"Debated" isn't exactly the word I'd use. "Sputtering," or "fulminating" come closer!

Posted at May 2, 2008 5:30 PM in response to Time to Win the War of Ideas--Finally

Thanks, American Dreamer! Here's the Amazon link to my book:

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Have-No-Clothes-Right-Wing/dp/0470044365

It's filled with useful ammunition to beat up conservatives with.--Greg

Posted at May 2, 2008 5:27 PM in response to Time to Win the War of Ideas--Finally

RDF, What you've described in the connections between those wealthy families and the conservative policy ideas that have done so much damage is the central theme of my book The Conservatives Have No Clothes: Why Right Wing-Ideas Keep Failing. Check it out:

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Have-No-Clothes-Right-Wing/dp/0470044365

Posted at April 8, 2008 8:14 PM in response to The Pulitzers and Conservatism

RDF, In the context of what I was talking about, primarily public health, safety, and environmental regulation, I think it's completely legitimate to say conservatives are against government and against regulation. That was one of the primary motivating forces of the wealthy business owners who funded right-wing think tanks. And when you look at the extent to which regulation in those categories has been largely shut down during the Bush administration, following the Heritage playbook, the only "misdirection" has been aimed at fooling the public into believing that those laws are actually being carried out and enforced.

In realms like you are talking about like market concentration, bankruptcy, etc., yeah, it's mostly a battle between companies that would win and companies that would lose. But undercutting public health, safety, and environmental regulations most definitely is a central agenda item of movement conservatism, and it's arguably the area where they have been most successful at carrying out their goals.

Posted at April 8, 2008 3:46 PM in response to The Pulitzers and Conservatism

E.C.,

Of course, a lot of factors come into play beyond the FAA's capabilities in determining the numbers of accidents and fatalities. In any case, it's obvious to everyone outside of the administration that significant, growing risks have been left unaddressed and are posing increasing danger to the public as a result.

I'll repeat my two main points, which nothing you have said contradicts. 1) The conservative movement's approach to regulation, which denigrates enforcement and promotes passivity, is antithetical to the missions of the agencies and the laws they are responsible for administering; 2) The consequences of that mindset (which manifested itself as well through meager regulatory agency budgets in the 1990s -- that era was no panacea for regulation) is that the public is at much greater risk than it would have been had government officials committed to effective regulation been in power, both in the executive branch and in Congress. Chapter six of my book makes that case methodically, if you're interested.

Didn't you used to work for FEMA, too, or am I misremembering?

Posted at March 14, 2008 3:43 PM in response to "Kristen" : Spitzer :: FAA : Airlines

Hey El Campesino,

It's been a long time! I thought you retired from tpmcafe ages ago. So where is it exactly, whether in this post or in my book, that I wrote that the federal bureaucracy performed flawlessly from 1994-2000? What I have written is that, in the past, government agencies under leaders who believe in the public sector have been reformed in ways that improved upon previous performance. FEMA under James Lee Witt is one obvious example -- FEMA wasn't perfect in the 1990s but it was widely acknowledged to have made great strides over that period by both Democrats and Republicans.

In contrast, under conservative leadership, virtually every federal agency has become far less effective than before at carrying out its mandates. Lots and lots of detail in my book on that. And also, during the 1990s, the budgetary pressures induced by the ascent of Gingrich and the Republican Congress, did enormous damage to agencies like the FDA. Here's a piece on that I wrote for the Prospect recently on that subject:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=who_strangled_the_fda

Posted at March 14, 2008 2:08 PM in response to "Kristen" : Spitzer :: FAA : Airlines

No thanks, Syvanen. I don't like betting against the team I'm rooting for.--Greg

Posted at February 16, 2008 7:52 AM in response to Time to Short Obama?

Ouch. Bad day today, Ellen?

Posted at February 15, 2008 5:42 PM in response to Time to Short Obama?

Chris,

Funny, I was hoping my post would communicate your point that it is indeed a fool's errand to use a totally reactive market to predict the future. I was attempting no "logic" beyond that, other than to lightheartedly warn people who have become excited about Obama's rise in those markets that it shouldn't really factor into their state of mind. Next time, I'll stick to my usual long-winded attacks on movement conservatism, which generally go over better than this trifle did. --Greg

Posted at February 15, 2008 5:41 PM in response to Time to Short Obama?

Damn that Yglesias! Well, it's still worth warning Obama supporters not to get too excited about the market's bullishness toward him, don't you think?

Posted at February 15, 2008 2:14 PM in response to Time to Short Obama?