Michael Medved - Flushing Out Fear Mongers from Their Fever Swamps (FR Mentioned)

Town Hall ^ | 1-4-2006 | Michael Medved

[jmc813]

I’m greatly encouraged by the lengthy, indignant responses by prominent scare-mongers Joe Farah and Jerome Corsi to my on-air and on-blog denunciation (“Shame on Demagogues for Exploiting ‘North American Union’!”, 12/28) of their self-promoting paranoia regarding an alleged conspiracy to merge the US, Canada and Mexico. The defensive tone of their commentary suggests that these two have been appropriately embarrassed: Farah, in particular, dramatically deescalated his rhetoric.

While previous commentary on WorldNetDaily prominently and regularly featured the noun “plot” in defining this non-issue, his answer to my purposefully harsh attack omits that key word entirely and uses language in a vastly more responsible and rational style. If I can push an influential (and often insightful) journalist like Farah back toward reasoned debate and the mainstream, then I’ve already succeeded in my chief goal: to prevent conservatives from following self-interested Pied Pipers off a cliff into conspiracist cuckoo land.

I’m particularly gratified at the way that Farah worded his “Daily Poll” on this issue. He posed the question: “What do you make of the talk about the North American Union?” and offered only two alternatives (out of nine) that agreed with the lunatic alarmists on the subject. Those two choices declared: “The evidence keeps mounting. When will people stop being in denial?” and “Plans for a union are an absolute reality, and anyone who can’t see concerted attacks on U.S. sovereignty is blind.” Please note that in declaring “the evidence keeps mounting,” this response never specifies what, exactly this “evidence” is supposed to prove. Similarly, the statement that “plans for a union are an absolute reality” never suggests who it is who is making those plans. If the plans (not “plots” this time) for a North American Union are coming from forces on the left as marginal as the fringies on the right who worry about such shcemes, then there is, indeed, no reason for fear.

Amazingly enough, Farah himself supports this reassuring perspective in his muddled attempt to defend his previous hysteria. He identifies one Robert Pastor “as the man at the very center of the plans for a North American Union.” Pastor is a loony leftist, slightly unhinged professor at American University who was an enthusiastic supporter (and informal advisor) to John Kerry’s Presidential juggernaut--- and who bears no connection whatever to the Bush administration, or the dreaded Security and Prosperity Partnership. If an addled academic with zero power in the government and no clout whatever with the current administration is “the man at the very center of the plans for a North American Union” do those plans really sound so menacing and dire and imminent?

Moreover, even Professor Pastor (in an interview with NAU demagogue-in-chief Jerome Corsi, as quoted by Farah) specifically denies any desire for a North American Union. “Each of the proposals I have laid out represent (sic) more than just small steps,” Pastor proclaimed. “But it doesn’t represent a leap to a North American Union or even to some confederation of any kind. I don’t think either is plausible, necessary or even helpful to contemplate at this stage.” (Italics added)

I know that paranoids and conspiracy connoisseurs will seize on the last three words “at this stage” and scream, “Aha! The dreaded Pastor—the evil academic who’s the architect of the whole diabolical scheme – is suggesting at some later stage it WILL be plausible, necessary, or even helpful to contemplate a North American Union!”

But please, friends, consider this: if even the lefty professor who is considered the most dangerous plotter and visionary on the prospect of US-Mexican-Canadian merger explicitly denies any interest whatever in even contemplating that scheme at this stage, does it really make any sense—any sense at all – to frighten the public into believing that there is a current, powerful mass movement on behalf of such plans?

That’s the essence of my impassioned concern with the demagoguery on this subject: by focusing concern on a non-existent threat, people like Farah and Corsi take attention away from the very real dangers posed by the liberal ideologues who have taken over both houses of Congress.

There are open, undeniable, widely supported plans from the Democratic leadership to cripple the country in our war against Islamo-Nazis, to undermine our security agencies in the name of “constitutional rights,” to raise taxes, to punish productivity, to grow government, to undermine the traditional family, to nationalize health care, to force us all out of our cars (and onto useless mass transit) and to push through precisely the sort of immigration policies that most conservatives will absolutely hate. These plans demand a united Republican Party and a re-energized conservative movement that isn’t distracted and paralyzed by non-existent threats concerning non-existent plans to terminate the independent survival of the United States. (“PREMEDIATED MERGER: How Leaders are Stealthily Transforming USA into North American Union” reads one typical and current Farah headline.)

This is a fateful moment for the conservative moment that Barry Goldwater launched and that Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich and, yes, George W. Bush led to some significant triumphs. For the first time since Clinton first came to power 14 years ago, we are definitely in opposition --- coming out of our “thumpin’” in the 2006 elections, all the momentum and energy in Washington has currently shifted to the Democratic side. The next few months will help to determine whether Republicans and conservatives will fight the good fight over issues that matter or dissipate all chance of a return to power through in-fighting, defeatism and self-marginalization. Given the stakes involved with some of the current battles in Washington and around the world, how can any grownup, responsible activist justify focusing on black-helicopter-style threats like the border-dissolving, sovereignty-ending North American Union –- which no elected leaders of administration officials have ever endorsed?

