Horizon, Host: Ted Simons

March 21, 2007


Host: Jose Cardenas

Arizona Democratic Party Chairman


  • state Democratic Party chair David Waid joins us to talk aboout recent successes at the polls, and what is ahead for his party in the 2008 presidential race.
Guests:
  • David Waid - Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party
  • P.J. O'Rourke - Satirist, journalist and author
  • Jim Crutchfield - Visiting professor at the ASU Cronkite School and former editor of the Akron Beacon Journal
Category: Elections

View Transcript
José Cárdenas:
Tonight on "Horizon", the head of the State Democratic Party joins us to talk about recent successes at the polls, and what's ahead in the 2008 election. A free-market conversation with libertarian and author P.J. O'Rourke on his new book on Adam Smith. And we'll speak with a national figure in Print Journalism, in town to talk about newspapers and ethics. That's next on "Horizon".

Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the "Friends of Eight", members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

José Cárdenas:
Good evening and thanks for joining us tonight on "Horizon". I'm José Cárdenas. The Arizona Democratic Party saw some gains this past election in the Arizona House and Senate, and the election of Harry Mitchell in the Fifth Congressional District. As Republicans try to regroup, looking at immigration as a potential wedge issue in subsequent elections, Democrats are also looking forward to the 2008 Election. Joining us now is the Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, David Waid. David, welcome to "Horizon".

David Waid:
Thank you.

José Cárdenas:
Let's begin with something that's in the news as we speak. And that is the whole issue of the replacement of several US Attorneys, including Paul Charlton of Arizona. I understand that you sent a letter to the potential successor, Diane Hometawa, I think it is, asking about the investigation of Congressman Renzi. Can you elaborate on that?

David Waid:
You bet. We actually, I sent a letter to not only her, but to the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, because there is a pattern that has emerged in these US attorney firings that, number one, there is a creation of a list that's essentially a blacklist of US attorneys. Six of eight of these US attorneys were investigating Republican officeholders, and were fired. In the case of the US attorney here in Arizona, Paul Charlton, we now know that he was fired, he was not on the list originally. He instigated an investigation into Congressman Rick Renzi of Northern Arizona, and subsequently was put on the list to be fired. So, there seems to be a real connection between the politics of this, and the decisions that these people are making, in terms of what investigations follow, and the actual firings. So, that is a cause of great concern for us. So what I asked was that this nominee say for the record that she was not actually pressured to drop the investigation in return for the appointment. And I called upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to look closely at this questioning both Department of Justice officials and in fact, this nominee, to make sure that's the case.

José Cárdenas:
Other than the sequence of events as you describe them, is there any other reason to believe that investigation had anything to do with Paul Charlton losing his job?

David Waid:
Well, you know, unfortunately, there's a little bit of a screen between us and the facts, and that is the White House at this point. And certainly, they've take even position where they won't let any of their folks talk under oath or on transcript. So we don't have 100\% facts. But what has happened is that the Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed e-mails. And from these e-mails we can now see there was a point at which, now this is after the firings were decided, that there was a conversation going on to determine what was the reason for the firing. And since that was taking place after the firing, it really just sort of calls into question what was the real reason for it. And I don't think that they still, after weeks of going back and forth, as to why these US attorneys were targeted for dismissal. I don't think they've really landed on what their final answer is.

José Cárdenas:
Closer to home, we had your counterpart, Randy Pullen, on "Horizon" on Monday night. We talked about Proposition 200, Proposition 300, both of which he had a role in even before becoming Chairman of the Republican Party. What's the Democratic Party's position on those two Propositions, what we've seen so far, and immigration issues in general?

David Waid:
Well, I mean, on immigration issues, I'd say, you know, our position has been really pretty consistent, which is we want to make sure that there is very tough enforcement at the border. I think pretty much all Arizonans agree that that's a -- you know, you can't go anywhere without first addressing getting control of the border. But then, the second thing is, we want to make sure that they are actually enforceable laws, both on the federal and state level, that there are in fact resources made available to help the Sheriffs in those Counties that are most affected by it. That's been a big problem in the past with some of the Republican proposals. And that is that they have put all sorts of unfunded mandates so they could look good because they were passing laws on immigration, but in fact they were Paper Tigers because there was no dollars to make it possible for some of these strapped, stretched-thin border sheriffs.

José Cárdenas:
What are your priorities in the year-plus that we've got leading up to the primary and the general elections next year?

David Waid:
Well, you know, I think that we want to make sure that, you know, the state retains the Democratic pickups that we had. As you said, we had a great year last year. We picked up six seats, I believe it was, in the House, a seat in the Senate. And this was in a year in which we were told Republicans were going to win a veto-proof majority. And that turned out to be, in fact, directly the opposite of that. We also picked up not just one Congressional seat, but two, because we picked up Harry Mitchell in Tempe, but we also picked up Gabrielle Giffords down in Southern Arizona. So these were really big wins for the Arizona Party. And I think they come from, essentially, the Democrats that we had, like governor Napolitano and Terry Goddard, talking genuinely to voters about issues they cared about. And I hate to say it, but that's kind of a refreshing change for folks here, because they're been used to being talked at with things like these sort of border proposals that have come in the past that don't end up doing anything, look good, they're very politically slick, but they don't actually provide any help on the ground. So, actually I think that our Democrats are committed to actually governing, addressing some these problems in a very serious and straightforward manner. And I think if they can do that, then when it comes time for re-election, they will all win re-election and in fact, we'll probably pick up some additional seats.

José Cárdenas:
What do you think is so important, and the republicans have suggested that in the last elections, you had so much money going on the Republican side into Senator Kyl's campaign, and then you had on the Democratic side, the reasonnumbers look so big was because Jim Pederson was putting his own pocketbook out there, and that they actually did fairly well when you account for that. What do you say to that?

David Waid:
I say that, you know, anytime I hear -- I am constantly hearing why it is that the Republicans lost or why it was that there was some trick as to how we in fact out-raised them in terms of the dollars. And there's tons of reasons I've heard for it, all given by Republicans, and all fairly well, you know, whatever, excuses for how they ended up coming behind in some of these things. But the bottom line is this: The Arizona Democratic Party out-raised the Republicans by a margin of 3-to-1. And that's without any money from Jim Pederson. So really, the dollar thing was good for Democrats, but it's not the end-all in these elections, obviously. And money it important, but it's certainly not the end-all. And I think you can have money and still lose elections. It is important to us to raise the dollars so our folks can compete. But it is also important that we stay right on the issues and stay tough on the issues that Arizonans care about. And they did that brilliantly this last election cycle. I'd say our democratic candidate. And I know we're going to do that this time. Finally democrats have been given a chance to show what they can do in leadership. We've seen it in Governor Napolitano and in congress where democrats took over and the first 100 hours in the house they passed more legislation than I think the entire last congressional session. And so democrats are doing and I think really trying to show what we're made of.

Jose Cardenas:
We're almost out of time. Just one last question. Do the democrats have a realistic chance of getting control of the house and senate in the next set of elections?

David Waid:
Oh, absolutely. A, yes, there is a realistic chance. We know where those seats are. We have strong candidates. We have the dollars to put in play for them. And we're going to just provide everything that we can. And I think we can get much the same results as we did last time. If we get similar results as we did in 2006 we will in fact be in the majority in both houses of the legislature. I expect that. That's what I'm working towards for 2008.

Jose Cardenas:
David Waid, chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, thanks for joining us on "Horizon".

David Waid:
Thank you so much.

