Political and policy debates in America are too often conducted either with soundbites or speeches. There is not much tradition in this country of Oxford-style debates in which two teams of debaters try to win over the audience with a combination of facts and clever rhetoric. Even on the floor of Congress, lawmakers tend to talk past one another. And on TV the “Firing Line” debates expired almost a decade ago.
That’s a shortfall that Robert Rosenkranz, a New York financier and philanthropist, decided to remedy. In September 2006 he created an American analog to the Intelligence Squared (IQ2) debate series which has been a long-running hit in London. The U.S. version of IQ2 has been equally successfully, playing to sold-out audiences at the Asia Society in New York and to a much larger audience via National Public Radio.
I’ve been a member of the IQ2US advisory board from the start but hadn’t participated in a debate until now. On Wednesday I was part of a team of three, along with Johns Hopkins scholar Michael Mandelbaum and British think tanker Douglas Murray, speaking in favor of the motion, “Resolved, America should be the world’s policeman.” Our adversaries were Ellen Laipson, president of the Henry Stimson Center in Washington; Ian Bremmer, head of the Eurasia Group (a consulting firm); and Matthew Parris, a columnist for the Times of London.
Notwithstanding a snowstorm raging outside, the turnout was good and the debate was lively. Parris went a bit too far in mocking the members of our team, but other than that the debate was conducted on the merits. (For a transcript, see here; it will be aired on NPR stations starting next week.) Various arguments and counterarguments were aired and audience members drew their conclusions. At the end, I was amazed to find that the debate had actually swayed many of those in the room.
At the beginning of the night, 24% of the audience voted in favor of the motion that “America should be the world’s policeman,” while 44% were against and 32% undecided. At the end, 47% voted for the motion, 48% against, and only 5% were still undecided. Although we lost by one point, I think that counts as a moral victory for our side. It’s nice to know that even in a liberal bastion like New York there are still a lot of people who understand the good that America does by policing the globe. Just as importantly, it’s good to see the spirit of reasoned debate alive at a time when snarling talking heads appear to reign supreme.
Card check or some equally horrific abomination cannot be stopped. The source of the problem is the ludicrous recognition of public employee unions. Why the heck should gov’t employees get to unionize? It’s insane. The money raised by SEIU and others cannot be defeated, and will only grow, since the gov’t payroll is only going to continue its exponential increase.
Card check is a dead issue and is going nowhere because the Dems never pay their dues. They don’t even have to promise labor anything because they know that labor leadership isn’t going to cross the line. The rank and file is another story. Some of them might drift off over social issues. Most union plumbers aren’t into same sex marriage.
However, if labor law prohibits employers from interfering or intimidating with union/employee activities, why do employers hire law firms to subvert it?
A good example would be Obama appointee Janet Napolitano. When she became governor of Arizona she was asked if she was going to do anything about Arizona’s status as a “right to work” state. Her reply was that if the legislature sent her something to sign, she would sign it, but other than that she wasn’t going to do anything. It’s testimony to her knowledge of the subject that “right to work” is in the state constitution. The legislature couldn’t send her anything to sign on the subject.
“It would be churlish to point out that federal labor law already prohibits employers from interfering with employees’ union activities or intimidating them in the course of union elections…”
Indeed it would, since the “penalties” for doing so are a complete joke and routinely met with a shrug by thuggish employers. 25% of employers illegally fire union organizers: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/reports/1/
Honestly, Rubin, stand up to protect huge corporations from justice if you will – we’ve all gotta eat – but to then turn around and snidely accuse the people who actually give a damn about workers of being “ignorant” or “uninformed”…well, gall is one word for it.
I just love these straw men. COncern that EMPLOYERS will intimidate employees? What about UNION THUGS? Without a secret ballot, I can just imagine a group of large and unhappy looking men surround the little guy working in the stockroom and saying “that’s a nice Toyota you got out there… be a shame if anything were to happen to it.. “
That’s a common illustration of the way organized labor operates and of course there’s an element of truth to it, like any stereotype. The next thought is to get rid of unions. O.K., are we going to get rid of Wall Street and the NYSE over Bernie Madoff, Enron, Ivan Boesky, Michael Milken, etc., etc? No, of course not. To tar organized labor with the Jimmy Hoffa’s brush isn’t quite right.
there can only be one reason the left and labor are pushing this ‘card check’ abandonment of the right to a secret ballot for employees… IT BENEFITS THE UNIONS.
Now, what could possibly benefit unions about a change in the method of ‘choosing union representation’ unless that change could reasonably be expected to cause increases in membership?
If I were an employee of WalMart in Livingston, Texas, I’d be deeply concerned about the union guys who showed up to explain how I’ll be better off if ten percent of my check went to them. Intimidation has many levels, and it’s not all Hoffa-esque, but it’s all bad. Freedom to vote in private is a fundamental American right, and a concerted effort to remove that freedom from certain Americans cannot but be viewed with worry.
“… maybe passing existing law all over again would actually work with an uninformed Left ….”
Well, well, what have we here? It looks like a figure of neocomradely neorhetoric, call it “The Positive Straw Man.” As every wombscholar knows, absolutely every last rightist and neorightist at Rio Limbaugh and Wingnut City has U. S. labor law at her fingertips, unlike that poor boob Chait.
Could we l*b*r*l fiends make use of it? I incline to doubt it, off-hand, because we sadly lack the Hamiltonio-Burkean ethos, the flair for antipopulism that the ploy appears to require. Should we donkeys ever start pretending that OUR mob consists entirely of honourables and gallants and learneds, why, the holy Homeland would only laugh.
Happy days.
The EFCA is ludicrous, and it’s the last thing that the American workforce needs, especially in this rough economy. We need to bolster employee confidence, not squelch it. . I encourage everyone to check out this website and tell your congresspeople just how unfair this bill is.
http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/email/email4.cfm?id=192