sophistry and klatsch

On Liberal Fascism...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:36:00 +0000

I've been meaning to post these two emails for a while. They represent the begining of an email conversation with Jonah Goldberg on his book Liberal Fascism and the end.

1/16/2008
Hello Jonah,
I was at your talk last night at Borders. I asked the last question about whether the way you discuss fascism drains it of its meaning and its specific interwar context. I wasn't really satisfied with your answer (though some of it was helpful), but I realize that a forum like that isn't really the place to hash these sorts of issues, so I don't hold it against you. Since you have been responding to criticism on your blog, I wonder if you would respond to a few questions.

I really do get the impression (from reading half your book and your talk) that you see the political spectrum running from classical liberalism to fascism. (And everything in between as some flavor of fascism, be it smiley fascism or not). Even if you can show that some people the in 60s etc. worshipped violence and had disdain for bourgeois values, to my mind they are extreme, and fine, talk about similarities with fascism. But it seems to me you need to do it with each case, because I don't see it as helpful to label someone like, say, Paul Krugman as a fascist. He is not fascinated with violence, does not denounce bourgeois values or any such thing, he basically thinks there should be a relatively larger welfare state (as do I) and other than that he accepts elections, believes in the rule of law, etc. I just wonder why renaming statism or collectivism or pro-welfare state ideas "fascism" is helpful? Even if you can show affinity in certain radicals in the 60s (or with the Wilson administration), renaming all of this fascism takes it out of its context and is bound to raise hackles unnecessarily--I think this relates to the criticism you have received in the blogosphere. For example, under your definitions, how do I characterize John Stewart Mill? I am a liberal and have read a good chunk of his Principles of Political Economy. I quite agree with a lot of it. But even though he is a sturdy member the Anglo tradition and by most definitions is something of liberal (just one who is willing to use the state against inequality, for example), according to your scale, as far as I can see, he is a fascist--or maybe a utilitarian fascist?

In response to my question at the talk you mentioned "classical fascism," which you also mention in the book. I still think this is problematic. If we look at the Weimar Republic, according to your way of looking at things, you had fascist communists and (classical?) fascist Nazis trying to undermine the fundamentally fascist Weimar Republic and the fascist Social Democratic Party. I hope you see why this is unhelpful.

I realize your book is an attempt to place fascism on the left. It seems a reasonable-ish argument to make for what you call "classical fascism" (i.e. fascism of the interwar era), because fascism was such a hodgepodge of ideas and socialism and anti-capitalism were without a doubt part of that mix. (Even though there I do think you wriggle out of really thinking hard about why the ideas of Action Francaise, for example, or Franco (who, I seem to recall wasn't exactly vilified by National Review) aren't at some level also "conservative"--if not Adam Smith classical liberals, but they certainly had ways of looking at an idealized traditional past invoking a Catholic ideal.) I think your argument would be stronger, however, if you weren't tempted to bring that to the present. Now, I know you don't like people like Naomi Klein calling conservatives fascist--well, neither do I--but that doesn't really excuse calling people like me or even "compassionate conservatives" some flavor of fascist. Why not just stick with libertarian definitions, if that is how you want to look at it? That is why I think you have drained fascism of useful meaning.
Best,

10/11/2008
Dear Jonah,

In your blogpost response to Michael Moynihan's review of your book you admit that he makes some good points, but dismiss at least one criticism, and, explicitly some others (though clearly, you are leaving that up to interpretation) by saying: "There are a few other spots where Michael seems to want be so even-handed he offers strawmanish criticisms of my book."

I hope you do not include this part as "strawmannish:"

"While Hillary Clinton’s 1993 attempt at a government takeover of health care was disastrous and destined to failure, why view it as a failed bit of fascism rather than a failed attempt at generically Scandinavian socialism? And if the Clinton health care plan was socialist, does that mean that it was also fascist because, after all, both Nazi Germany and fascist Italy were economically left-wing? Is statism automatically fascism?

It is here that Goldberg’s book ultimately fails to convince. A jaunt through modern Sweden, for instance, would find an economy hobbled by state intervention and government agencies that talk endlessly about the health of the community—the folkhem, a term redolent of the Nazi concept of volksgemeinschaft. But if we then broaden the meaning of fascism to include social democratic Sweden, one wonders what country in Europe wouldn’t qualify. In his attempt to reappropriate the insult from the left, Goldberg has further diluted a term that was already almost unrecognizable."