Jose Cardenas:
P.J. O'Rourke is a noted satirist, journalist and author. He's best known for his time as editor of National Lampoon Magazine, and as author of such books as "Eat the Rich" and "Parliament of Whores". O'Rourke was in the valley recently as a guest of the Goldwater Institute, talking about his new book, "On the Wealth of Nations". Larry Lemmons spoke with O'Rourke at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort.

Larry Lemmons:
Well, Mr. O'Rourke, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading "Wealth of Nations," so that I didn't have to.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Anytime. Well not anytime. It took a year and a half. It took a year and a half to do.

Larry Lemmons:
900 pages?

P.J. O'Rourke:
900 very dense pages.

Larry Lemmons:
Would you offer something of a primer on Adam Smith in case people don't realize the significance of the invisible hand? And weren't there three parts to his theory?

P.J. O'Rourke:
It's basically, there are basically three principles to it. Well, to move back a little bit, what Smith did was he took economics, which was a larvel field in the 18th century and very confused, there are a lot of confused ideas about economics. And it wasn't really that Smith invented so many new things. But he systematized what was known and he showed the known from the unknown from the unknowable and the right from the wrong. He cleaned it up. He organized and systematized economics. And he invented the concept of gross domestic product. And he showed that all economic growth is based on pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, what we would call specialization, and freedom of trade. And by freedom of trade he didn't mean just importing cheap plush toys from China. He meant my ability to exchange the goods and services that I produce for the good and services that you produce.

Larry Lemmons:
Like a basic bartering.

P.J. O'Rourke:
A basic bartering. Just without undue interference, without somebody coming in there because of their wealth, because of their physical strength, because of their religious prestige or their government whatever, coming in between us when I want to trade a bushel of barley for half a pig, you know?

Larry Lemmons:
But is that kind of free market philosophy still relevant in a globalized economy?

P.J. O'Rourke:
Oh, absolutely necessary in a world of globalization. This is not to say that it's not going to have its problems. Smith was quick to point out that when you change things like trade barriers, you have to be careful not to do this too suddenly. Because people have built their plans and set their futures, made their investments according to a set of rules that they think are going to continue to exist. And you can't just change those rules on them overnight. This was reflected in some of the problems that NAFTA caused to small Mexican farmers. Of course, now corn is too expensive. And that's causing problems in Mexico.

Larry Lemmons:
Expensive tortillas. Yeah.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Yeah. But a little while ago it was too cheap, and that was causing problems. I'm not quite sure what the answer to all this is. But you have to have free trade in order to expand the market to as large an extent as possible. Because basically, only two ways to increase wealth. And one is to increase technological developments. And the other is to increase the extent or these technological developments can be applied. And so we need Smith's free trade principles. But we also need to be aware that individual lives are disturbed by changes in rules. And so we've got to allow to that for a certain extent.

Larry Lemmons:
Now some would argue there's really no such thing as free trade, I mean all governments manipulate their economy to some degree.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Oh, absolutely true. I mean, governments will interfere in economies. Even the most non-interfering of governments like the government of Hong Kong, for instance, interferes in the economy of housing prices, and also in land ownership. A lot of the land in the Hong Kong special administration region is actually owned by the Hong Kong government. And they've offset government deficits for years by selling that land little bit by little bit. And they also do a lot to control the lower income housing costs. So here's the most non-interfering government in the world. Singapore is another one. And they still interfere. So no, there's never such a thing as a free market. I mean, it's like being a good person. It's something that you try to move towards. It's not something you're ever going to achieve. I don't mean, you personally.

Larry Lemmons:
You never know.

Larry Lemmons:
But speaking of that, I've heard in previous interviews that, well, of course you've always been a proponent of the free market, very much about individualism.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Yeah.

Larry Lemmons:
But until you did the research you hadn't really understood Adam Smith's moral message.

P.J. O'Rourke: One of the most interesting things parts about reading the "The Wealth of Nations" was not the "The Wealth of Nations", it was actually about "Theory of Moral Sentiments," his previous book. And it's in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" that Smith talks about man's moral condition, and the Wealth of nations" about man's material condition. And "the wealth of nations" read all on its own can seem a rather cold-blooded rather a cold-hearted book. But that's because smith assumes you've already read his previous, and at that time better-known book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." And I knew that there were moral -- that there was a moral side to this. But it wasn't really brought home to me, I don't think, until I read Adam smith, to really realize how much free trade has to do with our own property rights and ourselves, with our own freedom. The important part of free trade is the free part of free trade, not so much the trade part of free trade. That division of labor that it has to do with our freedom of choice to do what we want to do to learn the skills that we want to learn to undertake the job that we want to take. That it's all about personal liberties that pursuit of self-interest has to do with noninterference of other people in our affairs. That we shouldn't be shoved around, much more than it has to do with greed or acquisition.

Larry Lemmons:
You're here for the Goldwater institute.

P.J. O'Rourke:
I am here for the Goldwater Institute.

Larry Lemmons:
Named of course for Barry Goldwater, an icon of libertarianism and free enterprise. I'd like to get your thoughts on the man.

P.J. O'Rourke:
I didn't understand him very well at the time. I mean I'm old enough to remember, vividly, I was in high school when Goldwater campaigned for president. And I didn't really understand what he was getting at. I was in kind of a larval stage of political opinion. I was sort of all over the place. I had certainly leftist thoughts and sort of world federalist sort of ideas. But certain sort of libertarian ideas at the same time. I was just kind of confused. And I didn't really appreciate Goldwater when he was on the scene. It wasn't until years later that I began to realize that what Goldwater had, and it's of course what Reagan had, too, was the ability to sell a very difficult point of view to the public. Obviously Reagan was better at it than Goldwater. But it couldn't have been done if Barry Goldwater hadn't laid the foundation. What Ronald Reagan did couldn't have been done. And what these guys did was to take the idea of freedom and responsibility and sell it to the public in place of what most politicians usually do, which is to tell the public the government will give you all sorts of wonderful benefits and it really won't cost you much at all. In fact, you'll benefit, net benefit. We're just going to do wonderful, great things for you. And Reagan and Goldwater were able to say to the public, you're going to do great things for yourself. What we are going to give you is, and all we're going to give you is a system to protect your right to go out there and do wonderful things for yourself. We are going to protect your freedoms, we are going to extend your freedoms. But we're not going to give you a bunch of stuff, that you've got to go get for yourself. And that's a hard sell. It's a hard sell. You know it was Goldwater who broke through, you know. No previous conservative had ever really tried this. Previous conservatives in American politics, like Calvin Coolidge, were simply relied upon the human's innate hatred of change. And it was kind of like a leave me alone. We don't want another buttinski like that Wilson guy another poke nose like Teddy Roosevelt. You know just leave people alone. Leave me alone. And the underlying aspect of that conservativism also holds in place bigotries of traditional society keeps women down and minorities down. It gives tacit approval to all sorts of discrimination. And that Goldwater didn't ever do. It was all about freedom and the responsibility that goes with freedom. It was a positive, not a negative sell of conservativism. And wow what a genius.

Larry Lemmons:
What are your thoughts on the 2008 presidential election? Is there anyone out there who interests you?

P.J. O'Rourke:
Well, there is in one sense. I know John Mccain personally, and I trust him personally, and I think the world of John, I really do. It doesn't mean I agree with him, a whole bunch of stuff I don't agree with him about. But he would have my vote just because I know the guy and you know I think that he's tough and he's honest.

Larry Lemmons:
P.J. O'Rourke we appreciate the time you spent with us today.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Thank you for having me on.