Where, in the past, have conservatives succeeded in building majorities by concentrating on “secret plans” and “high level plots” by their fellow Republicans?

And this brings me to the unfortunate Jerome Corsi, who felt the need in his response to my scorn to bring up some long-ago misunderstanding between us in which he believed I had charged him with anti-Semitism. As I communicated to Corsi in a telephone conversation, I did not recall making that charge on the air and I still don’t believe I ever attacked him in that manner. If I had even hinted at Jew-hatred on Corsi’s part I was willing to apologize, I said.

But now that he’s brought up the long-dead matter once again, I went to the trouble of looking up some of his controversial (and profoundly embarrassing) internet postings from FreeRepublic.com that were publicized in 2004. One of them (03/04/2004) attacked “John F**ing Commie Kerry” as follows: “After he married TerRAHsa, didn’t John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? (sic). He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?”

Given the fact that neither Kerry nor his wife (either wife, for that matter) ever practiced any form of Judaism (or “Judi-asm”, which might be a form of Judi worship), and given the fact that Theresa Heinz Kerry has never had any connection whatever to the Jewish people or the Jewish religion, and given the fact that Kerry himself has been a well-advertised, professing Catholic all his life, doesn’t Corsi’s snide little comment about Kerry’s “reverting” to the faith from which his paternal grandparents converted, give off unmistakable, fetid whiffs of anti-Semitic obsession?

In the same series of comments he also wrote of the beloved and revered Pope John Paul II: “Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn’t reported by the liberal press” (03/03/2003) and “We may get one more Pope, when this senile one dies, but that’s probably about it.” (12/16/2002).

And now this same angry, venomous, irresponsible figure wants to be taken seriously when he warns of the looming, desperate danger of North American Union. He insists that he is utterly disinterested and selfless in promoting this grand conspiracy theory--- but then the final line of his posting gives the lie to this preposterous pose. That line announces about Mr. Corsi: “He will soon author a book on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and the prospect of the forthcoming North American Union.”

I have no desire whatever to help him promote his latest book which is why I won’t invite him as a guest to debate these issues on my radio show. If he wants to call in (with other members of the public) to make whatever points he chooses to make, he’s welcome to do so on the one national talk show that identifies itself as “Your Daily Dose of Debate” and we’ll move him to the front of the caller line. The phone number, Mr. Corsi (toll free, by the way) is 1-800-955-1776.

And concerning his challenge to me to debate him publicly and formally over his poisonous obsession over phantom dangers, I’ve never in my life turned away from a rhetorical challenge, and I’m not about to do so now. If Corsi wants a debate (over a non-issue that I don’t believe is even worthy of serious discussion) I’m willing to join him if he arranges an appropriate venue and I can participate without incurring debilitating travel or personal expense.

If this sort of confrontation can flush out fringe-figures like Jerome Corsi from the dank, turgid conspiracist fever-swamps he chooses to inhabit, it may perform an important hygienic purpose in returning the conservative movement to the robust health it needs for the serious battles that lie ahead.

[AmishDude]

And yet you oppose free trade, apparently quite zealously. Especially for a Reaganite.

Next question: Can you explain comparative advantage?

[EveningStar]

Actually an offer of free airtime was made. Corsi must phone up the Medved show like a regular Joe caller. Medved is too high faluting to invite Jerome Corsi for a normal guest appearance

He just doesn't want to help promote Corsi's book. Why should he help promote a book he doesn't endorse.

[AmishDude]

Oh, no! They captured the Bat Boy?

Yes. He's minister of housing in the NAU now.

[Paul Ross]

And yet you oppose free trade, apparently quite zealously. Especially for a Reaganite.

Apparently you don't know much about Ronald Reagan. His espousal of free trade was meant for the foreign countries which barred our products. Not for us to let them have their way with us with a variety of attacks and pretexts to gain unfair advantage.

Can you explain comparative advantage?

Can you read an encyclopedia? LOL!

As you will note, the critics have essentially demolished the current practice of the theory of comparative advantage as espoused by rather shallow (and often conspicuously self-serving) proponents, since David Ricardo's theory REQUIRED capital immobility. That is clearly not the case any longer. Every case of outsourcing of a U.S. firm to a Third World country is a case of capital mobility, from it being invested in the U.S. and shifting it to the foreign country.

Next Question: Can you explain the concept of unhealthy foreign dependence?

Next Question: Can you explain the American System?

[jmc813]

Yep, I thought so, he wouldn't give his microphone and the show he'd already planned to some know-nothing wacko with "issues".

I just found out on another thread that Medved has spent considerable time on his show advocating the existence of Bigfoot. Do you think this whole thing might be a case of two wackos duking it out?

[AmishDude]

Well, I wanted to know if you know what the term meant, so we have a basis of comparison. That is, if you are a serious person with genuine knowledge on the subject.

In your case, it is a mixed bag, unfortunately.

Next Question: Can you explain the concept of unhealthy foreign dependence?

Well, yes, but it's not an economic issue, except where the foreign market is unstable. I'd hardly put Canada in that category. (That is the "C" in CAFTA.)

