And it's only June, but John McCain has already told us that al Qaeda will increase its violent attacks to try and defeat him, and that Hamas wants Obama to win. This is not only laughable but downright loathsome -- and there should be zero tolerance for such distortions in American politics.

Besides, why wouldn't al Qaeda want McCain to win? He's running to give a third term to George Bush, whose disastrous policies have been the terrorists' best recruitment tool.

Anyone catch the double standard here?

I'm not sure whether it's really a foul or not. Since I agree with the opint in the 2nd paragrpah, I think I probably just believe it's ridiculous to try to establish guidelines for what is or is not tolerated in American politics. Hence, the first para I think it kind of BS.

Posted at June 9, 2008 2:32 PM in response to Fear and Politics

Very interesting, and optimistic post.

I do think the interrelation between "fear" and "strength" is a bit more complex than simply one being able to trump the other. My guess is that the fear card really comes into play with those undecideds who have no idea who they're voting for until they go in the booth. I personally don't know any, and probably don't care to, but I don't think anything can really overcome fear and "reptilian-instinct" in that context. The key for Dems, then, is to reach these people far before voting day, and use your reasoned arguments so that they've decided long before November.

So, the extended coverage of the election will ultimately aid Dems, I think, because it gives people months to consider what Obama's real religion is, or who will really diminish the threat of terrorism, etc. instead of just deciding last minute.

Posted at June 9, 2008 2:27 PM in response to Fear Inc., Economy Version

Have they learned nothing?

If they keep pushing these ridiculous baseless narratives - about Edwards' hair, Hillary's cravenness - just like they foisted narratives onto us about Gore's fibbing and Kerry's flip-flopping then we're stuck with another GWB for the next 8 years; another 8 years of war-mongering, destruction of the environment, destruction of the middle class &c. &c. All because HRC isn't cool enough and because Maureen doesn't like her personally.

My contempt for people like Dowd grows every election cycle.

Posted at November 1, 2007 11:05 AM in response to Dowd, the Demonic Dominatrix, and a Feline

Okay well how's this for a sampler:

In the way our markets are set up, rich people are able to declare bankruptcy much more easily and avoid having to pay their debts. Rich people are able to skirt their tax obligation more easily by "living" in the Bahamas and hiring lawyers. Rich people have more political influence through lobbyists to perpetuate economic policies in their favor (factory farm subsidies, for example). Old money has greater access to the highest echelons to education not simply because of what their money can buy, but because of the legacy system which far outpaces affirmative action. White color crime, despite potentially having greater ultimate impact than physical crime, is treated much more leniently; they even have their own special jails!

I'm glad to see you'll at least concede that slavery isn't allowed. Would you care to go any further than that and raise the bar a bit higher for our worst-off?

Posted at October 20, 2007 3:59 PM in response to Obituary: Conservative Economic Policy

Then why are there libertarians and conservatives that argue that there should only be taxes levied for defense - police, fire and army? And how can money be spent in such a way that there is no gov't interference? If money is spent, someone has to decide how and the market has to be set up to work one of myriad possible ways. Right now it's set up to favor the rich. Why not level the field a bit?

Posted at October 20, 2007 10:25 AM in response to Obituary: Conservative Economic Policy

I consider myself pretty liberal, but I don't think your point is a good one. There are many many reasons to argue against failed conservative policy, but 'globalization' is not one of them.

First, globalization was advanced as much by Clinton as anyone else. Second, if you ask people in India, they'd have a lot of good things to say about globalization. So if you're concerned about extreme poverty overseas, there have been some benefits, even in the effed up way it's been implemented.

Posted at October 20, 2007 12:28 AM in response to Obituary: Conservative Economic Policy

When someone rails against income disparities they are only highlighting how the upper extremes of wealth make poverty that much more glaring. If a minimum standard could be set without imposing taxes, I'd be all for it. But if it comes down to taking resources from middle class or upper class folks to set that standard, then I definitely would opt for the upper class based on maximizing utility - to use the purely economic argument - since $10,000 to Bill Gates means a lot less than it does to me. Plus, a clear argument against the flat tax or consumption tax, which are the most ridiculous ideas ever, is that Bill Gates uses this tax-payer funded market infrastructure a lot more than me, so he should pay more.

Plus, there are definitely conservatives that are against publicly funded education and they generally seem to be against providing a minimum standard of health care to US citizens. If it is a matter of degree, then conservatives seem to set the bar embarrassingly low.

The point regarding the free market was not about setting the rules, but rather about the actual monetary cost, requiring significant contributions on the part of regular Joes and Janes to fund rich people playing roulette (can you say real-estate bail-outs) for example. That strikes me as far more of an injustice than the imaginary specter of "welfare queens". Why aren't conservatives railing against that use of gov't money before picking on the poor?

GWB & the Republican congress's recent behavior brings this in sharp relief. Bloated budgets full of pork for Alaskan bridges to nowhere, but when it comes to a bill funding children's health care, that's when the fine-tooth comb comes out looking for the tiniest of problems.
It is things like that that make liberals question conservatives' motives.

Ultimately, I appreciate your participation in this debate in good faith.

Posted at October 20, 2007 12:16 AM in response to Obituary: Conservative Economic Policy

...and therein lies one of the fundamental differences between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives believe that the only value something has is the price it can bring in the "free" market - be it the iPhone or a human being, a healthy educated public, civil liberties or the environment.
Liberals believe that the actual value of certain sacrosanct things is incalculable and that there should be a lower bound on the kind of life people have. Conservatives confuse that with thinking there should be an upper bound but that's definitely not the case. I hope you can understand that.

And the scare quotes around "free" is not meant to deride it, rather to draw attention to the fact that even the silliest of libertarians ought to realize that the government-subsidized infrastructure that markets need to work - courts, roads, an educated work-force, etc. - makes it far from "free".

Posted at October 19, 2007 5:46 PM in response to Obituary: Conservative Economic Policy

When I first read Bentley's NYTRB review it struck me as yet another review by a writer projecting their own frustrations with their own craft on someone else. I have yet to read Pollitt's book, nor have a I read Bentley's, but the review in question certainly makes a strong case for critics who don't write.

Then you have all the parentheticals which strikes me as trying to be too clever by half by trying to hide snark in style.

The review rates a 1 out of 5 stars, which bodes well for the book.

I look forward to picking it up.

Posted at October 1, 2007 9:35 AM in response to When the Political Can't be Personal

Mr. Bartlett,

Your point is well taken, but I think it reflects an archaic way of thinking about the electorate. The old adage in the 80's was that people voted with their wallet and that's the canard you're arguing for.

But we know this is not the case. Book after book - What's the Matter With Kansas, The Political Mind, etc. - has shown that people do not vote in their calculated best interest, but rather on the basis of values - whatever that means.

How else do you explain what the right derides as limousine liberals - rich people who advocate policies that actually help others to the detriment of their own self interest?
Even the media caught on in 2000 when it harped on the notion that people voted for Bush because he was a guy you could have a beer with.

Political affiliation is as much cultural as it is economic, if not more so. While you believe that this represents a significant problem for Democracy, I'm not so sure. We can't all be economists, so it has a lot to do with trust.

That's why Republicans won for the past few decades.
And that's why they will lose for the next few.

Posted at September 19, 2007 9:52 AM in response to Successful Policies and Political Success