eXiled Radio: Mark Ames Goes Crossfire Against A Right-Winger Who Hates Democracy

eXiled Radio / March 19, 2010

By Team eXiled

Mark Ames gets his thrombo on debating (by way of shouting) with right-wing radio host Chuck Morse and liberal radio host Patrick O’Heffernan on their AM radio show “The Fairness Doctrine.” Hear them reach for blunt, heavy objects as they debate whether or not America was ever intended to be a democracy.

Listen to “The Fairness Doctrine” in Massachusetts on radio stations WDIS AM 1170, WNSH AM 1570, weekdays from 3pm-5pm.

Mark Ames is the author of Going Postal: Rage, Murder and Rebellion from Reagan’s Workplaces to Clinton’s Columbine.

Click the cover & buy the book!

Got something to say to us? Then send us a letter.

Want us to stick around? Donate to The eXiled.

Twitter twerps can follow us at twitter.com/exiledonline

34 Comments

Add your own

1. Dr. Mehmet | March 19th, 2010 at 7:00 am
Looks like you’re getting some decent dental care, Mark. I was wondering about your choppers after the Esquire profile had you spooning down the Adderall like mannaya kasha.
2. Scott Malec | March 19th, 2010 at 7:15 am
Mark,
it isn’t just Republicans and John Jay fans who would like to restrict democracy, disdaining it as “mob rule”. It is neo-liberals, too, e.g., Thomas Friedman’s model economy – the “golden straightjacket” of Singapore.
– SAM
3. Connors | March 19th, 2010 at 8:15 am
republic = representative democracy. So, a republic is a type of democracy. America, though a republic, was always considered a ‘democracy’ by the founders. But democracy was never meant to imply ‘mob rule’ or straight up rule by the majority. Representatives exist, in theory, to protect the rights of the minority.
Of course, America is still considered a democracy by our governing parties. Otherwise, how could we even pretend to spread democracy to other countries if we ourselves are not a democracy, as that rightwing radio guy said. It wouldn’t make any sense.
Those of us on the left believe that America is not a democracy, but for very different reasons. It’s more like an plutocracy and certainly an oligarchy.
4. Diet Coke | March 19th, 2010 at 9:39 am
This guy doesn’t know shit. Blah blah blah we’re a republic not a democracy – yeah, so who cares?
If you don’t like mob rule, just start your own mob brother.
5. FrankMcG | March 19th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Oh god, that lady’s sign. It hurts. It hurts so much.
It’s been true for over a century, but the quickest and most sure fire way to tell if a political party/ideal/viewpoint is full of shit or not is to just take a look at how hard they’re trying in their names.
The Fairness Doctrine, Fair and Balanced, No Spin Zone, Tea Party Patriots, Freedom Works, Daughters of the American Revolution, Minute Men, ANYTHING that implies imagery of freedom or the Revolutionary War. It’s all overcompensating in the most base form.
It’s the reason truly funny comedians don’t go around calling themselves “Mr. Funny Man” and laugh at all their own jokes, and the reason the ACLU calls just sticks with American Civil Liberties Union instead of American Patriots for Freedom Unity.
6. Bubbahotep New Jack Hustla | March 19th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Oligarh’s (Beckism, sic): Po’ folk of the world, you ain’t got no choice. It is our way our the highway!
Po’ folk: With Karl, Che, King and Volya down, we ain’t got no choice but to lick massa’s boots!
7. badnewswade | March 19th, 2010 at 10:12 am
Did anyone else notice how the right wing host had the volume on his mike turned up as high as possible?
8. Wenjo | March 19th, 2010 at 11:42 am
I hated debate back in school. The losing side would always default to redefining everything.
9. Jeff | March 19th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Why did you bother? All I heard was weak dodges and GOP talkingpoints regurgitated to you one after another. You might as well have just turned on Limbaugh and talked at your radio for half an hour.
10. John | March 19th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I could feel my intelligence being assaulted by this Chuck Morse turd. What a gormless fuckin bint
11. FrankMcG | March 19th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
This is a serious, non-mocking question for everyone, because I honestly don’t know the answer and wish to:
Have you ever started out “neutral” on a position only to have talk radio or FOX news change your mind, or did/do you listen because you agreed with it from the start?
12. wYSeGuy | March 19th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
