Diane Rehm Show

With PNM I got Steve Roberts as sub (Cokie's husband, and with BFA I got USA Today's Susan Page. Both were great, but I had wanted to meet the famous Diane in the flesh.

Today I got my wish.

So long as it was me and her talking, it was great, callers far less so. Then I made the mistake of mentioning the R word in front of her--retraining. Didn't see that one coming. As soon as you go down that path, you're lost, but you have to salvage it as best you can.

Callers were really in a pissy mood though. Such is life: being a contrarian, I love to praise America when everyone is crapping on her and vice versa. After all, you're not a fan if you're only around for the good parts.

Still, felt it went well. Left of center audience, of course, and you get that "exceptionalism" junk ad nauseum from callers, who never offer their own counter--as in, Are we an unexceptional country? This totally made-up place that anybody can join that has the biggest economy, is super-innovative, and owns the world's largest gun?

Granted, I was nothing special on "retraining," and in retrospect, shouldn't have gone anywhere near it, but other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Please.

Comments

[stuart abrams]

I would have thought that liberals would have re-thought their views on American exceptionalism after 11/4/08. Oh well, old ideas die hard.

[Brad Barbaza]

You have the right attitude on this one. Don't judge a show by its callers. The folks who call are the ones who are just reacting to what you're saying and not really thinking it over. I'm not part of that regular audience, and think it's often lives in its own bubble by only hearing people that are agreeable. But I'd bet many were actually thinking about what you said. In fact, calls like that can actually highlight how rational you are in contrast.

Remember, you won a lot of us over by doing that chapter by chapter with Hugh Hewitt. I now roll my eyes when most of his "Iran experts" are on the show. Didn't happen over night though, and certainly not in enough time for me to call in.

She was good. You were good. Best part: You got nearly an hour to dive in. That beats a 5 minute interview with wonderful callers any day.

[daskro]

I did enjoy your rebuttal to the caller who said USA was like every other empire before it.

[Lexington Green]

People who call radio shows are like people who leave comments on blogs: A tiny, nonrepresentative sample of the reader/listener community.

[jeff ingram]

Whoa!Anybody who sees and emphasizes that protecting the Kurds (and not betraying them again) is a, and perhaps THE, major issue as we pull out of Iraq, is in my book near the top of the heap as far as seeing the world clearly. So thanks for a great show.On retraining: I went ballistic when I heard Rehm's ragging response. She, of all people, ought to know that 55 is not the end of the line. But wait, let me just step back. One of our major social issues is how we are going to live productive (in many ways) lives --NOT until we retire to the golf course at 65 or 55--but all the way from 20 to 90. Ok we all wont make it that far, but social thinking needs to be looking at those 70 years as more & more likely. Now, every age, 20, 30, and on up, has its problems of multiple needs, and one of those needs is the sense of being productive, being wanted & supportive & respected, etc. I do not mean you have to dig ditches for 70 years, but society is right now losing far too much and paying out far too much when people like me are not contributing. We need to redefine productivity, worklife, life in general.And on & on. My point: Rehm is all wet on the retraining issue, and you were going in the right direction.Question I would have asked:Too many times the possibility of following sound policies is wiped out by an extremist act, and the answering over-the-top response from gov't. It seems to be really difficult to make the point that sound policies HAVE to be followed even when there are extremist actions, i.e., sometimes we just have to absorb some punishment and keep on keeping on. Otherwise, the extremists always have the power to derail policies & principles by staging an atrocity. (Cf past decade in US & Israel/Palestine). Then they win. So, if you agree, how can leaders, faced with an extremist act, not get their policies derailed or distorted?

[Jeffrey Itell]

It went well. My housemate requested links and reading material after overhearing your presentation in the background. Diane Rehm was confused about her position on retraining--it's never funded or it never works? I don't know how one would answer that non-question. Long, non-A'Roid home run on the exceptionalism question. Maybe a bit more Sarah Palin, thank you for the question but I'm going to answer my question---just to get the thesis out. Perhaps, too, a shorter, more subtle plug for Enterra. All about Kurdistan, "as I learned from the work my company is doing there."

[Stephen]

Hmmm. Well, I didn't know about Thomas before today DR Show. Frankly, I thought that she gave him the 'material' (questions, time, stage / audience, and space) to sketch and flesh-out many rich and enlightened ideas. I was totally impressed by Thomas, and I think you have to look between the lines to see that DR helped to give him a great platform (both the show and the way she ran the interview), from which, to reach out to so many of us.