Jose Cardenas:
It's been more than a year since former Arizona republic editor Paul Schatt died at the age of 60. Schatt worked at the paper for more than 40 years, and taught journalism classes at Arizona State University for 30 years. Both the paper and Schatt's widow, Laura Schatt, gave money for the Paul J. Schatt lecture series, put on by the Walter Cronkite school of journalism and mass communication at Arizona State University. The lecture is being held tonight and is titled "Newspapers Under Siege: Ethics on the Firing Line." Jim Crutchfield is one of the featured journalists - a visiting professor at the Cronkite School and former editor of the Akron Beacon Journal. Joining me now to discuss the lecture series and issues affecting papers today is Jim Crutchfield.

Jose Cardenas:
Jim welcome to "Horizon".

Jim Crutchfield:
Thank you.

Jose Cardenas:
Tell us first a little bit about Paul Schatt and the lecture series.

Jim Crutchfield:
Well I don't know Paul Schatt. I'm new to the Phoenix area, new to Arizona. What I do know is that he was a fine journalist and a fine teacher at Arizona State University. And this lecture series is to be consistent with that fine reputation.

Jose Cardenas:
What are you going to be talking about?

Jim Crutchfield:
We're going to talk about the future of newspapers. And this is a tough time for newspapers. This is a transitional time as we go into the next century. There are lots of forces changing the way we do things in the newspaper business. And we're going to talk about how there's a need for newspapers to maintain their ethics at a time when the online world is the equivalent of the old Wild West, where there aren't a whole lot of ethics necessarily online. And how newspapers, both on paper and on the internet, need to be very credible, ethical sources of news and information.

Jose Cardenas:
On the subject of changes, we just had this week the major newspaper here, The Arizona Republic, go to an entirely -- not entirely but a much different Monday format, shrinking the paper, they say in response to a different kind of demand by the readers of the Monday paper. Your thoughts on that.

Jim Crutchfield:
Well, I think that there is good reason to think that our readers are much more time-stressed than they used to be, that actually that's true not just on Monday. That's true probably Monday through Sunday if not just Monday through Saturday. And frankly, I think what the republic is doing is some experimentation to try to see how it can respond to the needs of readers. I think there as I said, people are commuting long distances in the morning, more and more here. And there's a need to get news to people in ways that they can consume it.

Jose Cardenas:
Well, how much of this is time stress as opposed to just a generational difference in how people approach the news and their appreciation for it?

Jim Crutchfield:
Oh, I think it's both. I mean, clearly the younger generation, young people, tend to get news in many different ways. Some from newspapers, but also many get their information online or on their cell phones. And I think that this is a generation that is used to doing things in quick ways, in short bites. And so there is a need to respond to that.

Jose Cardenas:
Your earlier comments seem to suggest that the ethical issues which have been on prominent display for journalists with the Valerie Plame and the trials we've just had for Scooter Libby, they've been in the papers. But you seem to suggest that it's a bigger issue, a more difficult issue as it relates to the internet. How so?

Jim Crutchfield:
Oh It's absolutely a bigger issue. I'm not trying to minimize, I wouldn't minimize the issues in the Valerie Plame case or in any of the other ethical issues or breaches that have occurred in the newspaper industry of the past several years. But this is an issue that's been well, what we're seeing on the internet, particularly, is that there's access for everybody and anybody. And you don't really have to have strong ethics to put information in the public sphere. And what's happening is that I believe that over the long-term the survivors, the people who will reach readers and will be the ones who are considered ethical and credible.

Jose Cardenas:
But they'll be reaching them in a much more fragmented fashion. The newspapers despite the decline in readership, still it's a broad-based medium whereas now we're seeing the influence of blogs and people go to a particular preferred source. How is that going to affect the ethical issues?

Jim Crutchfield:
Well, I would say you're absolutely right. Newspapers are still the last mass medium. And I think that online there is a lot more fragmentation. But I think out of that fragmentation there will arise media that are considered much more reliable. I mean, we see this in every sort of fragmentation. It's not just in the media world. There are lots of products on the grocery shelf. And people come by and pick some more than others because they learn to rely on them.

Jose Cardenas:
Professor Crutchfield, thank you for joining us on "Horizon". Good luck on the lecture tonight.

Jim Crutchfield:
Thank you very much, I enjoyed it.

Mike Sauceda:
Sub prime lending was all the rage during the housing boom. But now as monthly payments escalate sub prime lending could be causing more foreclosures. And an employer sanctions bill for hiring illegal immigrants was passed by the white house last week, the same day it fired an illegal immigrant in its employ. Find out more Thursday at 7:00 on "Horizon".

Jose Cardenas:
And Friday don't forget to join us for the journalists' roundtable. That's the Wednesday edition of "Horizon". Thank you for sharing your time with us.

Announcer:
If you have comments about "Horizon", please contact us at the addresses listed on your screen. Your name and comments may be used on a future edition of "Horizon". "Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the friends of eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

Ethics in Journalism


  • Arizona State University is holding a lecture series on journalism. Tonight's lecture is "Newspapers Under Siege: Ethics on the Firing Line" . Our guest is a featured speaker at the event, Jim Crutchfield, former editor of the Akron Beacon Journal and an Edith K. Gaylord Visiting Professor at the Cronkite School.
Guests:
  • David Waid - Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party
  • P.J. O'Rourke - Satirist, journalist and author
  • Jim Crutchfield - Visiting professor at the ASU Cronkite School and former editor of the Akron Beacon Journal


View Transcript
José Cárdenas:
Tonight on "Horizon", the head of the State Democratic Party joins us to talk about recent successes at the polls, and what's ahead in the 2008 election. A free-market conversation with libertarian and author P.J. O'Rourke on his new book on Adam Smith. And we'll speak with a national figure in Print Journalism, in town to talk about newspapers and ethics. That's next on "Horizon".

Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the "Friends of Eight", members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

José Cárdenas:
Good evening and thanks for joining us tonight on "Horizon". I'm José Cárdenas. The Arizona Democratic Party saw some gains this past election in the Arizona House and Senate, and the election of Harry Mitchell in the Fifth Congressional District. As Republicans try to regroup, looking at immigration as a potential wedge issue in subsequent elections, Democrats are also looking forward to the 2008 Election. Joining us now is the Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, David Waid. David, welcome to "Horizon".

David Waid:
Thank you.

José Cárdenas:
Let's begin with something that's in the news as we speak. And that is the whole issue of the replacement of several US Attorneys, including Paul Charlton of Arizona. I understand that you sent a letter to the potential successor, Diane Hometawa, I think it is, asking about the investigation of Congressman Renzi. Can you elaborate on that?

David Waid:
You bet. We actually, I sent a letter to not only her, but to the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, because there is a pattern that has emerged in these US attorney firings that, number one, there is a creation of a list that's essentially a blacklist of US attorneys. Six of eight of these US attorneys were investigating Republican officeholders, and were fired. In the case of the US attorney here in Arizona, Paul Charlton, we now know that he was fired, he was not on the list originally. He instigated an investigation into Congressman Rick Renzi of Northern Arizona, and subsequently was put on the list to be fired. So, there seems to be a real connection between the politics of this, and the decisions that these people are making, in terms of what investigations follow, and the actual firings. So, that is a cause of great concern for us. So what I asked was that this nominee say for the record that she was not actually pressured to drop the investigation in return for the appointment. And I called upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to look closely at this questioning both Department of Justice officials and in fact, this nominee, to make sure that's the case.