This has been my critique as well, which I wrote to you long ago, and you have never, in any form--either from me or your reviewers such as Moynihan--responded to. I waited to judge your book until I had read it; I haven't dismissed it all; but I do believe with Moynihan, it "ultimately fails to convince." You wanted to write something both popular and academically defensible, but I am afraid you have failed. It doesn't surprise me that many (conservative) people across the country are excited to learn that liberals are the real fascists. But, as Moynihan says, and I say, by making everything into fascism you have explained nothing. If modern Germany, Britain and Sweden are fascist; if the Democratic Party is fascist; if "compassionate Conservatives" are fascist; then, honestly, what good is your book anyway? Also, your insistence that these ideas are imported is pretty silly. The simple fact of the matter is that some form of social democracy can be explained and exists within the Anglo-American liberal tradition: I am thinking of J.S. Mill (see especially his book on Political Economy) and J.M. Keynes--the latter of whom you smear in your book by the way: try actually reading the (Tory!) Lord Skidelsky's wonderful biography of Keynes where he addresses your claims regarding eugenics head-on (before they even existed).

Congratulations then on making some money and influencing public dialogue; you have duly revenged yourself for all those times some ignorant leftist called you a fascist. Bravo.

Best,

The Jews? Big Fiat Money? Tango and Cash?

noreply@blogger.com (Anthony Cantor) — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:28:00 +0000

During the 2008 primary season, I argued on numerous blogs with gold bugs--drawn to any blog post that mentioned gold, the Fed, or monetary policy like Paulites to tin-foil hats--who insisted that we naysayers would all eat our hats when Ron Paul (say, isn't he a doctor or something?) emerged victorious in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond. (He raised more money in a single day than anyone, ever! People who believe the 16th amendment was never ratified are the new silent majority!)

I've given the Paulites over a year to ponder this, and like all good conspiracy theorists--beware the Amero!--I'm sure they've identified the nefarious forces that stopped destiny's march to force a crown of Rothbard upon our heads.

I know you guys have mastered Google Alerts and thus found your way here, so...spill the beans! Who was it?!

Brooks in a nut shell

noreply@blogger.com (Brian Urlacher) — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:22:00 +0000

Let’s summarize David Brook’s insightful column.

1) Republicans over emphasize individualism and under emphasize community

2) Most people recognize that communities are an important part of their quality of life.

3) Republican pathological devotion to hyper-individualism puts them out of touch with the vast majority of the country (except rural Wyoming)

4) There are two basic visions of how to build community: top down planning, which is the “socialist” or “liberal” model and bottom up empowerment, which incidentally is what Democrats have pushed for the last 18 years.

In conclusion, if Republican’s want to win they need to become more like modern Democrats.

Economic illiterates waste the nation's time, stalling recovery

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 22:15:00 +0000

Steven Pearlstein suggests that as part of the stimulus package the government should subsidize "personal economic trainers" for legislators in Washington. I agree completely--especially for the Republicans, who are taking advice from Joe the Plumber, and "moderate" Senators of both parties who supported these changes to the Senate version of the Stimulus Bill:

Under the new plan, tax credits of up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples would begin to phase out at lower income levels than first proposed, saving the government $2 billion.

The biggest cut, roughly $40 billion in aid to states, was likely to spur a fierce fight in negotiations with the House over the final bill. Many states, hit hard by the recession, face wrenching cuts in services and layoffs of public employees as they struggle to comply with laws requiring them to balance their budgets...

In addition to the large cut in state aid, the Senate agreement would cut nearly $20 billion proposed for school construction; $8 billion to refurbish federal buildings and make them more energy efficient; $1 billion for the early childhood program Head Start; and $2 billion from a plan to expand broadband data networks in rural and underserved areas.

... Ms. Collins said she believed the changes had significantly improved the measure. Mr. Specter said that while he still had reservations, he had come to accept Mr. Obama’s push to enact the economic plan by mid-February. “I believe we do have to act,” Mr. Specter said, “and under the circumstances this is the best we can do.”

An economic advisor might have explained to Sens. Collins and Specter that 1. during a recession poorer people are more likely to spend and less likely to save checks from the government and are therefore more stimulative; 2. saving the jobs of state employees is quick and easy and stimulative; 3. school construction is stimulative and an investment in the future and refurbishing federal buildings and making them more energy efficient is stimulative and saves money over the longterm. These yahoos wasted our time for these "improvements?!"

News from the Commanding Heights...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:20:00 +0000

From today's Financial Times:

The US financial sector’s new political masters began exerting their influence on Tuesday as Citigroup was forced to scrap the purchase of a $50m executive jet that was seen as a misuse of money at a time when the bank is reliant on public support.

