a shift in
party priorities from happening. They are openly trying to short
circuit Paul's campaign and it is a surprisingly naked move to stifle
him and silence a message that would be popular with many Republicans
who don't share the neo-conservative views of the current Republican
establishment.
Paul would need everything to go his way for him
to be a viable candidate. Having your own party trying to decapitate
your campaign just as you are proving it has legs takes you out of
viable candidate land in my mind.D: Both Bush and the
Democratic Congress have deplorable approval ratings. Is this a sign
that Americans are ready for something new in the world of political
ideas?
DC: Well, I'm not
sure that they haven't been ready for something new for a long time
now. It is hard to know when they have never had the chance to choose
anything other than what the Big Two parties are offering. I DO think
that the post Baby Boom generation is now reaching a critical mass in
terms of voting demographics. I see lots of political changes on the
horizon, and much of it, I think, will be due to the breaking down of
our old political labels and fault lines and their replacement with new
ones. It's going to be the post Baby Boomers that prompt these changes.
D:
We talk alot about education at Deschamps Blog, especially when it
relates to those with "special needs." It's largely apparent that we
need change in our education system. What kind of changes do you think
politicians and activists should be looking at?
DC:
This is a really important issue. Unfortunately, the changes that might
be needed are so much more than tinkering that it might be impossible
to talk about REAL education reform without sounding radical (in any
numbers of directions). I think it might be useful to start with an
overriding idea and then build from that. On the education issue, I
think that idea would be OPTIONS.
Let's
give parents more choices than they currently have. Many of the
problems the public schools face these days are controversies over how
and what they teach. This is because we have a one-size-fits-all system
trying to minister to the most diverse population in the history of the
world. Is it any wonder there are problems? I think we could be doing
much more experimentation in the education realm and think that the
longer we avoid real, meaningful innovation in how we teach people the
more we will suffer the society-wide effects of an undereducated
populace. Few people in the education establishment favor any sort of
“radical reform” though. And who can blame them?
D: What do you think will be the American role in Iraq two years from now?
DC: Good question. I don't know.D: Where do you think we should be?
DC:
Ultimately, I'd like to see us out of the Middle East. I think Iraq
should be split up into three nations and we should let them see if
they can defend what they have been given. Our job should be to keep
outsiders from joining the fight. Use diplomacy and carrots and sticks
to keep the Turks and Iranians from attacking the Kurds, work to get
the power brokers in the region to support the new reality on the
ground in Iraq and then lay the groundwork for a landmark regional
summit to discuss bringing free elections to the region.
While
such changes are a long shot, it would begin to re-establish the U.S.'s
position of being in favor of freedom and progress for the people of
the Middle East. That's the best way to start creating a counterforce
on the ground to fight the Islamic terror message. If we become, for
example, the greatest proponents of equal rights for the woman of the
Middle East, we begin to develop a base of support, underground though
it might be at first, for our conception of a 21st Century Islamic
world. A safe, free, prosperous one.D: Congress has just
passed an Immigration Reform Act. Do you think that Congress is going
about tackling illegal immigration in the right way?
DC:
No. And I'm pretty sure there IS no right way. Ask the Pharaohs of the
Biblical-era Egyptians how well they were able to keep the Libyans they
used as labor and domestic help from settling in increasing numbers in
the Nile Delta. They were in a very similar dynamic to what the USA has
now. Eventually, the Libyans put a Libyan Pharaoh on the throne of
Egypt.
I think the
key is to improve things in Mexico and you eliminate some of the need
on the part of people to come to the U.S. It is easier to stay home if
things aren't so bad at home. The Mexican government uses migration to
the U.S. as a safety valve to diffuse domestic tensions that might
otherwise be channeled into political reform. The USA provides an
outlet for desperate Mexicans that, if it were not available, might
force some big changes that would, in the long run, help Mexicans a
lot. So, in that sense, perhaps Mexico is addicted to the USA that way.
And we North Americans are certainly addicted to the low-cost labor the
Mexican workers provide. Addicts will get their drugs, one way or
another...wall or no wall, visa or no visa.D:
Harry Truman is viewed as a hero among many Democrats but in his time
was an unpopular president leading an unpopular war. As a historian as
well as political hound, do you think history will make Bush look
better or worse?
DC: Well, let's clear one thing up...I may have a history degree, but I'm no “historian”.