José Cárdenas:
Other than the sequence of events as you describe them, is there any other reason to believe that investigation had anything to do with Paul Charlton losing his job?

David Waid:
Well, you know, unfortunately, there's a little bit of a screen between us and the facts, and that is the White House at this point. And certainly, they've take even position where they won't let any of their folks talk under oath or on transcript. So we don't have 100\% facts. But what has happened is that the Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed e-mails. And from these e-mails we can now see there was a point at which, now this is after the firings were decided, that there was a conversation going on to determine what was the reason for the firing. And since that was taking place after the firing, it really just sort of calls into question what was the real reason for it. And I don't think that they still, after weeks of going back and forth, as to why these US attorneys were targeted for dismissal. I don't think they've really landed on what their final answer is.

José Cárdenas:
Closer to home, we had your counterpart, Randy Pullen, on "Horizon" on Monday night. We talked about Proposition 200, Proposition 300, both of which he had a role in even before becoming Chairman of the Republican Party. What's the Democratic Party's position on those two Propositions, what we've seen so far, and immigration issues in general?

David Waid:
Well, I mean, on immigration issues, I'd say, you know, our position has been really pretty consistent, which is we want to make sure that there is very tough enforcement at the border. I think pretty much all Arizonans agree that that's a -- you know, you can't go anywhere without first addressing getting control of the border. But then, the second thing is, we want to make sure that they are actually enforceable laws, both on the federal and state level, that there are in fact resources made available to help the Sheriffs in those Counties that are most affected by it. That's been a big problem in the past with some of the Republican proposals. And that is that they have put all sorts of unfunded mandates so they could look good because they were passing laws on immigration, but in fact they were Paper Tigers because there was no dollars to make it possible for some of these strapped, stretched-thin border sheriffs.

José Cárdenas:
What are your priorities in the year-plus that we've got leading up to the primary and the general elections next year?

David Waid:
Well, you know, I think that we want to make sure that, you know, the state retains the Democratic pickups that we had. As you said, we had a great year last year. We picked up six seats, I believe it was, in the House, a seat in the Senate. And this was in a year in which we were told Republicans were going to win a veto-proof majority. And that turned out to be, in fact, directly the opposite of that. We also picked up not just one Congressional seat, but two, because we picked up Harry Mitchell in Tempe, but we also picked up Gabrielle Giffords down in Southern Arizona. So these were really big wins for the Arizona Party. And I think they come from, essentially, the Democrats that we had, like governor Napolitano and Terry Goddard, talking genuinely to voters about issues they cared about. And I hate to say it, but that's kind of a refreshing change for folks here, because they're been used to being talked at with things like these sort of border proposals that have come in the past that don't end up doing anything, look good, they're very politically slick, but they don't actually provide any help on the ground. So, actually I think that our Democrats are committed to actually governing, addressing some these problems in a very serious and straightforward manner. And I think if they can do that, then when it comes time for re-election, they will all win re-election and in fact, we'll probably pick up some additional seats.

José Cárdenas:
What do you think is so important, and the republicans have suggested that in the last elections, you had so much money going on the Republican side into Senator Kyl's campaign, and then you had on the Democratic side, the reasonnumbers look so big was because Jim Pederson was putting his own pocketbook out there, and that they actually did fairly well when you account for that. What do you say to that?

David Waid:
I say that, you know, anytime I hear -- I am constantly hearing why it is that the Republicans lost or why it was that there was some trick as to how we in fact out-raised them in terms of the dollars. And there's tons of reasons I've heard for it, all given by Republicans, and all fairly well, you know, whatever, excuses for how they ended up coming behind in some of these things. But the bottom line is this: The Arizona Democratic Party out-raised the Republicans by a margin of 3-to-1. And that's without any money from Jim Pederson. So really, the dollar thing was good for Democrats, but it's not the end-all in these elections, obviously. And money it important, but it's certainly not the end-all. And I think you can have money and still lose elections. It is important to us to raise the dollars so our folks can compete. But it is also important that we stay right on the issues and stay tough on the issues that Arizonans care about. And they did that brilliantly this last election cycle. I'd say our democratic candidate. And I know we're going to do that this time. Finally democrats have been given a chance to show what they can do in leadership. We've seen it in Governor Napolitano and in congress where democrats took over and the first 100 hours in the house they passed more legislation than I think the entire last congressional session. And so democrats are doing and I think really trying to show what we're made of.

Jose Cardenas:
We're almost out of time. Just one last question. Do the democrats have a realistic chance of getting control of the house and senate in the next set of elections?

David Waid:
Oh, absolutely. A, yes, there is a realistic chance. We know where those seats are. We have strong candidates. We have the dollars to put in play for them. And we're going to just provide everything that we can. And I think we can get much the same results as we did last time. If we get similar results as we did in 2006 we will in fact be in the majority in both houses of the legislature. I expect that. That's what I'm working towards for 2008.

Jose Cardenas:
David Waid, chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, thanks for joining us on "Horizon".

David Waid:
Thank you so much.

Jose Cardenas:
P.J. O'Rourke is a noted satirist, journalist and author. He's best known for his time as editor of National Lampoon Magazine, and as author of such books as "Eat the Rich" and "Parliament of Whores". O'Rourke was in the valley recently as a guest of the Goldwater Institute, talking about his new book, "On the Wealth of Nations". Larry Lemmons spoke with O'Rourke at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort.

Larry Lemmons:
Well, Mr. O'Rourke, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading "Wealth of Nations," so that I didn't have to.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Anytime. Well not anytime. It took a year and a half. It took a year and a half to do.

Larry Lemmons:
900 pages?

P.J. O'Rourke:
900 very dense pages.

Larry Lemmons:
Would you offer something of a primer on Adam Smith in case people don't realize the significance of the invisible hand? And weren't there three parts to his theory?

P.J. O'Rourke:
It's basically, there are basically three principles to it. Well, to move back a little bit, what Smith did was he took economics, which was a larvel field in the 18th century and very confused, there are a lot of confused ideas about economics. And it wasn't really that Smith invented so many new things. But he systematized what was known and he showed the known from the unknown from the unknowable and the right from the wrong. He cleaned it up. He organized and systematized economics. And he invented the concept of gross domestic product. And he showed that all economic growth is based on pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, what we would call specialization, and freedom of trade. And by freedom of trade he didn't mean just importing cheap plush toys from China. He meant my ability to exchange the goods and services that I produce for the good and services that you produce.

Larry Lemmons:
Like a basic bartering.

P.J. O'Rourke:
A basic bartering. Just without undue interference, without somebody coming in there because of their wealth, because of their physical strength, because of their religious prestige or their government whatever, coming in between us when I want to trade a bushel of barley for half a pig, you know?

Larry Lemmons:
But is that kind of free market philosophy still relevant in a globalized economy?

P.J. O'Rourke:
Oh, absolutely necessary in a world of globalization. This is not to say that it's not going to have its problems. Smith was quick to point out that when you change things like trade barriers, you have to be careful not to do this too suddenly. Because people have built their plans and set their futures, made their investments according to a set of rules that they think are going to continue to exist. And you can't just change those rules on them overnight. This was reflected in some of the problems that NAFTA caused to small Mexican farmers. Of course, now corn is too expensive. And that's causing problems in Mexico.