Only a day earlier, Citi had insisted it would complete the acquisition of the aircraft. But it backed down after officials acting for Tim Geithner, the new Treasury secretary, expressed strong opposition to the move.

Mr Geithner’s action came as he raced against time to change public perceptions of the government’s bank rescue effort – the troubled asset relief programme inherited from the Bush administration....Some Washington officials say they are amazed bythe financial sector’s tin ear to public sentiment at a time when it is heavily reliant on government aid.

One has to love the first sentence. Now, let's hope next on the agenda is telling them to lend damn it! And stop giving bonuses to executives with public money.

North Dakota: a nest of corruption

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:06:00 +0000

According to USA Today it is the most corrupt state in the union per-capita. Suddenly it becomes clear how our fellow blogger landed a position at UND...

Reading the WSJ

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 01:22:00 +0000

We Financial Times readers don't often get stories like this. Our mornings are more likely filled with ruminations about the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, or the world economy. The Wall Street Journal does that too (though not as well I would contend; and of course its reactionary op-ed page pales next to the brilliant pink (salmon?) of the FT), but one thing it does do well is cover business. I read that story on a plane the other day, and it struck me that I wasn't sure how I as a WSJ reader (for the day) was intended to respond to this:

"Daniel A. Gunther has good reason to keep his checkout line moving at the Meijer Inc. store north of Detroit. A clock starts ticking the instant he scans a customer's first item, and it doesn't shut off until his register spits out a receipt.

To assess his efficiency, the store's computer takes into account everything from the kinds of merchandise he's bagging to how his customers are paying. Each week, he gets scored. If he falls below 95% of the baseline score too many times, the 185-store megastore chain, based in Walker, Mich., is likely to bounce him to a lower-paying job, or fire him...

Interviews with cashiers at 16 Meijer stores suggest that its system has spurred many to hurry up -- and has dialed up stress levels along the way. Mr. Gunther, who is 22 years old, says he recently told a longtime customer that he couldn't chat with her anymore during checkout because he was being timed. "I was told to get people in and out," he says. Other cashiers say they avoid eye contact with shoppers and generally hurry along older or infirm customers who might take longer to unload carts and count money....

By calculating a standard time for each task, a retailer can more closely monitor worker performance and figure out how and where to reduce labor, the single biggest controllable expense in retail. OWO says its methods can often cut labor costs by 5% to 15%.

The approach is rooted in the time-motion theories of Frederick Taylor from the early 20th century, which were used to break down tasks into units to determine the maximum work a person could do. Harold B. Maynard, the company's founder, began his career in 1924 as a time-study engineer at Westinghouse, then formed his own company. For 70 years, that company worked primarily for manufacturers.
In 2000, after demand from manufacturing industries declined, the company shifted into retail. These days, about 80% of its $20 million in annual revenue comes from retail.

"As manufacturing gets shipped overseas, many people thought that would be the end of engineered standards," says John Lund, a professor of industrial engineering at an extension program for workers at the University of Wisconsin. "In fact, we are not seeing that at all. We are seeing a renaissance of engineered standards in the retail industry."

My initial reaction was to think of all sorts of 19th and 20th century touchstones. I thought of Max Weber's iron cage and Marx the younger (alienation) and elder ("Owing to the extensive use of machinery, and to the division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him." and "The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real condition of life and his relations with his kind.")

I can only assume that many a New York Times reader would have the same impression as I did were the article in the Times. But I can only surmise that a WSJ reader is intended to get a little thrill of discovery in a new more efficient system--even if the darker (and absurd: checkers explain how they cheat to make their times) sides are exposed within the text itself. There are practical reactions as well: Consider the CEO in a recent New Yorker profile of uber-optimist Thomas Friedman who admitted that when he read The World is Flat he started writing down names of firms in the outsourcing busines--since he figured he ought to be outsourcing too. By way of inference, I kind of assume that many WSJ readers will do the same with such an article. They figure that they ought to get their firms a state-of-the-art timing system to reduce costs (cost of labor in this case) in the service industry (or invest in firms that do etc.). And the thing is, they are right. If it makes the firms more "productive" without sacrificing too much in customer service (measured by higher profits after the "improvement" relative to what they would be without the system), then they should, and will. That is how the capitalist system works, after all: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." (Of course that will suck for both the customers and employees, but our complaints are insignificant in the face of that sort of logic.)