That
having been said, Presidents DO end up looking better the farther back
into history we are looking. Events compress as you pull back from them
and only the bigger things will matter. With President Bush that will
be Iraq and the War on Terror.
My
own view is that it will be tough for him to overcome the foreign
policy mistakes and improve his popularity with historians down the
road. Even if future events justify the Administration's view of the
seriousness of the terrorism threat, the fact that the wrong choices
were made in order to combat that threat will never look better to
history. They won't be saying “Well, at least his heart was in the
right place” a hundred years from now, and Iraq will never look like a
good place to have decided to fight “terrorism” with boots on the
ground.
I doubt he will be treated gently by historians.D:
What do you think of the idea of a "League of Democratic Nations" that
would include only countries that allow for free speech and human
rights?
DC: What would it
be used for? Are we hoping the “don't you want to be in OUR private
club?” effect works on the North Koreas of the world?
Besides...what's the criteria? Can the USA join? D:
As a political commentator, which of the mainstream political pundits
(Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann, Jonah Goldberg, Lou Dobbs, etc.) do you
find yourself most able to stomach?
DC:
Hmmmm...not Beck...or Goldberg. I can stand Olbermann and Dobbs. I
don't watch any of them to be honest. I watch nothing. Where does
everyone find the time?D: As someone with alot of radio experience, how do you feel about the recent push for reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine?
DC:
The horse has left and the barn door is closed on that one. It will
never happen...and probably shouldn't. After all...what does “fair”
mean today in terms of presenting all views? Are we going to include
Greens? Libertarians? Or are we just going to say that conservatives
and liberals have to balance each other out like Hannity and Colmes on
the airwaves? Besides...the Old Media doesn't control things anymore.
I'd
worry more about the Net Neutrality issue instead...if we start doing
things to stifle the New Media then there would be real problems beyond
any old fashioned “Fairness Doctrine” issues.D: The
internet has provided means for millions of people to express their
opinions and views in a way that was unimaginable a decade ago. What
effects do you think this will have on the political system?
DC:
It is going to be huge...and it is going to happen more quickly than
people think. It is going to break the current ideological stranglehold
in the USA and allow a wide spectrum of ideas hitherto unexpressed to
be shared and built upon audiences and groups. And not just within the
U.S., but also between Americans and those who live in other nations.
It is the greatest reason for optimism I can think of.D:
The American Motion Picture Association recently proclaimed that
smoking will be included with scenes of sex and violence as grounds to
up the ratings given to films. How do you feel about this?
DC:
I think it is nonsense. Do we really wish to go down this road? What if
they show someone eating a bunch of hamburgers like Wimpy in the Popeye
cartoons? Is that dangerous example of an irresponsible lifestyle
choice to be considered in the ratings as well?...Or will cigarettes be
a lone, special case? I suppose they can do anything they like...but I
think using something like a ratings system for films as a tool to
improve our society is weird.D: Having been in both new and traditional media, do you think traditional media is on the way out?
DC:
Well, that depends on what you mean by “traditional”. Because
“traditional” media has been “on the way out” since the early 1990's.
We have been in a transitional stage since then. It started with the
consolidation phase that was a result of things like the
Telecommunications Act in the 1990's and moved from there to the
current decentralization of media that is a result of the Internet and
the opening of the modes of content distribution. It was thought owning
a lot of radio stations (as just one example) was going to be a great
way to corner content distribution...now it's apparent that owning NO
radio stations is probably a better business strategy. After all, is
owning a transmitter really that much of a broadcasting advantage
anymore? It has a very limited range, it sure costs a heck of a lot
more to broadcast using it...and in the end you are still going to want
your content simulcast on the Internet anyway. Better to scrap the
transmitter altogether.
That's why I worry so much about things
like the Net Neutrality issues. I believe the ex-“gatekeepers” of
content miss their former editorial control. I can't think of too many
ways they could ever put the genie back in that bottle, and regain
control over the distribution of content. The proposals involved in the
Net Neutrality issue are some of the few that might do this. If they
can turn average, Internet broadcasters into second class citizens when
it comes to online media they will have restored themselves to a
premier position. I think that all the good societal advantages we
discussed earlier that our system might glean from the Internet would
be put at risk if the New Media were controlled, for all intents and
purposes, by those who control the Old Media.