I'm going to make my kids listen to the piece-- especially the part connecting the early Twentith Century presidents, and their applied vision, to the recursive pattern of balanced-federalism, security, and growth.

I still have much to read, but I'm encouraged to know I can bring this message to others via Thomas' excellent framing and vision.

[PPerkins]

I agree with the Brad Barbaza who said not to judge a show by its callers. I was listening to NPR this past weekend wondering why I had not yet heard an interview with you. And this morning there you were talking to Diane Rehm! What a hoot! I'm a big fan of hers and yours.

I'm puzzled as to why we are so opposed to the idea of using the "R" word. I think Diane's point was well-taken, but I think she is right only because we have an educational system that does not work. I didn't really sense a "pissiness" in the callers, with perhaps the exception of the Brit who called in. What I did sense was an inability to grasp one of the most important threads woven into everything you talked about on the show and have been writing about for sometime. It's the message of, "don't mistake leadership for control." This is the message that needs to be drilled into the American psyche.

The end of Bush administration coincided with the beginning of a dramatically new stage in our development that is long overdue. We have been behaving like the popular high school quarterback who is celebrated, gets the good looking popular girl, and is never held accountable for his bad behavior. Now a little older and with a knee injury, the quarterback will never be the first string QB on an NFL team. He needs a job opportunity that will allow him to support the still good-looking but slightly chubbier popular girl and their three kids. Brawn and good looks won't work anymore. In short, he needs RETRAINING. Still if he was worth his salt as a quarterback, he does know that a winning game is only possible if the quarterback communicates with the whole team and everybody agrees to play their part. This is the understanding that makes the older QB's retraining possible. If we can't get enough people move beyond high school mentality, then I think the Brit was right -- we will rot from within. I also liked your response to him.

[Shawn in Melbourne]

I caught the first 30 minutes (I was listening from Australia, so it kicked off 3am here). I could tell you were feeling things out a bit in the beginning, but then became more comfortable. As I listened, I was thinking that those of us who know your lingo and phrasing will get your answers, but perhaps many first time listeners would have a hard time keeping up. The first two callers pretty much confirmed that feeling--it is like they caught and grabbed on to one or two words or phrases you had run through and then went on their own tangents.

My only recommendation would maybe be to find additional ways to turn Tom-speak into to more accessible language for a wider audience, maybe with some useful metaphors/references from pop-culture or everyday life. In the end, of course, some are just not reachable until they go through their own discovery at their own pace, if ever.

[Tom Mull]

Concerning Retraining: I will be 57 years old in April. I come from Grays Harbor county which is smack dab in timber country here in Western Washington state. When I got out of the Navy in 1974 I went to work in the sawmills and at times out in the woods logging. In the late 70's and 80's the timber industry in these parts went down the tubes. I haven't worked in that industry since the early 80's. I had to learn to get along doing many different things to feed my wife and two children: manageing a mini-storage, working as a bridgetender, truckdriver, and a great many odd jobs for a week/s or month/s. There were no retraining programs when that hit me so I retrained my self. In 1997 I fill into working as a maintenance-man in an assisted living facility and I have been doing that every since.

In the early 90's the state of Washington had started retraining programs. My wife (now ex) went thru one and now works at a local community college as an office manager. A lot of us ex-timber worker work in the services. I do alright. The great union gigs are hard to get. We had to learn to do more technical things--not necessarily stuff you need a degree for but maybe a certification or technical school. You can't outsource Facilities Maintenance and most service jobs. Getting better at retraining is important but 55 ain't too late. Just find something for us older folks to do and work on getting the 20 & 30 somethings into things that require degrees and such. =)

[David Emery]

(I originally posted comments to the wrong link).

I listened carefully to this interview and it reinforced why (a) I don't like Diane Rehm and (b) I don't like call-in shows in general. Rehm can really be uninformed but opinionated at times...

But the comparison of Iraq with the Boer War is fascinating, one that I really need to mull over.

What I appreciated was your willingness to move beyond "Everything Bush is Bad - Everything Obama is Good" and try to do some analysis of the results, rather than just commenting on the personality. The last caller's comment about introspection was good, but sometimes I think "introspection" is a codeword for "obviously you haven't thought about this enough, otherwise you'd agree with my position."

