Read others' views, then decide for yourself
Published July 28, 2014
By D. G. Martin
by D. G. Martin, One on One and host of North Carolina Bookwatch on UNC-TV, July 27, 2014.
“I don’t read the Washington Post. That is not where I get my ideas.”
Many years ago when there were still lots of conservatives voting in Democratic primaries, a congressional candidate pandered to conservatives by trashing a liberal newspaper. But he lost ground with other voters who thought he should keep up with the reporting in the nation capital’s leading newspaper even if he disagreed with its views.
More recently, a widely respected conservative political commentator also lost a little ground when asked to comment about a recent article about North Carolina in The New York Times. He responded by saying that he did not read that paper because of its liberal slant.
His questioner was taken aback and wondered aloud how anyone who followed public affairs could ignore what the influential paper wrote about our state.
It would be just the same, the questioner remarked later, if a liberal commentator or politician bragged about ignoring the respected reporting of The Wall Street Journal because of its more conservative editorial stance.
Liberal or conservative, we want our political and thought leaders to understand and consider the facts and opinions cited by smart people on all sides.
There is another good reason to read papers like the Journal and Times. When they write about North Carolina, we get to see ourselves as others see us. We learn what parts of our public life outsiders judge to be important or interesting enough to command attention throughout the country.
For instance, last week Times’ Atlanta bureau chief Richard Fausset wrote about the tension in North Carolina Republican ranks because of a “move to the center” led by House Speaker Thom Tillis and Governor Pat McCrory.
Many Republican legislators are happy with last year’s conservative revolution which, Fausset writes, “cut taxes, pared unemployment benefits and eliminated business regulations. They allowed concealed guns in bars and restaurants, curtailed access to the voting booth and enacted new rules for abortion clinics.”
These legislators believe voters in their districts will endorse these changes in the fall elections. They have no interest in backing away.
“But,” writes Fausset, “Mr. McCrory and Mr. Tillis must run statewide in an environment where Democrats remain a serious political threat.”
However, says Fausset, Tillis is not backing away from his role in taking North Carolina out of a federal program that granted extended benefits to the unemployed, which his campaign says, “played a role in an unemployment rate drop from 10.4 percent, when Mr. Tillis was elected speaker in January 2011, to 6.2 percent today.”
If the Tillis campaign persuades voters that taking away unemployment benefits from North Carolina’s unemployed brought about a 4.2 percent drop in unemployment, he could turn a possible negative into a positive issue.
So, in the fall North Carolina voters will be asking, Was the drop in unemployment related to the reduction in benefits?
Ironically, the Times addressed the question in Sunday’s edition in an article by University of Michigan Professor Justin Wolfers. Republicans, he writes, “argue that ending benefits will spur the long-term jobless to look harder for work” causing employment to rise while Democrats “say that ending benefits will force the unemployed to cut their spending, which may have broader ripple effects that could slow the labor market recovery.”
Which side has the winning argument?
Seeking an answer, Wolfers compared North Carolina’s unemployment rate changes with those in nearby states that did not follow our state’s reduction in benefits. Finding no significant differences, he concluded, “My reading of the North Carolina experiment is that it provides little support for either side.”
With or without help from the Times or the Journal, North Carolina voters can make their own decisions this November.
July 28, 2014 at 10:17 am
Norm Kelly says:
We want our leaders to consider the 'facts and opinions cited by smart people on all sides'. This is mostly true. The challenge is finding facts sometimes. I know when I read N&D editorial rants I don't do it to find facts, I do it for entertainment and to know what the schemes are from the Socialist Party. I can count on the N&D editorial staff to read the talking points memo from the Socialists and print it's contents with only slight changes or wording changes that put the N&D spin on the contents. I don't ever expect the N&D to print Socialist talking points with clarification as the goal. I don't expect the N&D editorial staff to wonder why the demons propose a scheme that is so ridiculous, so outrageous, so out of touch with the expectations of the majority of citizens and taxpayers.
