OTB Radio – Tonight at 7 Eastern

OTB Radio The next episode of OTB Radio, our BlogTalkRadio program, will record and air live tonight from 7-8 Eastern.

Dave Schuler and I will discuss Republican infighting, the Obama transition, the future of the war in Afghanistan, and this weekend’s G-20 summit.

Please join us. We’ll also be taking your calls at (646) 716-7030.

You can play the show, subscribe to its feed, or share it with your friends via the widget below:

(Note: The playback automatically updates to the most recent show available. Older shows can be accessed at the show archives.)

FILED UNDER: General
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Drew says:

    I’m listening to you.

    Can you explain to me the logic that if Republicans have lost their way on spending that Democrats – who will “lose their way” by 2x – are a legitimate alternative choice? Is putting Republicans in the penalty box a viable strategy?

    (By the way – Dave – adopt affermative action to co-opt blacks??????????? Wake up. Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice etc have had an arm put around them. To no effect.)

  2. Drew says:

    Dave –

    Do you realize that the argument you just made – that the govt should just send the bail out money straight to the UAW workers to tide them over for a couple years – can be made for “social insurance??”

    Just do the math. If we spent the Fed budget amount for “Great Society” programs directly to people…….or we just established a “trust” that sent its coupon out to “the poor” we would be better off than the current arrangement??

    The flaw in my argument? The money doesn’t go to “the poor.” Most goes to the govt infrastructure created to “serve the poor.” (Reliable Dem votes all)

    So who REALLY cares about the poor?

  3. Dave Schuler says:

    By the way – Dave – adopt affermative action to co-opt blacks?

    I was spitballing. My essential point was that if the Republican Party is to become a social conservative party in order to win elections they’re going to need to pursue social conservatives for votes. Most of the social conservatives who aren’t already voting Republican are either black or Hispanic.

    The question becomes how can the Republican Party court African Americans. I’m afraid it would need to be some sort of bidding war.

    And the argument I made WRT sending money straight to hourly workers was a modest proposal.

  4. James, is it possible to get some artwork for your weekly podcast/OTB radio? I can always rig something for myself, but I like artwork to pop up on my Ipod. Don’t worry, I’ll be a regular reader/listener regardless.

  5. James Joyner says:

    James, is it possible to get some artwork for your weekly podcast/OTB radio? I can always rig something for myself, but I like artwork to pop up on my Ipod.

    It’s never occurred to me, since I don’t listen to podcasts via download — just the occasional online stream. I’ll see what we can do.

  6. odograph says:

    Re. “no 3rd party” … aren’t “independents” increasing, and isn’t that a path in the long term?

  7. James Joyner says:

    Re. “no 3rd party” … aren’t “independents” increasing, and isn’t that a path in the long term?

    The problem is that Independents, almost by definition, don’t agree on anything. You have disaffected conservatives, disaffected liberals, disaffected moderates, and people who are simply not joiners. It’s going to be hard to build a governing platform around that.

  8. Drew says:

    Dave –

    It may have been a spoof proposal, but the essential concept is sound. It is really just Friedman’s negative income tax proposal.

    If our country’s REAL objective was to most efficiently transfer economic support to the poor or near-poor and lift them from poverty then such a direct mechanism would be put in place immediately. When you have a spare moment just do the math. Look at what we spend each year on “Great Society” programs (now about 35% of the entire US Fed budget) and then compare it to the number of poor households. We could take a few years expenditures and create a trust large enough for the poor to clip coupons in perpetuity. Or we could take one year’s expenditures and send the poor a quite handsome check. They wouldn’t be poor anymore.

    I of course get labeled a cynic, but I don’t believe helping the poor is the real objective at all. Its that massive infrastructure that siphons off the money before it gets to the poor that is the real objective. That’s a solid voting block if I’ve ever seen one.

    How else does one explain such a dismal record against a stated objective? And it is why I feel quite comfortable predicting that, just like the past 10-20-30-40 years, that 10-20-30-and 40 years from now the poverty rate will still be stuck in the 11-15% range, and some fresh faced new pol will come along promising to “help the poor” and “end poverty.”

    Alright, end of sermon…..

  9. odograph says:

    The problem is that Independents, almost by definition, don’t agree on anything.

    Well, that’s why I said path rather than destination. To the extent that independents grow they at least depower the mainline 2-party system.

    It’s another question if say we got to 30% independent across the US what would happen next:

    In 1960, when John F. Kennedy ran for president, only 1.6% of Americans were registered as independents. Today, the number is estimated at 21.7% of registered voters, according to the Center for the Study of the American Electorate, while self-identified independents now narrowly surpass Democrats or Republicans, according to the Gallup Poll. This is a sea change, and like most significant demographic trends, it is being driven from the bottom up.

    source

    (I prefer lower-case “i” to reduce confusion)