I’m sorry, but it was Patrick O’Heffernan who was the one who was standing up for Mark Ames position, not necessarily in a rapid fire way, but in a manner that made Chuck Morse back off the bullying tone he was taking with Ames. Plus I have to mention, it was against Ames not let his voice be as loud as at least Patrick’s. The low tinny-ish volume made his arguments sound indistinct. Plus Ames was not on a warpath against Morse. He was slow. It was O’Heffernan who carried off the angry, cornered, fight for anything liberal vibe.
13. Mad Nomad | March 19th, 2010 at 5:25 pm
Ah Chile… a stratefied society where the military still receives something like 10 percent of the annual budget by law – which naturally goes to weapons (creating a large destabilizing military buildup in the Southern Cone region of South America).
They just recently inaugurated a right-wing government under a billionaire, Pinera, who lost no time in breaking promises to divest himself from his financial interests in the national airline. Guess he figured the earthquake would take up the attention of the press or something.
The left-wing Concertacion lost the election much the same way that the Dems lost in the Reagan era, by nominating a milquetoast candidate that no one was excited about. Now that they are the opposition, they are getting the blame for everything that went wrong in the earthquake response.
We’ll see how long Chile lasts as an economic powerhouse in this region, as the US right-winger that Mark was up against kept pointing to as some sort of shining example. You can blame a lot of robbery on an earthquake, it would seem to me (at least that’s the view I see from Buenos Aires).
14. Zirb | March 19th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
The distinction between Democracy and Republic is pretty important, a big thing the founders of the U.S. fought over. It has huge implications. Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Burke, Randolph, and so many others pointed out why it was so important to be clear on the difference.
See: http://users.law.capital.edu/dmayer/Blog/blogIndex.asp?entry=20050606.asp
15. Zirb | March 19th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
To put it another way: America was converted from Republic to Representative Democracy over its history, and this is no trivial event.
At first, the president wasn’t even voted in by popular vote, later the 17th amendment and other things in the 20th century cemented a majority-based representative democracy (with some direct democracy with referendums in some states).
The purpose of the republic was to protect individuals (or minorities). Some are arguing that representative democracy, instead of a republic, is the root cause for the growth and intrusion of government, which is ultimately the basic point of contention.
16. empire in decline | March 19th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Sure 3,000 people died and ten times that many were tortured but the results were just so great for the country of Chile in the end it was worth it.
Honestly, that logic is so inhumanly stupid. It’s like saying the 3,000 who died on 9/11 were worth it because afterward the United States went into Afghanistan and helped lower their infant mortality rate. You should never need innocent people to suffer and die by the thousands for any reason. Of course, in this country, believing that makes you a liberal faggot who doesn’t know how to be a true American.
I wish the United States would hurry up and lose its superpower status. Tick tock, hurry up.
17. Rem | March 20th, 2010 at 3:30 am
Mark had a crappy phone connection. Easily able to talk over him.
18. az | March 20th, 2010 at 5:56 am
Uh yeah no shit, Zirb, to protect the minority that is rich white men. It’s pretty ironic that people actually bring this argument up when their anti-social views are unpopular.
Also I guess I’ll listen to this sometime… I feel kinda bad commenting and not really listening to that half-hour show.
19. Matthew | March 20th, 2010 at 6:07 am
Having read Mark’s books and a regular follower, I was a little disappointed on how much Mark stuttered when he was asked about Reagan.
When that d00d asked about Ol’ Ronny I expected Mark to come out swinging with all these facts and quotes and shove a boot in his ass. But all he could saw was “Uh uh well you know uh the statistics”.
Mark 🙁 Come on man! You’re a fucking professional. You’ll get him next time.