Take the demon plan to implement high speed rail between Raleigh and Charlotte. (was that the route? i try not to keep socialist scheme details in my head because it's such a waste. but you'll remember the details!) How much time is the new route supposed to save? How much was the bribe from the central planners? How long will the state have to pay to subsidize the new route? Did anyone at the N&D editorial staff explain what a boondoggle this would be? Did any of the supporters of this boondoggle explain that other areas had already turned down the money because of what it would actually cost? Did anyone explain that the reason NC took the bribe is so the demon party leadership in Raleigh could be seen as supporting the national demon party? The long term prospect for high speed rail in our state is bleak, at best. The costs are unsustainable by our state, yet the demon leadership accepted it. Was it worth my time to read about what libs outside our state thought of this scheme? Did any of their arguments in support of this scheme make sense? I didn't think so either, so I didn't bother reading their nonsense about supporting such a scheme.
Then there's the socialist party stance on unemployment benefits. They tell us that unemployment benefits actually spur the economy. They tell us that putting the state $2BILLION in debt to the feds, 10% of our total annual budget, with no plan to repay the loan, was a commonsense response to the problem. When reading the N&D editorials in support of this scheme, or reading their editorials demonizing the Republican plan to discontinue extending the benefits, I wasn't expecting much in the way of truth or facts. Did the N&D editorial staff ever question the demons on their taking the loan without a repayment plan? Did they wonder how extending the benefits would mean ANOTHER loan from the central planners? Did the N&D ever wonder why the central planners weren't willing to work with our state to make it so that we could afford extending unemployment benefits? The facts are that our state asked permission from the central planners to extend benefits with some modifications so that we could afford it, but the central planners refused to allow us any flexibility. The central planners insisted that we do it THEIR way or no way at all. Since we couldn't afford it their way, we were FORCED to do without the extension. But NO ONE who read anything in the liberal N&D would know this. So why bother reading the N&D. Not to get facts. And if I want to know what the libs are 'thinking', all I have to do is stop thinking and I'll know what the libs are scheming.
When I read editorials in the Times and N&D referring to changes in our voting laws, I expect to see lots of quotes from the buffet slayer. I expect to read how the plan is racist. I expect to find that they claim our revised laws are so restrictive that it prevents a majority of blacks from even registering. I expect to find that preventing teens, who are not eligible to vote in the first place, from registering is somehow a bad thing. I don't expect to find any information about how our revised laws are still more liberal than many other states, including NY. I don't expect to find any information about teens who can't vote being on the voter rolls could lead to fraud somewhere at sometime, so keeping people who are not eligible to vote off the rolls actually makes sense. I know before reading either the Times or N&D what their stance is on supporting the demons scheme to keep voter fraud as viable as possible. Look at the arguments from the libs to prevent voter ID and other changes. What is their opposition to voter ID? Does it come down to allowing people who should not vote to continue to vote? When libs prevent elections boards from purging voter rolls of dead people or people who have moved out of the district, what is the purpose? Is it to allow voter fraud? There can be no other explanation. But the Times & N&D simply go along with the socialist party schemes without question, and their 'arguments' don't make any sense, so why waste my time reading it. I know their position without reading it. I know their objection to ANYTHING proposed or implemented by Republicans before they write it. If the Socialist Party prints it in their talking points memo, the Times & N&D are sure to print it with supporting 'arguments'. What a waste of reading time.
Finding smart people might be easy. Finding smart people that agree with the socialist party might be easy. Finding smart people that agree with the socialists and can make a reasonable argument in support of the schemes of the left is quite difficult. It doesn't take much research to debunk most of what comes from the libs. Proof? Read John Hood and some of the information available from the Locke Foundation. They not only explain the position/scheme of the libs with facts, but explain with facts why the lib scheme is 180 degrees wrong. Much better use of time and much more informative. Both sides of the debate at the same time with sufficient explanation as to why the lib scheme is wrong and the opposite stand is right (and correct!). I choose to use my time to get the facts and not bother with the socialist party talking points memo. It might be nice to know what the socialists are planning, but not by wasting time reading the wrong rags. It's like wasting my time listening to what the occupier says. He does what he wants anyway, he violates the law at will anyway, so what he says is meaningless. Drivel most of the time. Pointless waste of time.