Palin, embodiment of Athenian democracy...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 17:21:00 +0000

I'll post this from the Corner without comment:

Stadium Star [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Palin didn't need Greek columns. People react to her because they believe she represents what the Greeks established.
10/18 11:13 AM

What is to be done?

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:39:00 +0000

I'm about to read this. If you are interested in policy suggestions for the financial crisis, give this a read:

null - Upload a Document to Scribd

I should add, however, that there is actually no point in speculating on the origins of the crisis, since, according to the McCain camp, it is ACORN and Obama's fault--quite an accomplishment, huh? Causing a worldwide meltdown in the financial markets is quite a feat for one man and a small organization.

An opening for the Obama administration...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 12:04:00 +0000

I think this American Life broke some news yesterday. (Link to show here, to summary article here.)

After explaining why a stock-injection plan is better than the Paulson plan:

Instead of just taking toxic assets off of banks' books, the U.S. government would directly inject capital into ailing firms. In return, the government — and taxpayers — would get an ownership share in the firms equal to the amount of their investment. "The taxpayers, the government become stockholders and owners of the banks," Davidson says.
How is that better? First of all, it's simply easier, because it avoids trying to find the right price for mortgage-backed securities whose value is impossible to pin down at the moment, Davidson explains. If you give $10 billion to a bank, you get a $10 billion share.
"A lot of the economists I talk to say it's just fairer," he says. "It's a better deal for the taxpayer."With the Paulson plan, the taxpayer ends up owning toxic assets of questionable value. If the mortgages bundled into these securities default, then the taxpayer is on the hook.
"In the stock-injection plan, we would not only own stock, we would own something called 'preferred stock,'" Davidson says. That means the taxpayer would be the last one to lose money, because the non-preferred shareholders would take the first losses. Taxpayers would be more protected and less likely to lose money, he says.

They drop this bit of news, which I hadn't heard anywhere else:

So it was surprising to learn on Friday that, despite intense opposition from the powerful banking lobby, language authorizing the government to use a stock-injection plan did make it into the final version of the bailout bill. The law does not make a stock-injection plan mandatory, but it does leave it as one option that the Treasury secretary can use when bailing out a distressed bank.

Let's hope Obama's Treasury Secretary notices.

Getting back to the really important stuff...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 00:09:00 +0000

No, not paying attention to the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, according to the Post the McCain folks think the really important stuff is Obama's liberal record:

"We are looking for a very aggressive last 30 days," said Greg Strimple, one of McCain's top advisers. "We are looking forward to turning a page on this financial crisis and getting back to discussing Mr. Obama's aggressively liberal record and how he will be too risky for Americans."

Postmodern Palin

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:48:00 +0000

Matt Yglesias links to an interesting blog comment:

Palin seems to have a "Message: I Care" problem. She gets too meta with her answers, wanting to explain - "I’m going to talk straight to the American people and show them my etc."; "I’m the new energy" - the symbolism of herself. For the apotheosis of Republican anti-intellectualism she’s determinedly postmodern, embedding the essay about her novel into the story as she tells it.

I have been thinking about this too, and basically agree, but I would put the emphasis elsewhere. I'll give a couple more examples of what she does, before I get to the meat of my thoughts. I started thinking about this during her first interview with Katie Couric:

Couric: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.

Palin: He's also known as the maverick though, taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about - the need to reform government.

He is “known” as the maverick—as though his image is what he is.

Here she is in the debate doing the same thing:

Palin: …And we're going to forge ahead with putting government back on the side
of the people and making sure that our country comes first, putting obsessive partisanship aside.

That's what John McCain has been known for in all these years. He has been the maverick. He has ruffled feathers.
...
Palin:
… Also, John McCain's maverick position that he's in, that's really prompt up to and indicated by the supporters that he has. Look at Lieberman, and Giuliani, and Romney, and Lingle, and all of us who come from such a diverse background of -- of policy and of partisanship, all coming together at this time, recognizing he is the man that we need to leave -- lead in these next four years, because these are tumultuous times.

Even here she while she is giving reasons why he is a maverick, it is still superficial, these people think he is a maverick—and therefore he must be. It is not explaining, however, what he does to make him so. At bottom, of course, it begs the question of why his mavericky-ness actually matters? Why should we care that he is a maverick?