20. matt | March 20th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I was also disappointed by mark getting distracted by that semantic argument over democracy vs republic. he could have made a joke about republican meaning that you don’t want a king, or how words change meaning. But the point he was making was about the deprivation of suffrage, and this other guy was talking about how we don’t have real democracy but elected officials. It was completely off topic and Mark shouldn’t have let himself get sucked in.
21. Klar | March 20th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
I lose the commenter vs editor round.
22. Coke-n-acid | March 20th, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Hip-hop is better on FM. When are you upgradin’?
23. Klar | March 20th, 2010 at 11:12 pm
LOL, that’s very funny actually to post my comment. I’d put my name down here but I’m too much of a pussy. Meanwhile, you should try editing comments by some of the bigtime idiots who comment here, it’d help things out a lot. just a suggestion.
24. nampa1 | March 21st, 2010 at 8:46 am
Chile had mediocre growth at best. Its economy was largely bought out by foreign capital, and its budget buttressed by privatization of state industries. A foreign owned economy will grow only as long as investment money comes in and that’s pretty much played out. Saying Chile’s the best on the continent is more of a comment on the paltry performance of the rest of the countries, all of which had some CIA backed dictatorships in the period.
25. Klar | March 21st, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Oh yeah, I’m big on stupidity, I wish you’d edit my comments.
26. FrankMcG | March 21st, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Add me to the voices sick of semantics arguments over democracy vs republic. 99% of the time they’re just stalling tactics to dodge the issue.
Also sick of the founding fathers worship. They were not perfect. They were not gods. Their intent and word were not immutable law. This is why we have amendments that were able to accomplish the little things like abolishing slavery.
27. wengler | March 23rd, 2010 at 1:50 am
The rightwinger on this program is about as dumb as a box of bricks. I give him credit only for the occasional bullshit non-sequitor.
The biggest problem with debating these rightwing talkers is they don’t care about accuracy. The American leftist simply is on the other side of a huge bullshit gap.
The debate about Republic vs. Democracy is one such argument. These words are not thought of as in conflict generally in the current American context, but add some bullshit phrase like “It’s not a democracy, it’s a Republic,” and you get rightwing talkers that constantly rail against “elitists” talk down to their flock about the wisdom of destroying other people’s liberties.
Recent history has taught me that this country’s people are unusually stupid so they will be both confused and convinced by bullshit arguments. Where other place in the world would the guy that came in second by half a million votes and then secured victory by stopping the counting of votes in a state controlled by his brother be able invade a country based on lies including that the US “will bring them democracy”? This is truly stupidity on an epic scale.
28. cult of skaro 23 | March 24th, 2010 at 8:40 am
FrankMcG
Thank You!!
also women’s suffrage, direct election of senators, etc.
29. Pavel | March 24th, 2010 at 8:48 am
Mark you’re the man! Hat off for standing up for your beliefs!
30. Gonzalo | March 24th, 2010 at 10:52 pm
When talking about Chile the right wing guy says that Eduardo Frei was a marxist and ‘the founder of Chile’… I just wanted to clarify that he was a not a marxist nor did he ‘found’ Chile. He was christian democrat and was born like 100 years after the Chile’s independence.
31. Kat | March 25th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Who the hell is this guy that thinks quoting Ayn Rand automatically makes his case air tight?
Oooh… I live in central Ohio and I just have to say that guy talking about voter fraud, well that is just rich. Yeah, I remember 2004.
32. Kat | March 25th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
I think the point about Reagan raising payroll taxes while slashing top marginal income tax rates and capital gains rates cannot be emphasized enough.
33. Viking | March 26th, 2010 at 9:48 am
Why is the Right the refuge of the moron? That guy is as dumb as Hannity.
34. Clinton | November 5th, 2010 at 7:46 am
This right wing, Pinochet lover never shuts up. All he does is talk about how democracies suck and Pinochet and the Chicago Boys are great success stories. Can you be any more annoying? What a blowhard.