I'll probably start the new book tomorrow or Wednesday, depends on how soon I finish "Ring of Fire II". (Those are a lot of fun, in part because how well that author community tries to reason about what could be accomplished by 20th century Americans in 17th century Europe, including the applications and limits of technology and manufacturing...)

[Chad]

Tom,

I like the show and as a regular listener, great that you got 1:1 most of the time.

The point on retraining, I think that's the wrong term. Re-education or better yet, education is better framework of the issue. As an academic at a large R-1 University, I see lot's of older adults doing what you're describing. It can, and is, being done.

Besides, do you want your kids to have sex training or sex education? That's the difference.

[Brian Thompson]

Wonderful appearance this morning, Mr. Barnett. Your thoughts and ideas echoed some I have been feeling for a long time now. We can now sit back and analyze the past eight years not with a rabid hatred of Bush, but a 'where do we go now' mentality. Some people (myself at one point) cannot get past their dislike of Bush's failed policies and American hyperpower in general to see the reality, namely, that all Americans of all political stripes must make an effort if this nation is to enjoy its priveliged status. The future is not about submiting other nations to U.S. will, but rather ensuring that American power is used wisely and for the better.

[stuart abrams]

It's a bit off-point and maybe too long, but let me suggest an iconoclastic point of view on the retraining issue that became a major part of this interview. I think Rehm's somewhat intense questioning on this point was valid, as one of the major issues of our time is the relationship between globalization and the American middle class, which is essential to heading off any populist drive for protectionism, that has the potential of seriously perturbing the system.The American education system is a very popular whipping boy for both the right and the left. I would suggest that much of this criticism is unwarranted. While American students generally fare poorly in comparison with other countries in testing at the K-12 (or non-US equivalent) levels, it is also significant that American students are far more likely to attend colleges and universities than students in other countries. This makes sense for a country that has such a broad middle class. I would suggest that American colleges and universities are far superior to those in other countries. In the lists of the world's top universities, American universities invariably dominate (I believe that in most rankings, Ox-Bridge and Univ. of Tokyo are usually the only non-US universities in the top 25) and the sheer numbers of American colleges and universities dwarf the numbers in other countries. We have also developed a typically-American, iconoclastic method for financing this system of colleges and universities, which cannot easily be categorized as either public or private. Even our great "public" universities (like that one in the Badger State) are heavily dependent on private donations, and the great "private" universities are non-profit entities which really cannot be considered typical market-based economic actors (although many of them owe their existence and/or success to Robber Barons). Notably, the rest of the world is trying to copy the American university system (heard a piece on NPR the other morning about Australian university people meeting with Yale's director of alumni development to get some tips on fund-raising, something that non-US universities are only beginning to do). While there is much need for improvement in our schools, we should also not lose sight of what is uniquely successful about our education system.In effect, what we do in this country is offer our middle class the opportunity for an extended adolescence, keeping young people out of the job market for more years than is typical in other countries. European countries offer their workers longer vacations and shorter work weeks; we offer a longer adolescence and an opportunity for a longer, less-channeled education. I think our education system might well be turning out precisely the work force we need for the coming century.

[Sean Meade]

stuart: this comment is a little long, but you're a member in very good standing, so i'm going to let it go.

further, i want to comment on it ;-)

i agree with everything you wrote and want to add to it: the way we raise our kids doesn't compare very well with other nations on standardized testing, but they often do some amazing things around 25 or 30. at least, many can. is there a more entrepreneurial nation of young people? we create new companies and services like Google and Facebook, Flickr. we're creative in movies, video games, music.

(makes me think of Johnson's 'Everything Bad is Good for You')

Tom says we need big companies surrounded by entrepreneurs, and we pretty well have it, don't we? we nurture a lot of talented, creative young people.

[Robert]

"Don't confuse leadership with control." Love it! Great job. Perhaps it was my ears (or my brain interpreting what I heard), but it seemed Diane and some of the callers were overly focused on the subtitle "America and the world After Bush" with the emphasis on the "After Bush". I think they were expecting more Bush-bashing and did not realize that you do not operate at that level.

You did a great job handling the callers, especially the one who said everyone outside of the US was laughing at America (I think those were the words). Your response on the British Empire was spot on and forceful.

I think the tone of the interview and the way you handled the callers made it clear that if you wanted to engage in intelligent and informed discussion then you are welcome. If you are going to spout opinions with no facts, then you better stay away or be prepared to get hammered in the response.

Great job!