Which reminds me of a famous E.J. Dionne column decrying conservative post-modernism:

“Conservative academics have long attacked "postmodernist" philosophies for
questioning whether "truth" exists at all and claiming that what we take as
"truths" are merely "narratives" woven around some ideological predisposition.
Today's conservative activists have become the new postmodernists. They shift
attention away from the truth or falsity of specific facts and allegations --
and move the discussion to the motives of the journalists and media
organizations putting them forward. Just a modest number of failures can be used
to discredit an entire enterprise.”

I agree with this; this thinking has become a cancer in the conservative movement, eating away any serious discussion of the issues (Why discuss when you can attack?). This debate proved another example as conservative activists attacked Gwen Ifill for supposedly being biased simply because they were worried that Palin would do poorly.

Palin, however, is not just using accusations of bias and power to obscure the truth of something, but rather I think she actually thinks in image and narrative. That is to say, she wants power, "believes" what she needs to "believe" to be a conservative, and thinks in terms of soundbites and show--that is substance of her politics. Obviously we all think in narrative, but most of us construct that narrative with relation to the facts. Besides being colored by our background, religious and political views, our narrative embraces a passion for certain things, certain projects, that actually matter to us. For example, many on the left actually worry about global warming or a continuing loss of good jobs for those who like to work with their hands. (Many conservatives, too, worry about the state infringing on their freedom and therefore work towards stopping that.) For projects we care about, the focus of our efforts is to actually improve, policy say, to help those people and things we care about. The motivation is to change something, to improve something, and not (only) use those projects to further our own ends. We all have mixed motives, but in the end we want to actually effect some sort of change.

I am becoming increasingly convinced that she doesn’t care about anything. It seems to me that politics is just another walk down the runway for her. Even though we can all see a will to power in politicians, she seems totally bereft of passion for something beyond herself. (Aside from her family, I am sure she loves her family and sees their flourishing as a project of hers.) At a minimum she doesn’t care about education for its own sake, and her inability to name a source of news that she regularly reads indicates anything she does care about is not an issue that affects the public. (Because after all, if your projects were public projects, wouldn't you read the newspaper? Wouldn't you have a plausible story about your life informing yourself--one, in fact, that should please both liberal and conservative elites?)

In any case Joe Biden effectively addressed Palin's superficiality and the entire maverick image question during the debate—in a way that to my mind destroys the premise that his alleged maverick-nature mattering:

BIDEN: I'll be very brief. Can I respond to that?

Look, the maverick -- let's talk about the maverick John McCain is. And, again, I love him. He's been a maverick on some issues, but he has been no maverick on the things that matter to people's lives.

He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget, which put us a half a trillion dollars in debt this year and over $3 trillion in debt since he's got there.
He has not been a maverick in providing health care for people. He has voted against -- he voted including another 3.6 million children in coverage of the existing health care plan, when he voted in the United States Senate.

He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college.
He's not been a maverick on the war. He's not been a maverick on virtually anything that genuinely affects the things that people really talk about around their kitchen table.

Can we send -- can we get Mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester? We can't -- we can't make it. How are we going to heat the -- heat the house this winter?

He voted against even providing for what they call LIHEAP, for assistance to people, with oil prices going through the roof in the winter. So maverick he is not on the important, critical issues that affect people at that kitchen table.

McCain’s Economic Plan For Nation: 'Everyone Marry A Beer Heiress'

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 18:48:00 +0000

McCainâ��s Economic Plan For Nation: 'Everyone Marry A Beer Heiress'

Hell hath no fury like a Letterman scorned...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 14:52:00 +0000

A sobering thought

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:08:00 +0000

In this time, when John McCain is recklessly injecting politics into the financial crisis by "not injecting politics" into the financial crisis; in this time when John McCain wants to cancel a debate--or move it to the time slotted for the VP debate--; in this time when John McCain wants to go to Washington and pretend he's a statesman, remember, John McCain nominated this woman to succeed him should something happen to him in office:

Watch CBS Videos Online

Henry meets Sarah

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:53:00 +0000

So anyway Henry, I said “Thanks, but no Thanks” to that Bridge to Nowhere, if we wanted a bridge we’d build it ourselves…

Today's financial crisis reading...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:20:00 +0000

David Leonhardt says: Issue Is Payback, Not Bailout

Martin Wolf says: Paulson’s plan was not a true solution to the crisis

I particularly liked this:

Now turn to the criteria to be used in judging the intervention. First, it would deal with the systemic threat. Second, it would minimise damage to incentives. Third, it would come at minimum cost and risk to the taxpayer. Not least, it would be consistent with ideas of social justice.