Larry Lemmons:
Expensive tortillas. Yeah.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Yeah. But a little while ago it was too cheap, and that was causing problems. I'm not quite sure what the answer to all this is. But you have to have free trade in order to expand the market to as large an extent as possible. Because basically, only two ways to increase wealth. And one is to increase technological developments. And the other is to increase the extent or these technological developments can be applied. And so we need Smith's free trade principles. But we also need to be aware that individual lives are disturbed by changes in rules. And so we've got to allow to that for a certain extent.

Larry Lemmons:
Now some would argue there's really no such thing as free trade, I mean all governments manipulate their economy to some degree.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Oh, absolutely true. I mean, governments will interfere in economies. Even the most non-interfering of governments like the government of Hong Kong, for instance, interferes in the economy of housing prices, and also in land ownership. A lot of the land in the Hong Kong special administration region is actually owned by the Hong Kong government. And they've offset government deficits for years by selling that land little bit by little bit. And they also do a lot to control the lower income housing costs. So here's the most non-interfering government in the world. Singapore is another one. And they still interfere. So no, there's never such a thing as a free market. I mean, it's like being a good person. It's something that you try to move towards. It's not something you're ever going to achieve. I don't mean, you personally.

Larry Lemmons:
You never know.

Larry Lemmons:
But speaking of that, I've heard in previous interviews that, well, of course you've always been a proponent of the free market, very much about individualism.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Yeah.

Larry Lemmons:
But until you did the research you hadn't really understood Adam Smith's moral message.

P.J. O'Rourke: One of the most interesting things parts about reading the "The Wealth of Nations" was not the "The Wealth of Nations", it was actually about "Theory of Moral Sentiments," his previous book. And it's in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" that Smith talks about man's moral condition, and the Wealth of nations" about man's material condition. And "the wealth of nations" read all on its own can seem a rather cold-blooded rather a cold-hearted book. But that's because smith assumes you've already read his previous, and at that time better-known book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." And I knew that there were moral -- that there was a moral side to this. But it wasn't really brought home to me, I don't think, until I read Adam smith, to really realize how much free trade has to do with our own property rights and ourselves, with our own freedom. The important part of free trade is the free part of free trade, not so much the trade part of free trade. That division of labor that it has to do with our freedom of choice to do what we want to do to learn the skills that we want to learn to undertake the job that we want to take. That it's all about personal liberties that pursuit of self-interest has to do with noninterference of other people in our affairs. That we shouldn't be shoved around, much more than it has to do with greed or acquisition.

Larry Lemmons:
You're here for the Goldwater institute.

P.J. O'Rourke:
I am here for the Goldwater Institute.

Larry Lemmons:
Named of course for Barry Goldwater, an icon of libertarianism and free enterprise. I'd like to get your thoughts on the man.

P.J. O'Rourke:
I didn't understand him very well at the time. I mean I'm old enough to remember, vividly, I was in high school when Goldwater campaigned for president. And I didn't really understand what he was getting at. I was in kind of a larval stage of political opinion. I was sort of all over the place. I had certainly leftist thoughts and sort of world federalist sort of ideas. But certain sort of libertarian ideas at the same time. I was just kind of confused. And I didn't really appreciate Goldwater when he was on the scene. It wasn't until years later that I began to realize that what Goldwater had, and it's of course what Reagan had, too, was the ability to sell a very difficult point of view to the public. Obviously Reagan was better at it than Goldwater. But it couldn't have been done if Barry Goldwater hadn't laid the foundation. What Ronald Reagan did couldn't have been done. And what these guys did was to take the idea of freedom and responsibility and sell it to the public in place of what most politicians usually do, which is to tell the public the government will give you all sorts of wonderful benefits and it really won't cost you much at all. In fact, you'll benefit, net benefit. We're just going to do wonderful, great things for you. And Reagan and Goldwater were able to say to the public, you're going to do great things for yourself. What we are going to give you is, and all we're going to give you is a system to protect your right to go out there and do wonderful things for yourself. We are going to protect your freedoms, we are going to extend your freedoms. But we're not going to give you a bunch of stuff, that you've got to go get for yourself. And that's a hard sell. It's a hard sell. You know it was Goldwater who broke through, you know. No previous conservative had ever really tried this. Previous conservatives in American politics, like Calvin Coolidge, were simply relied upon the human's innate hatred of change. And it was kind of like a leave me alone. We don't want another buttinski like that Wilson guy another poke nose like Teddy Roosevelt. You know just leave people alone. Leave me alone. And the underlying aspect of that conservativism also holds in place bigotries of traditional society keeps women down and minorities down. It gives tacit approval to all sorts of discrimination. And that Goldwater didn't ever do. It was all about freedom and the responsibility that goes with freedom. It was a positive, not a negative sell of conservativism. And wow what a genius.

Larry Lemmons:
What are your thoughts on the 2008 presidential election? Is there anyone out there who interests you?

P.J. O'Rourke:
Well, there is in one sense. I know John Mccain personally, and I trust him personally, and I think the world of John, I really do. It doesn't mean I agree with him, a whole bunch of stuff I don't agree with him about. But he would have my vote just because I know the guy and you know I think that he's tough and he's honest.

Larry Lemmons:
P.J. O'Rourke we appreciate the time you spent with us today.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Thank you for having me on.

Jose Cardenas:
It's been more than a year since former Arizona republic editor Paul Schatt died at the age of 60. Schatt worked at the paper for more than 40 years, and taught journalism classes at Arizona State University for 30 years. Both the paper and Schatt's widow, Laura Schatt, gave money for the Paul J. Schatt lecture series, put on by the Walter Cronkite school of journalism and mass communication at Arizona State University. The lecture is being held tonight and is titled "Newspapers Under Siege: Ethics on the Firing Line." Jim Crutchfield is one of the featured journalists - a visiting professor at the Cronkite School and former editor of the Akron Beacon Journal. Joining me now to discuss the lecture series and issues affecting papers today is Jim Crutchfield.

Jose Cardenas:
Jim welcome to "Horizon".

Jim Crutchfield:
Thank you.

Jose Cardenas:
Tell us first a little bit about Paul Schatt and the lecture series.

Jim Crutchfield:
Well I don't know Paul Schatt. I'm new to the Phoenix area, new to Arizona. What I do know is that he was a fine journalist and a fine teacher at Arizona State University. And this lecture series is to be consistent with that fine reputation.

Jose Cardenas:
What are you going to be talking about?

Jim Crutchfield:
We're going to talk about the future of newspapers. And this is a tough time for newspapers. This is a transitional time as we go into the next century. There are lots of forces changing the way we do things in the newspaper business. And we're going to talk about how there's a need for newspapers to maintain their ethics at a time when the online world is the equivalent of the old Wild West, where there aren't a whole lot of ethics necessarily online. And how newspapers, both on paper and on the internet, need to be very credible, ethical sources of news and information.

Jose Cardenas:
On the subject of changes, we just had this week the major newspaper here, The Arizona Republic, go to an entirely -- not entirely but a much different Monday format, shrinking the paper, they say in response to a different kind of demand by the readers of the Monday paper. Your thoughts on that.

Jim Crutchfield:
Well, I think that there is good reason to think that our readers are much more time-stressed than they used to be, that actually that's true not just on Monday. That's true probably Monday through Sunday if not just Monday through Saturday. And frankly, I think what the republic is doing is some experimentation to try to see how it can respond to the needs of readers. I think there as I said, people are commuting long distances in the morning, more and more here. And there's a need to get news to people in ways that they can consume it.

Jose Cardenas:
Well, how much of this is time stress as opposed to just a generational difference in how people approach the news and their appreciation for it?