Next Question: Can you explain the American System?

Ah. You see, when a person uses such a vacuous "term" then it's an indication that the person is not serious.

Well, thanks for trying anyway.

[EveningStar]

It most assuredly does and it's way past time for the crazed conspiracy theorists here to be consigned to the smokey backroom, for good and all.

That sounds good to me. Now how do you propose we do this? :)

[Cinnamon Girl]

Recently a new species of saki monkey was discovered in South America. Creatures are being discovered around the world every day-- how do you know Bigfoot doesn't exist?

[AmishDude]

Oh, I've heard him on that. Quite silly, but he doesn't lie or make conspiracies or try to make evidence say that bigfoot exists when the evidence says no such thing.

He doesn't buy into everything someone says, just because it's what he wants to hear.

[AmishDude]

I don't think it's quite the same. It's one thing to say there might be a plesiosaur in the Pacific, it's quite another to say it's in Loch Ness.

[Toddsterpatriot]

since David Ricardo's theory REQUIRED capital immobility.

Are you claiming that because capital is now mobile that we cannot benefit by trading with other countries? That's funny!

[jmc813]

I'd hardly put Canada in that category. (That is the "C" in CAFTA.)

Try again.

[AmishDude]

You're right. Sorry. I'm thinking of the CAFTA which was a precursor to NAFTA.

This new CAFTA is the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

Now if you are arguing that the US will be too dependent on the Central American economies, you don't realize how gnatlike they are.

If the whole of Central America were to implode economically, it would have no measurable effect on the United States, regardless of how much outsourcing takes place.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Don't tell anyone. OK?

I worked in the post office (the old one and before ZIP codes) for a while during the 1960s. I saw and had time to read a lot of everything, unofficailly (no first class stuff) just flats and magazines. It was a major regional distribution center. 'nuff said.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

Thank you for the information about Mr. Medved's book. If he is as forthright as I found Mr. Horowitz to be I will be very happy for him.

I emphasize again that my criticism through the years -- and the shock of his explosion over the SPP -- has been mostly based upon his insolence.

To be fair, he does welcome contrary opinion to his show both guests and callers. That is good. I like that.

It always seemed to me however that there are two issues that get to him and bring out insolent behavior, strong opinions against (ILLEGAL) immigration and opinions on the state of the economy that do not match his opinion. (Also the mere mention of "neo-con" sets him off -- it's a pejorative term but it was invented by his old leftist buddies on the Left, don't blame the right.)

[Paul Ross]

Well, yes, but it's not an economic issue, except where the foreign market is unstable. I'd hardly put Canada in that category. (That is the "C" in CAFTA.)

False. You flunked. Instability is not the sole economic complication due to unhealthy foreign dependence. The domestic market loses leverage, and can no longer respond to foreign collusions and manipulations.

At least you were part right when you alluded to other issues besides economics. But that is part and parcel of any discussion in economics. Sometimes the other issues trump whatever your cherished economic/globalist theory would rationalize. From military preparedness, to political autonomy...allowing self-rule to operate.

We Americans are justifiably proud to call this Liberty and Independence. Globalist "comparative advantagers" consider all of it "quaint" and obsolete.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce takes SPP seriously. United Parcels (UPS) and other businesses take SPP seriously.

From a SPP "summit" held in Louisville, KY

"The purpose of the conference was to explore ways to provide context and prioritize the over 300 initiatives contained within the SPP focusing on accelerated and secure trade.

Key findings of the summit include:

- The need to ensure an appropriate balance between trade facilitation and border security

- Cross border regional collaboration on economic and security issues through the SPP is critical to enhancing the individual and collective competitiveness of North American markets

- SPP depends on the creation of a constituency for North America, including participation from local, regional, federal and private sector interests

- In the absence of a common regulatory system, the SPP should promote regulatory coordination

- The establishment of a shared or compatible infrastructure in key areas, such as customs operations, border security and transportation

[End quotes, my emphasis]

That nutty professor that Mr. Medved speaks of sure has a lot of people fooled with his crank.

http://www.ups.com/content/ca/en/about/news/press_releases/04_04_2006_ca_cancun.html

In the companion piece posted on another thread Dr. Corsi's most vituperate comments that I could find are: "Medved has gyrated hysterically" and Medved's "main tactics to date have been to engage in an unrelenting campaign of invective and sophomoric name-calling".

Contrast that to the boy genius who entered Yale at age 16, I believe. What's happened to Mr. Medved?

Why I don't like SPP. Until there is true reform and Mexicorruption stops being a government-created cesspool I do not want it associated with the title, America. We are America.

[Paul Ross]

Are you claiming that because capital is now mobile that we cannot benefit by trading with other countries? That's funny!

Not funny at all. Who's the we, btw?

Test question: Are we Americans better off with more...or less capital?

[AmishDude]

Collusion doesn't work in the long term. See Airbus.

other issues besides economics. But that is part and parcel of any discussion in economics.

Uh. No. By definition.

Thank you for confirming my previous assessment.

[tertiary01]

I used to pickup the Berkeley Barb when I went to school until it became all Jefferson Pollock all of the time. And to much gratuitous obscenity.