The fundamental problem with the Paulson scheme, as proposed, is then that it is neither a necessary nor an efficient solution. It is not necessary, because the Federal Reserve is able to manage illiquidity through its many lender-of-last resort operations. It is not efficient, because it can only deal with insolvency by buying bad assets at far above their true value, thereby guaranteeing big losses for taxpayers and providing an open-ended bail-out to the most irresponsible investors

In which George Will says don't elect Mad John McCain

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:21:00 +0000

George Will, a conservative who seems to believe that stuff about character--an idea he seems to take seriously and not limit exclusively to regulation of sexual behavior--, doesn't think much of John McCain's character. This isn't really new, but it is well said, and woe unto him who pisses off George Will.

First, he quotes Alice in Wonderland:

"The queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small. 'Off with his head!' she said without even looking around."

-- "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"

Then there is the meat of the argument:

Under the pressure of the financial crisis, one presidential candidate is behaving like a flustered rookie playing in a league too high. It is not Barack Obama....

Channeling his inner Queen of Hearts, John McCain furiously, and apparently without even looking around at facts, said Chris Cox, chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, should be decapitated....In any case, McCain's smear -- that Cox "betrayed the public's trust" -- is a harbinger of a McCain presidency. For McCain, politics is always operatic, pitting people who agree with him against those who are "corrupt" or "betray the public's trust," two categories that seem to be exhaustive -- there are no other people. McCain's Manichaean worldview drove him to his signature legislative achievement, the McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on campaigning. Today, his campaign is creatively finding interstices in laws intended to restrict campaign giving and spending. (For details, see The Post of Sept. 17; and the New York Times of Sept. 19.)...
Conservatives who insist that electing McCain is crucial usually start, and increasingly end, by saying he would make excellent judicial selections. But the more one sees of his impulsive, intensely personal reactions to people and events, the less confidence one has that he would select judges by calm reflection and clear principles, having neither patience nor aptitude for either.

It is arguable that, because of his inexperience, Obama is not ready for the presidency. It is arguable that McCain, because of his boiling moralism and bottomless reservoir of certitudes, is not suited to the presidency. Unreadiness can be corrected, although perhaps at great cost, by experience. Can a dismaying temperament be fixed?

Enjoy!

Rethinking the financial bailout

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 23:56:00 +0000

I was inclined to reluctantly support the financial bailout because the AIG and Fannie and Freddie bailouts were engineered pretty well and while taxpayer dollars were put at risk, it was still plausible that we would get a return on our investment. (We received an actual stake in the institutions.) I therefore was inclined to trust Paulson and Bernanke on this one. The details of this one, the mother of all bailouts, are starting to sound really bad and needlessly generous. Our minimun standard should be saving the economy in the cheapest manner possible.

Here is some early commentary on this.

Paul Krugman says No Deal to this deal.

Brad Delong lists some potential deal breakers.

Sebastian Mallaby, worringly, calls it A Bad Bank Rescue, and gives some plausible (cheaper) alternatives.

So, yeah, I am starting to think this could become a huge mistake. Let's hope the Democratic Congress pushes back and improves this thing.

Ouch.

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:56:00 +0000

I could appreciate this on the metro this morning...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:56:00 +0000

(By Tom Toles of the Washington Post)

Earmarks, huh, what are they good for? Keeping lawmakers happy...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:56:00 +0000

Imagine for a moment that John McCain wins the election, and imagine that he and Sarah "I love me some earmarks as long as they are going to Alaska" Palin continue running against earmarks. Now, assuming this happened he could legitmately claim a mandate against earmarks. Unfortunately, earmarks are only (barely) one percent of spending so they won't mean anything as far as balancing the budget, which McCain is planning to bust anyway. But they will cause havoc in Congress--probably shutting down Washington and forever alienating the lawmakers McCain will need to "reform" Warshington (as McCain likes to say). In the end this would probably be a good thing since we will need a pissed-off Congress to stop McCain from leading us into endless war. Let's hope he stick to his plans then, I guess.

Matthews nails Eric Cantor

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 23:56:00 +0000

You have to love Matthews sometimes. Here he presses Eric Cantor (R-from down the road in Richmond) to defend his own party's record, which he refuses to do.

Great ad...

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 14:07:00 +0000

This is a nice ad. More please.

For some coverage of McCain and Obama's responses to the latest crisis you can't beat this NY Times report.

Compare and contrast

noreply@blogger.com (David B.) — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 00:25:00 +0000

Compare Barack Obama with Charlie Gibson on the Bush Doctrine and Sarah Palin with the same person on the same topic.