Jim Crutchfield:
Oh, I think it's both. I mean, clearly the younger generation, young people, tend to get news in many different ways. Some from newspapers, but also many get their information online or on their cell phones. And I think that this is a generation that is used to doing things in quick ways, in short bites. And so there is a need to respond to that.

Jose Cardenas:
Your earlier comments seem to suggest that the ethical issues which have been on prominent display for journalists with the Valerie Plame and the trials we've just had for Scooter Libby, they've been in the papers. But you seem to suggest that it's a bigger issue, a more difficult issue as it relates to the internet. How so?

Jim Crutchfield:
Oh It's absolutely a bigger issue. I'm not trying to minimize, I wouldn't minimize the issues in the Valerie Plame case or in any of the other ethical issues or breaches that have occurred in the newspaper industry of the past several years. But this is an issue that's been well, what we're seeing on the internet, particularly, is that there's access for everybody and anybody. And you don't really have to have strong ethics to put information in the public sphere. And what's happening is that I believe that over the long-term the survivors, the people who will reach readers and will be the ones who are considered ethical and credible.

Jose Cardenas:
But they'll be reaching them in a much more fragmented fashion. The newspapers despite the decline in readership, still it's a broad-based medium whereas now we're seeing the influence of blogs and people go to a particular preferred source. How is that going to affect the ethical issues?

Jim Crutchfield:
Well, I would say you're absolutely right. Newspapers are still the last mass medium. And I think that online there is a lot more fragmentation. But I think out of that fragmentation there will arise media that are considered much more reliable. I mean, we see this in every sort of fragmentation. It's not just in the media world. There are lots of products on the grocery shelf. And people come by and pick some more than others because they learn to rely on them.

Jose Cardenas:
Professor Crutchfield, thank you for joining us on "Horizon". Good luck on the lecture tonight.

Jim Crutchfield:
Thank you very much, I enjoyed it.

Mike Sauceda:
Sub prime lending was all the rage during the housing boom. But now as monthly payments escalate sub prime lending could be causing more foreclosures. And an employer sanctions bill for hiring illegal immigrants was passed by the white house last week, the same day it fired an illegal immigrant in its employ. Find out more Thursday at 7:00 on "Horizon".

Jose Cardenas:
And Friday don't forget to join us for the journalists' roundtable. That's the Wednesday edition of "Horizon". Thank you for sharing your time with us.

Announcer:
If you have comments about "Horizon", please contact us at the addresses listed on your screen. Your name and comments may be used on a future edition of "Horizon". "Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the friends of eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

PJ O’Rourke


  • A conversation with author and satirist P.J. O’Rourke about his new book, “On The Wealth Of Nations."
Guests:
  • David Waid - Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party
  • P.J. O'Rourke - Satirist, journalist and author
  • Jim Crutchfield - Visiting professor at the ASU Cronkite School and former editor of the Akron Beacon Journal


View Transcript
José Cárdenas:
Tonight on "Horizon", the head of the State Democratic Party joins us to talk about recent successes at the polls, and what's ahead in the 2008 election. A free-market conversation with libertarian and author P.J. O'Rourke on his new book on Adam Smith. And we'll speak with a national figure in Print Journalism, in town to talk about newspapers and ethics. That's next on "Horizon".

Announcer:
"Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the "Friends of Eight", members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

José Cárdenas:
Good evening and thanks for joining us tonight on "Horizon". I'm José Cárdenas. The Arizona Democratic Party saw some gains this past election in the Arizona House and Senate, and the election of Harry Mitchell in the Fifth Congressional District. As Republicans try to regroup, looking at immigration as a potential wedge issue in subsequent elections, Democrats are also looking forward to the 2008 Election. Joining us now is the Chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, David Waid. David, welcome to "Horizon".

David Waid:
Thank you.

José Cárdenas:
Let's begin with something that's in the news as we speak. And that is the whole issue of the replacement of several US Attorneys, including Paul Charlton of Arizona. I understand that you sent a letter to the potential successor, Diane Hometawa, I think it is, asking about the investigation of Congressman Renzi. Can you elaborate on that?

David Waid:
You bet. We actually, I sent a letter to not only her, but to the Chairman and Ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, because there is a pattern that has emerged in these US attorney firings that, number one, there is a creation of a list that's essentially a blacklist of US attorneys. Six of eight of these US attorneys were investigating Republican officeholders, and were fired. In the case of the US attorney here in Arizona, Paul Charlton, we now know that he was fired, he was not on the list originally. He instigated an investigation into Congressman Rick Renzi of Northern Arizona, and subsequently was put on the list to be fired. So, there seems to be a real connection between the politics of this, and the decisions that these people are making, in terms of what investigations follow, and the actual firings. So, that is a cause of great concern for us. So what I asked was that this nominee say for the record that she was not actually pressured to drop the investigation in return for the appointment. And I called upon the Senate Judiciary Committee to look closely at this questioning both Department of Justice officials and in fact, this nominee, to make sure that's the case.

José Cárdenas:
Other than the sequence of events as you describe them, is there any other reason to believe that investigation had anything to do with Paul Charlton losing his job?

David Waid:
Well, you know, unfortunately, there's a little bit of a screen between us and the facts, and that is the White House at this point. And certainly, they've take even position where they won't let any of their folks talk under oath or on transcript. So we don't have 100\% facts. But what has happened is that the Senate Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed e-mails. And from these e-mails we can now see there was a point at which, now this is after the firings were decided, that there was a conversation going on to determine what was the reason for the firing. And since that was taking place after the firing, it really just sort of calls into question what was the real reason for it. And I don't think that they still, after weeks of going back and forth, as to why these US attorneys were targeted for dismissal. I don't think they've really landed on what their final answer is.

José Cárdenas:
Closer to home, we had your counterpart, Randy Pullen, on "Horizon" on Monday night. We talked about Proposition 200, Proposition 300, both of which he had a role in even before becoming Chairman of the Republican Party. What's the Democratic Party's position on those two Propositions, what we've seen so far, and immigration issues in general?

David Waid:
Well, I mean, on immigration issues, I'd say, you know, our position has been really pretty consistent, which is we want to make sure that there is very tough enforcement at the border. I think pretty much all Arizonans agree that that's a -- you know, you can't go anywhere without first addressing getting control of the border. But then, the second thing is, we want to make sure that they are actually enforceable laws, both on the federal and state level, that there are in fact resources made available to help the Sheriffs in those Counties that are most affected by it. That's been a big problem in the past with some of the Republican proposals. And that is that they have put all sorts of unfunded mandates so they could look good because they were passing laws on immigration, but in fact they were Paper Tigers because there was no dollars to make it possible for some of these strapped, stretched-thin border sheriffs.

José Cárdenas:
What are your priorities in the year-plus that we've got leading up to the primary and the general elections next year?

David Waid:
Well, you know, I think that we want to make sure that, you know, the state retains the Democratic pickups that we had. As you said, we had a great year last year. We picked up six seats, I believe it was, in the House, a seat in the Senate. And this was in a year in which we were told Republicans were going to win a veto-proof majority. And that turned out to be, in fact, directly the opposite of that. We also picked up not just one Congressional seat, but two, because we picked up Harry Mitchell in Tempe, but we also picked up Gabrielle Giffords down in Southern Arizona. So these were really big wins for the Arizona Party. And I think they come from, essentially, the Democrats that we had, like governor Napolitano and Terry Goddard, talking genuinely to voters about issues they cared about. And I hate to say it, but that's kind of a refreshing change for folks here, because they're been used to being talked at with things like these sort of border proposals that have come in the past that don't end up doing anything, look good, they're very politically slick, but they don't actually provide any help on the ground. So, actually I think that our Democrats are committed to actually governing, addressing some these problems in a very serious and straightforward manner. And I think if they can do that, then when it comes time for re-election, they will all win re-election and in fact, we'll probably pick up some additional seats.

