By JOHN NORTH

Two political commentators and authors from opposite ends of the political spectrum squared off during a “Red vs. Blue” debate last Thursday night at The Asheville School.

More than 300 people packed TAS’s Graham Theatre to witness the often witty verbal sparring between conservative Jonah Goldberg and liberal Peter Beinart. TAS, founded in 1900, is a private boarding school with around 240 students in grades nine through 12.

The political commentators, touted for their lively and enlightened discussions of contemporary world affairs, arrived in the midst of rip-roaring Democratic presidential primaries. As expected, the debate offered a vivid discussion of differing opinions in American politics.

The debate’s moderator was Archibald R. Montgomery IV, the school’s headmaster.

The two commentators were introduced by John Gregory, director of the school’s humanities department, who noted that, “perhaps most importantly, these guys are good friends ... and they disagree in a respectful way.”

That same theme came up much later, when Gregory closed the program by pointing out, “I hope you noted that neither of these men resorted to personal attacks ... If nothing else, take that away ....”

At the program’s opening, Gregory said Goldberg is a contributing editor to conservative magazine National Review and founding editor of National Review Online, billed as the most widely read magazine and website for Republican and conservative news, commentary and opinion.

Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Hegel to Whole Foods,” published in January, is listed on The New York Times’ bestseller lists. “Liberal Fascism” compares the historical similarities between liberal “political correctness” and campaign finance reform in American politics with Nazi suppression of free speech and its centralization of all economic decision-making.

When Goldberg later spoke, he noted his “bio is a little out of date — and I’m currently a columnist for The Los Angeles Times.”

Further, he quipped, “When the Times announced that I was hired as a columnist, (singer-actress) Barbra Streisand very publicly canceled her subscription” in protest.

As for Beinart, Gregory pointed out that he is an editor-at-large of liberal news magazine The New Republic and writer of its weekly TRB Column, which is reprinted in the New York Post and other newspapers. The New Republic prides itself on providing its readers with “an intelligent, stimulating and rigorous examination of American politics, foreign policy and culture.”

Beinart published “The Good Fight: Why Liberals — and Only Liberals — Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again” in May 2006.

The men debated for 30 minutes, answered questions for 45 minutes and wrapped up with 15 minutes of closing statements.

Beinart, who was called on to open the debate, stated that “liberals and conservatives in America today, in fact, agree on a lot. Both agree on the government’s role to protect freedom ... Indeed, both camps are children of the Enlightenment.”

He added, “The disagreement is how you protect freedom.”

Beinart said conservatives tend to be more pessimistic than liberals. He attributed this to conservatives’ beliefs in a small government,  that “people are basically selfish and that “cooperation doesn’t work.”

In contrast, “Liberals tend to be more optimistic about the potential for human cooperation ... They believe you are more free as an individual if people band together in a cooperative way.”

Meanwhile, “Conservatives feel that because government is so big and powerful, people are not free.” Beinart cited the example of North Korea. “And they’re right” in that case, he said.

“But there’s also examples, such as in Africa, where government is too weak — and people aren’t free.”

In his opening statement, Goldberg joked,  “Good evening, ladies and gentlemen! I arrived (for the debate at The Asheville School) under sniper fire — at least that’s how I remember it.” The audience laughed at Goldberg’s playful poke at Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign claim that she later attributed to a memory lapse.

While Goldberg agreed that American conservatives and liberals were both children of the enlightenment, he said he took exception to liberals’ propensity to “especially take that mantle.”

Regarding Beinart, Goldberg asserted, “Peter  calls himself a liberal, when, in reality, he’s a progressive.”

Further, he said, “I would argue that progressivism is anti-enlightenment — a group of priests who take power to force people to do what they want them to do.

“This idea that conservatives are driven by a belief in selfishness or that conservatives don’t believe in cooperation” is erroneous. “They do” believe in cooperation, Goldberg said of conservatives. “What we don’t like is the invocation of words like ‘cooperation’” to justify the government’s seizure of one’s property.

He also said conservatives tend to outscore liberals significantly on tests of optimism by researchers.

What’s more, Goldberg said, “Let’s remember: the state, at the end of the day, has a monopoly on violence — and it can actually kill you” via capital punishment.

“I would argue that conservatism is really the child of the Enlightenment. What we’re trying to conserve is a radical revolution for liberty.”

During what he termed the progressive era, conservatives in the United States “were trying to conserve” the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and other legal strictures and concepts that were enacted by the Founding Fathers.

Contrary to Beinart’s definition, Goldberg argued that conservatives emphasize the rights of the individual over the “collective.”

He said there were two political traditions that emerged from the Enlightenment —  of Jean Jacques Rousseau (1718-1778), a Swiss-born French philosopher; and John Locke (1632-1704). an English philosopher.

Goldberg termed Rousseau, whose ideas inspired the French Revolution, as being a proponent that “the collective comes first and the individual second.”

In contrast, Locke, whose ideas were the main inspiration for the American Revolution, said that “the individual comes first and the collective second,” according to Goldberg.

U.S. liberals tend to follow Rousseau’s admonition, while conservatives favor Locke’s ideas, he claimed.

“I fall with John Locke’s conservative vision — hopefully, for the rest of my life,” Goldberg said.

In rebuttal, Beinart responded, “I think there’s a few problems with what Jonah says.”

First, he said, “There’s no commonly accepted definition of ‘progressive,’ despite Jonah’s view.”

And while he sympathizes with Goldberg’s preference for pushing decision-making in a democracy to the lowest-possible level, “There are problems that are so big they can’t be solved by your local YMCA, or by some people meeting in a church basement,” such as a war.

Beinart also marveled at “the talk of government, as conservatives do, as this alien force that’s out of control ... We do control it.”

“The founders (Founding Fathers) were remarkable people, but surely Jonah doesn’t support some of the hideous, brutal practices” of their time “that were overcome with blood, sweat and tears.”

Beinart alluded to slavery as one example of a practice that was widely supported during the era of the Founding Fathers.

“Conservatives believe in conserving — and there are things we want to keep and preserve,” Beinart noted. Notwithstanding, change often is merited and demanded as times change, he said.

If the demand for change is bottled up, history has shown that eventually it will come boiling out, often in violent ways, Beinart said, arguing that “liberalism is, in fact, the best antidote to revolution.”

He reiterated, “Unless people are able to change things, they’ll blow the whole thing up ... People will not sit idly by with no change — they’ll blow up. So liberals, in a sense, are the best friends of conservatives” because they provide a relief valve for change that enables a society to continue operating.

As for Goldberg’s reference to “pure democracy,” Beinart noted that it does not — and never has — existed in the U.S. “and I pray we never will. It means 51 percent of the people can pee on the Corn Flakes of the other 49 percent.” He asserted that it is the Supreme Court’s job “to quash democracy and protect the minority, too.”

He added, “Sometimes, majorities are ‘frickin’ wrong,” pointing to slavery that was once practiced in the U.S.

In a final rebuttal, Goldberg said Bienhartt wrong in saying “the Constitution is anything we want to be — that it’s a ‘living’ Constitution.” Instead, Goldberg said he believes it is a brilliant document that should be kept intact and protacted from “the secular priests of the Supreme Court.”

With time running out in the debate portion of the program, Goldberg made once last jab at liberalism and what he termed its propensity to make changes in documents like the Constitution, Goldberg said, “As a conservative, I actually believe words have meaning.”