Johnathan Alter gives a lesson in how to argue with an intellect beyond his own. He recognizes that D'Souza's arguments are complex and frequently subtle. As such they require many foundational points to be laid before the final conclusion is laid bare. He uses this against D'Souza.
Alter's method is to avoid arguing D'Souza's final conclusion, and instead disagree with each point as each argument is building to its conclusion. The result is two fold. First, it disrupts the flow of thought from the individual making the argument, in this case making D'Souzas job far more difficult (D'Souza handled himself beyond well), and second, it clouds the overarching argument being made with numerous small disagreements which in the end serve only as a barrier between D'Souza and his audience.
I believe this second result is the most important to Alter, as becomes clear that his true agenda is to separate D'Souza from his audience. Johnathan Alter is both sloppy and contentious in his effort to obfuscate what he sees as opposition thought and in the process makes the whole NPR / Juan Williams affair appear a Shakespearean beauty in contrast.
How an extremist flake like Johnathan Alter can be the editor of Newsweek a news magazine, and aven be considered to do what Brian Lamb once did with grace is beyond me. Johnathan Alter besmirches BookTV by putting himself between selected authors' ideas and their audience.
Alter even claims, "This is my interview!" at one particularly contentious point when the two disagree over a quote D'Souza takes from an Alter book on Obama. It's his way of saying, 'I can and will stand between your ideas and your audience'.
Allowing Johnathan Alter to refer to his constant changing of the basis of various arguments in an effort to get between the audience and his guest as "vigorous argument" diminishes CSPAN2 to NPR/PBS like partisan drivel.
Enjoy the video below if you can assemble the shards of Dinesh D'Souza's fragmented arguments.
C-Span2 link to video of the non interview.
Update:
Mike Francesa explores Alter's hypocrisy in reference to Alter's accusation that D'Souza based his book, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage”, on "pop psychology" when Alter did exactly that previously:
Yet the hypocritical Alter did just that in the February 5, 2007 issue of New York Magazine in which he wrote a short piece entitled, “Dad, the Bottle, and Vietnam” by Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter. In this piece, there was a picture included of President Bush on a Freud inspired psychotherapy couch.
Yet another example of hypocrisy and liberalism working hand in hand to shut down right thinking people.
out
I do not know what interview you saw, but the one I saw had Alter laying bare D'Souzas dishonesty and total lack of substance
ReplyDeleteNo,you saw a liberal and political hack attempting to shut down the free flow of ideas that CSPAN2 espouses.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you don't recognize that is illustrative of the sad state of liberalism today. Liberal thought has been shown to be bankrupt by the failed policies of Obama, so the credentialed gentry attempt to stifle non conformist thought rather than substantively debate it.
What you saw in that "interview" was an often repeated meme in liberalism -- a man, in this case Alter, taking the last refuge of... obfuscation in the face of an intellect greater than his own.
In the debate between Dinesh D'Souza (DD)and Jonathan Alter (JA),we have a microcosm of liberal vs. conservative attitudes.
ReplyDeleteAny fair minded person watching this debate would have to wander how someone as dim-witted as JA can rise to the ranks of senior editor at Newsweek. I totally agree with Mike Francesca's views at JA’s hypocrisy in criticizing DD for the same type of parallel attributions that JA pegged to President Bush.
Since JA couldn’t win the discussion on facts, he resorted to repeated interruptions to attempt to obfuscate DD’s chain of reasoning. Contrary to JA’s assertions , I found DD’s chain of arguments(which I never heard previously) quite persuasive.
On the other side,I found JA's arguments quite weak. For example, JA projects that the 750k monthly job loss could’ve been extrapolated to culminate in another Great Depression. JA smugly asserts that this is fact not the alleged suppositions espoused by DD. Really? I would ask ?What is your evidence for such a bold prediction? Is this science? Or political fiction to justify greater government control? The assertion that without government intention our country would’ve plunged into another Great Depression is on par with any metaphysical statement such as :1)God exists; 2) human beings have free will; 3) the soul survives physical death. The point is such assertions can’t be proven nor disproven. Hence, to use supposition to advance one’s political position is pure demagoguery.
One more point worthy of mentioning. I noticed how quickly JA changed the subject when DD pointed out that government stimulus has to be taken from some other sector of the economy. Government is a parasite. It can only spend what it takes from other people. At best, government stimulus spending is a zero sum game. At worst, it distorts the pricing decisions in the economy, misallocating limited resources, leading to economic uncertainty and lower economic activity. The Fed can print money to support the government’s deficit spending. But that only serves to debase the currency with higher inflation and government debt.
In conclusion, I want add a personal note to DD. Despite JA’s attempted smear job, you did a very admirable job of keeping your cool and sticking to the issues. Mr. D’Souza you’ve earned my deepest respect.VP
Corrected:
ReplyDeleteIn the debate between Dinesh D'Souza (DD) and Jonathan Alter (JA),we have a microcosm of liberal vs. conservative attitudes.
Any fair minded person watching this debate would have to wander how someone as dim-witted as JA can rise to the ranks of senior editor at Newsweek. I totally agree with Mike Francesca's views at JA’s hypocrisy in criticizing DD for the same type of parallel attributions that JA pegged to President Bush.
Since JA couldn’t win the discussion on facts, he resorted to repeated interruptions to attempt to obfuscate DD’s chain of reasoning. Contrary to JA’s assertions , I found DD’s chain of arguments(which I never heard previously) quite persuasive.
On the other side,I found JA's arguments quite weak. For example, JA projects that the 750k monthly job loss could’ve been extrapolated to culminate in another Great Depression. JA smugly asserts that this is fact not the alleged suppositions espoused by DD. Really? I would ask:What is your evidence for such a bold prediction? Is this science? Or political fiction to justify greater government control? The assertion that without government intervention our country would’ve plunged into another Great Depression is on par with such metaphysical statements as :1)God exists; 2) human beings have free will; 3) the soul survives physical death. The point is such assertions can’t be proven nor disproven. Hence, to use such conjectures to advance one’s political position is pure demagoguery.
One more point worthy of mentioning. I noticed how quickly JA changed the subject when DD pointed out that government stimulus has to be taken from some other sector of the economy. Government is a parasite. It can only spend what it takes from other people. At best, government stimulus spending is a zero sum game. At worst, it distorts the pricing decisions in the economy, misallocating limited resources, leading to economic uncertainty and lower economic activity. The Fed can print money to support the government’s deficit spending. But that only serves to debase the currency with higher inflation and government debt.
In conclusion, I want add a personal note to DD. Despite JA’s attempted smear job, you did a very admirable job of keeping your cool and sticking to the issues. Mr. D’Souza you’ve earned my deepest respect.VP
Part of what I found particularly disturbing was that, although this was intended to be an interview, it morphed into a debate in which the participants where engaging one another on a tilted playing field.
ReplyDeleteAlter insisted on wearing two hats at once, one as a debater and the other as a biased interviewer/moderator (to retain authority the individual he was debating). Alter's comfort level with his own blatantly unethical behavior leads me to question not only Alter's ethics, but the ethics of both Newsweek and Book TV.
Alter should be punished for embarrassing not only himself, but BookTV, and Newsweek with his unethical behavior.