José Cárdenas:
What do you think is so important, and the republicans have suggested that in the last elections, you had so much money going on the Republican side into Senator Kyl's campaign, and then you had on the Democratic side, the reasonnumbers look so big was because Jim Pederson was putting his own pocketbook out there, and that they actually did fairly well when you account for that. What do you say to that?

David Waid:
I say that, you know, anytime I hear -- I am constantly hearing why it is that the Republicans lost or why it was that there was some trick as to how we in fact out-raised them in terms of the dollars. And there's tons of reasons I've heard for it, all given by Republicans, and all fairly well, you know, whatever, excuses for how they ended up coming behind in some of these things. But the bottom line is this: The Arizona Democratic Party out-raised the Republicans by a margin of 3-to-1. And that's without any money from Jim Pederson. So really, the dollar thing was good for Democrats, but it's not the end-all in these elections, obviously. And money it important, but it's certainly not the end-all. And I think you can have money and still lose elections. It is important to us to raise the dollars so our folks can compete. But it is also important that we stay right on the issues and stay tough on the issues that Arizonans care about. And they did that brilliantly this last election cycle. I'd say our democratic candidate. And I know we're going to do that this time. Finally democrats have been given a chance to show what they can do in leadership. We've seen it in Governor Napolitano and in congress where democrats took over and the first 100 hours in the house they passed more legislation than I think the entire last congressional session. And so democrats are doing and I think really trying to show what we're made of.

Jose Cardenas:
We're almost out of time. Just one last question. Do the democrats have a realistic chance of getting control of the house and senate in the next set of elections?

David Waid:
Oh, absolutely. A, yes, there is a realistic chance. We know where those seats are. We have strong candidates. We have the dollars to put in play for them. And we're going to just provide everything that we can. And I think we can get much the same results as we did last time. If we get similar results as we did in 2006 we will in fact be in the majority in both houses of the legislature. I expect that. That's what I'm working towards for 2008.

Jose Cardenas:
David Waid, chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, thanks for joining us on "Horizon".

David Waid:
Thank you so much.

Jose Cardenas:
P.J. O'Rourke is a noted satirist, journalist and author. He's best known for his time as editor of National Lampoon Magazine, and as author of such books as "Eat the Rich" and "Parliament of Whores". O'Rourke was in the valley recently as a guest of the Goldwater Institute, talking about his new book, "On the Wealth of Nations". Larry Lemmons spoke with O'Rourke at the Scottsdale Plaza Resort.

Larry Lemmons:
Well, Mr. O'Rourke, I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for reading "Wealth of Nations," so that I didn't have to.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Anytime. Well not anytime. It took a year and a half. It took a year and a half to do.

Larry Lemmons:
900 pages?

P.J. O'Rourke:
900 very dense pages.

Larry Lemmons:
Would you offer something of a primer on Adam Smith in case people don't realize the significance of the invisible hand? And weren't there three parts to his theory?

P.J. O'Rourke:
It's basically, there are basically three principles to it. Well, to move back a little bit, what Smith did was he took economics, which was a larvel field in the 18th century and very confused, there are a lot of confused ideas about economics. And it wasn't really that Smith invented so many new things. But he systematized what was known and he showed the known from the unknown from the unknowable and the right from the wrong. He cleaned it up. He organized and systematized economics. And he invented the concept of gross domestic product. And he showed that all economic growth is based on pursuit of self-interest, division of labor, what we would call specialization, and freedom of trade. And by freedom of trade he didn't mean just importing cheap plush toys from China. He meant my ability to exchange the goods and services that I produce for the good and services that you produce.

Larry Lemmons:
Like a basic bartering.

P.J. O'Rourke:
A basic bartering. Just without undue interference, without somebody coming in there because of their wealth, because of their physical strength, because of their religious prestige or their government whatever, coming in between us when I want to trade a bushel of barley for half a pig, you know?

Larry Lemmons:
But is that kind of free market philosophy still relevant in a globalized economy?

P.J. O'Rourke:
Oh, absolutely necessary in a world of globalization. This is not to say that it's not going to have its problems. Smith was quick to point out that when you change things like trade barriers, you have to be careful not to do this too suddenly. Because people have built their plans and set their futures, made their investments according to a set of rules that they think are going to continue to exist. And you can't just change those rules on them overnight. This was reflected in some of the problems that NAFTA caused to small Mexican farmers. Of course, now corn is too expensive. And that's causing problems in Mexico.

Larry Lemmons:
Expensive tortillas. Yeah.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Yeah. But a little while ago it was too cheap, and that was causing problems. I'm not quite sure what the answer to all this is. But you have to have free trade in order to expand the market to as large an extent as possible. Because basically, only two ways to increase wealth. And one is to increase technological developments. And the other is to increase the extent or these technological developments can be applied. And so we need Smith's free trade principles. But we also need to be aware that individual lives are disturbed by changes in rules. And so we've got to allow to that for a certain extent.

Larry Lemmons:
Now some would argue there's really no such thing as free trade, I mean all governments manipulate their economy to some degree.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Oh, absolutely true. I mean, governments will interfere in economies. Even the most non-interfering of governments like the government of Hong Kong, for instance, interferes in the economy of housing prices, and also in land ownership. A lot of the land in the Hong Kong special administration region is actually owned by the Hong Kong government. And they've offset government deficits for years by selling that land little bit by little bit. And they also do a lot to control the lower income housing costs. So here's the most non-interfering government in the world. Singapore is another one. And they still interfere. So no, there's never such a thing as a free market. I mean, it's like being a good person. It's something that you try to move towards. It's not something you're ever going to achieve. I don't mean, you personally.

Larry Lemmons:
You never know.

Larry Lemmons:
But speaking of that, I've heard in previous interviews that, well, of course you've always been a proponent of the free market, very much about individualism.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Yeah.

Larry Lemmons:
But until you did the research you hadn't really understood Adam Smith's moral message.

P.J. O'Rourke: One of the most interesting things parts about reading the "The Wealth of Nations" was not the "The Wealth of Nations", it was actually about "Theory of Moral Sentiments," his previous book. And it's in "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" that Smith talks about man's moral condition, and the Wealth of nations" about man's material condition. And "the wealth of nations" read all on its own can seem a rather cold-blooded rather a cold-hearted book. But that's because smith assumes you've already read his previous, and at that time better-known book, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments." And I knew that there were moral -- that there was a moral side to this. But it wasn't really brought home to me, I don't think, until I read Adam smith, to really realize how much free trade has to do with our own property rights and ourselves, with our own freedom. The important part of free trade is the free part of free trade, not so much the trade part of free trade. That division of labor that it has to do with our freedom of choice to do what we want to do to learn the skills that we want to learn to undertake the job that we want to take. That it's all about personal liberties that pursuit of self-interest has to do with noninterference of other people in our affairs. That we shouldn't be shoved around, much more than it has to do with greed or acquisition.

Larry Lemmons:
You're here for the Goldwater institute.

P.J. O'Rourke:
I am here for the Goldwater Institute.

Larry Lemmons:
Named of course for Barry Goldwater, an icon of libertarianism and free enterprise. I'd like to get your thoughts on the man.

