Ellen,
One can be both outraged and condescending. No one is suggesting that liberal outrage against racism (for example) was or is misplaced. But that doesn't preclude the existence of liberal condescension towards ordinary citizens' (of all races) concerns for law and order. We can have both our moral outrage and our blindspots at the same time.

Posted at May 26, 2008 10:02 PM in response to Taking the Adversary Seriously: History and Condescension

If we give up on the best plans before we even start the negotiating process we are left with plans like that in MA. It's failure is more of a failure of educating folks to push for the best. Cause third or fourth best will still be hard to empliment and maintain and they will not give the cost savings and sense of we are all in this together that the best plans offer.

Posted at November 12, 2007 12:30 PM in response to Universal Health Care—Not As Easy As It Looks

Here's a Freud reference from a recent social science work- Social Dominance, by Sidanius and Prato- that I find quite illuminating:

"Although it is hard for many of us to appreciate this now, Freud introduced a revolutionary new way of understanding human behavior. Instead of regarding human choice and decision making as primarily the result of rational and logical deliberation, Freud suggested that human behavior is largely driven by subconscious and non rational drives, and is then rationalized and justified in terms of logic and reason. Adopting this view, many scholars both inside and outside the psychodynamic revolution, began to think of peoples' ethnic, racial, and national stereotypes a manifestations of their motivations, rather than as rationally held political philosophies."

Posted at November 12, 2007 11:45 AM in response to Final Thoughts and Thanks

There are some ways in which rising absolute incomes matter. But there are also many ways in which the relative increase in inequality- no matter the absolute increase in income- is of ultimate importance in any society.

Rising relative inequality makes for more violent societies. It makes for higher death rates. It makes for increased illness. See Richard Wilkinson's and Michael Marmot's works on the social epidemiology of inequality. Turns out we are much more of a social animal than we had thought. Social status, the quality of relationships, hierarchy, social dominance, etc. These are all powerful factors shaping the quality of life. Inequallity matters much more than we ever dared imagine.

Posted at April 25, 2007 5:26 PM in response to Is Inequality the Problem?

"then it would be foolish and even immoral to hold out for the unattainable ideal"

Starting the discussion with the best ideal is not the same as holding out for the unattainable ideal. Not the same thing at all.
You start with the best- and then, if need be, compromise, reach a negotiated solution. But you don't avoid discussing the best or ideal solutions. That leaves the actual negotiation starting from an already compromised position.

Posted at April 11, 2007 12:12 PM in response to It's the Process, Not the Plan

Remember, the framing conversation, at least in the Lakof style, is not so much about communicating facts as about communicating the underlying values through which we interpret those facts. And it also illuminates core distinctions in value systems that form the foundation for political ideologies.

Posted at March 9, 2007 5:44 PM in response to Frames Run Wild

This discussion has never been about trade per se Abdul. We've been eating tropical bananas in North America since long before our current trade regimes. No, it's not about whether to trade or not trade.

Posted at March 2, 2007 7:34 PM in response to Two Non-Rhetorical Questions on Globalization

Bravo Jeff. Thanks for these important posts on our trade regimes. And thanks for keeping the political in political economy. I hope folks here think about the implications of your statement: "It’s a measure of the pervasiveness of class in our culture that “liberals” begin a discussion about globalization with the assumption that political virtue lives on Wall Street and political vice at the AFL-CIO."

Posted at March 2, 2007 7:30 PM in response to Answering Mark

I, for one, WOULD rather have no new trade deals, until we start incorporating the political dimensions of international development directly into the trade agreements. That would make them less "trade" agreements that a more well-rounded social democratic development agreement.

I think the economists myopia in seeing an independent economic sphere of life that can be separated from the social whole- what Duncan Foley calls Adam's Fallacy is at play here in Brad's POV. Deal just with the economic issues- everything else will work itself out.

I see Jeff taking a more well-rounded view of the interplay between politics and economics- which makes him, in my view, both more realistic and more helpful in avoiding the pitfalls and seemingly unintended consequences of willy-nilly promotion of a purely (and falsely so) "economic" agenda.

Posted at March 2, 2007 3:55 PM in response to Two Non-Rhetorical Questions on Globalization

As for cracking good- if not difficult- books,
I recommend Duncan Foley's Adam's Fallacy for a serious and critical primer on economics. Sheri Berman's The Primacy of Politics for a fascinating look at early 20th centruy European reactions to the crises of capitialism. Both relevant to our current political situation and both rewarding and helpful in developing and clarifying a reasonable progressive Democratic program.

I recomend folks check out Max's blog regularly. Along with Brad Delong's, and Dean Baker's. You'll get a good share of both orthodox liberal economics and some heterodox and idiosyncratic economic and political analysis. And you will become more aware of Max's unique sense of humor.

Posted at January 15, 2007 7:55 PM in response to MY LEFT FANNY