P.J. O'Rourke:
I didn't understand him very well at the time. I mean I'm old enough to remember, vividly, I was in high school when Goldwater campaigned for president. And I didn't really understand what he was getting at. I was in kind of a larval stage of political opinion. I was sort of all over the place. I had certainly leftist thoughts and sort of world federalist sort of ideas. But certain sort of libertarian ideas at the same time. I was just kind of confused. And I didn't really appreciate Goldwater when he was on the scene. It wasn't until years later that I began to realize that what Goldwater had, and it's of course what Reagan had, too, was the ability to sell a very difficult point of view to the public. Obviously Reagan was better at it than Goldwater. But it couldn't have been done if Barry Goldwater hadn't laid the foundation. What Ronald Reagan did couldn't have been done. And what these guys did was to take the idea of freedom and responsibility and sell it to the public in place of what most politicians usually do, which is to tell the public the government will give you all sorts of wonderful benefits and it really won't cost you much at all. In fact, you'll benefit, net benefit. We're just going to do wonderful, great things for you. And Reagan and Goldwater were able to say to the public, you're going to do great things for yourself. What we are going to give you is, and all we're going to give you is a system to protect your right to go out there and do wonderful things for yourself. We are going to protect your freedoms, we are going to extend your freedoms. But we're not going to give you a bunch of stuff, that you've got to go get for yourself. And that's a hard sell. It's a hard sell. You know it was Goldwater who broke through, you know. No previous conservative had ever really tried this. Previous conservatives in American politics, like Calvin Coolidge, were simply relied upon the human's innate hatred of change. And it was kind of like a leave me alone. We don't want another buttinski like that Wilson guy another poke nose like Teddy Roosevelt. You know just leave people alone. Leave me alone. And the underlying aspect of that conservativism also holds in place bigotries of traditional society keeps women down and minorities down. It gives tacit approval to all sorts of discrimination. And that Goldwater didn't ever do. It was all about freedom and the responsibility that goes with freedom. It was a positive, not a negative sell of conservativism. And wow what a genius.

Larry Lemmons:
What are your thoughts on the 2008 presidential election? Is there anyone out there who interests you?

P.J. O'Rourke:
Well, there is in one sense. I know John Mccain personally, and I trust him personally, and I think the world of John, I really do. It doesn't mean I agree with him, a whole bunch of stuff I don't agree with him about. But he would have my vote just because I know the guy and you know I think that he's tough and he's honest.

Larry Lemmons:
P.J. O'Rourke we appreciate the time you spent with us today.

P.J. O'Rourke:
Thank you for having me on.

Jose Cardenas:
It's been more than a year since former Arizona republic editor Paul Schatt died at the age of 60. Schatt worked at the paper for more than 40 years, and taught journalism classes at Arizona State University for 30 years. Both the paper and Schatt's widow, Laura Schatt, gave money for the Paul J. Schatt lecture series, put on by the Walter Cronkite school of journalism and mass communication at Arizona State University. The lecture is being held tonight and is titled "Newspapers Under Siege: Ethics on the Firing Line." Jim Crutchfield is one of the featured journalists - a visiting professor at the Cronkite School and former editor of the Akron Beacon Journal. Joining me now to discuss the lecture series and issues affecting papers today is Jim Crutchfield.

Jose Cardenas:
Jim welcome to "Horizon".

Jim Crutchfield:
Thank you.

Jose Cardenas:
Tell us first a little bit about Paul Schatt and the lecture series.

Jim Crutchfield:
Well I don't know Paul Schatt. I'm new to the Phoenix area, new to Arizona. What I do know is that he was a fine journalist and a fine teacher at Arizona State University. And this lecture series is to be consistent with that fine reputation.

Jose Cardenas:
What are you going to be talking about?

Jim Crutchfield:
We're going to talk about the future of newspapers. And this is a tough time for newspapers. This is a transitional time as we go into the next century. There are lots of forces changing the way we do things in the newspaper business. And we're going to talk about how there's a need for newspapers to maintain their ethics at a time when the online world is the equivalent of the old Wild West, where there aren't a whole lot of ethics necessarily online. And how newspapers, both on paper and on the internet, need to be very credible, ethical sources of news and information.

Jose Cardenas:
On the subject of changes, we just had this week the major newspaper here, The Arizona Republic, go to an entirely -- not entirely but a much different Monday format, shrinking the paper, they say in response to a different kind of demand by the readers of the Monday paper. Your thoughts on that.

Jim Crutchfield:
Well, I think that there is good reason to think that our readers are much more time-stressed than they used to be, that actually that's true not just on Monday. That's true probably Monday through Sunday if not just Monday through Saturday. And frankly, I think what the republic is doing is some experimentation to try to see how it can respond to the needs of readers. I think there as I said, people are commuting long distances in the morning, more and more here. And there's a need to get news to people in ways that they can consume it.

Jose Cardenas:
Well, how much of this is time stress as opposed to just a generational difference in how people approach the news and their appreciation for it?

Jim Crutchfield:
Oh, I think it's both. I mean, clearly the younger generation, young people, tend to get news in many different ways. Some from newspapers, but also many get their information online or on their cell phones. And I think that this is a generation that is used to doing things in quick ways, in short bites. And so there is a need to respond to that.

Jose Cardenas:
Your earlier comments seem to suggest that the ethical issues which have been on prominent display for journalists with the Valerie Plame and the trials we've just had for Scooter Libby, they've been in the papers. But you seem to suggest that it's a bigger issue, a more difficult issue as it relates to the internet. How so?

Jim Crutchfield:
Oh It's absolutely a bigger issue. I'm not trying to minimize, I wouldn't minimize the issues in the Valerie Plame case or in any of the other ethical issues or breaches that have occurred in the newspaper industry of the past several years. But this is an issue that's been well, what we're seeing on the internet, particularly, is that there's access for everybody and anybody. And you don't really have to have strong ethics to put information in the public sphere. And what's happening is that I believe that over the long-term the survivors, the people who will reach readers and will be the ones who are considered ethical and credible.

Jose Cardenas:
But they'll be reaching them in a much more fragmented fashion. The newspapers despite the decline in readership, still it's a broad-based medium whereas now we're seeing the influence of blogs and people go to a particular preferred source. How is that going to affect the ethical issues?

Jim Crutchfield:
Well, I would say you're absolutely right. Newspapers are still the last mass medium. And I think that online there is a lot more fragmentation. But I think out of that fragmentation there will arise media that are considered much more reliable. I mean, we see this in every sort of fragmentation. It's not just in the media world. There are lots of products on the grocery shelf. And people come by and pick some more than others because they learn to rely on them.

Jose Cardenas:
Professor Crutchfield, thank you for joining us on "Horizon". Good luck on the lecture tonight.

Jim Crutchfield:
Thank you very much, I enjoyed it.

Mike Sauceda:
Sub prime lending was all the rage during the housing boom. But now as monthly payments escalate sub prime lending could be causing more foreclosures. And an employer sanctions bill for hiring illegal immigrants was passed by the white house last week, the same day it fired an illegal immigrant in its employ. Find out more Thursday at 7:00 on "Horizon".

Jose Cardenas:
And Friday don't forget to join us for the journalists' roundtable. That's the Wednesday edition of "Horizon". Thank you for sharing your time with us.

Announcer:
If you have comments about "Horizon", please contact us at the addresses listed on your screen. Your name and comments may be used on a future edition of "Horizon". "Horizon" is made possible by contributions from the friends of eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

Content Partner: