QOTD
Some of us have long complained about the cult of “balance,” the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue, never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read “Views Differ on Shape of Planet.” But would that cult still rule in a situation as stark as the one we now face, in which one party is clearly engaged in blackmail and the other is dickering over the size of the ransom?
The answer, it turns out, is yes. And this is no laughing matter: The cult of balance has played an important role in bringing us to the edge of disaster. For when reporting on political disputes always implies that both sides are to blame, there is no penalty for extremism. Voters won’t punish you for outrageous behavior if all they ever hear is that both sides are at fault.
didn’t really know where to put this, so I’m parking it here.
the bbc slams america – “That is the question that still confronts the US, as its president and legislature – as the Onion magazine so wryly put it – “continue the debate over whether the country should be economically ruined”.”
the author retraces the route taken by the joads in the grapes of wrath. it’s definitely worth a look.
that is not meant to be one big link. my bad.
Is “One Big Link” the slogan of the IWWW (the Webblies) ?
;-)
I’d shoot it out with the American Legion for a like button for the that comment.
second
Sadly, they are not debating whether to economically ruin the country, but rather how to do so and by how much.
And how fast.
I think the message for those of us who aren’t wealthy is to die, die fast, die quiet, and die cheaply.
But, the main thing is – just fucking die already!
And who will get the blame.
“Centrists”, as well as a good number of conservative pundits, are also the chief practitioners and enablers of the “civility” racket, which dictates that you must be nice to Republicans and let them say and do anything they want, and pointing out the fact that their party’s policies will actively harm people is considered “uncivil”. It’s like giving somebody a cheap while the ref isn’t looking, and then complaining to the ref when the person you hit returns the favor and they get a fifteen-yard personal foul. George Will is particularly odious in this regard.
This is because most of our quite wealthy pundits are moderate conservatives (which is what “centrist” means today) who personally benefit from Republican policies.
Sorry, Scott, but HERE’S what I think the QOTD is – it’s the last paragraph of K-shrill’s great (as always) column, plus:
“But making nebulous calls for centrism, like writing news reports that always place equal blame on both parties, is a big cop-out — a cop-out that only encourages more bad behavior. The problem with American politics right now is Republican extremism, and if you’re not willing to say that, you’re helping make that problem worse.
David Brooks is off today.”
HA!!!
The only thing better would have been if it also said, “Tom Friedman is off today.”
Bobo started to write about the Republican craziness a couple of weeks ago, and then faded back into blaming Obama.
And Tom “The World if Flat (And My Fucking Head Is) II” Friedman, just wrote his epic masturbatory column on a Centrist 3rd Party candidate.
God, if the NY Times had a PPV Steel Cage Debate-to-the-death Match amongst these three, I’d pay more than the $50 for championship boxing to watch Krugman tear the limbs off of that sanctimonious prick, David “Dour Miss” Brooks, and body-slam Tom “Flathead” Friedman to death.
Damn it, I was just about to make the same comment.
This isn’t the first time I’ve noticed that. When he has these extra columns I swear he writes his concluding paragraphs with full awareness that “David Brooks is off today” will appear just below.
When isn’t David Brooks off?
And there’s a defense of this intellectual cage match already (almost) written by one Thomas L. Friedman:
David Brooks is out to lunch.
It’s not for nothing that the Reality-Based Community has given him the affectionate nickname “K-Thug”.
I prefer Krgthulhu myself.
Don’t you just hate people like that?
People who insist that the two parties are just the same, and equally to blame?
And who dismiss anyone who points out the obvious as merely being a Democratic partisan?
Mmmmmm. Nice out of context quote there, Joe. As you and everyone else knows, Krugman also feels that Obama and the Congressional Democrats share substantially in the blame by enabling and perhaps cooperating in this insanity. The fact that the bulk of the blame lies with the lunatic Republicans does not excuse the Democratic enablers like Obama, whom he specifically critiques in this column.
I’m not making any claims about Krugman’s point, so you moaning about context is irrelevant. I’m simply pointing out how the dynamic works.
Certain people justify their inflated self-image by adopting a “pox on both houses” stance.
Guilty conscience?
Again, that is both out of context and a distortion of what I said:
That specifically is NOT saying they are equally to blame.
It is also a classic example of your tendency to respond to even mild criticism with sneering derision rather than any substantive response. Really makes it hard to hold a conversation.
I didn’t say Krugman himself was saying both sides are to blame; I’m agreeing with him that people who do say that – you know, like you – are morons, more interested in fluffing their own egos than in reality.
Nice reading skills, and you might want to look in the mirror when it comes to sneering.
Having problems with reading comprehension today? In my response here, I was explicitly talking about your characterization of what I said, not Krugman. The clue is in the first sentence:
that is both out of context and a distortion of what I said:
I didn’t write anything about what was in your comment. I wrote that it was something you do. With better reading comprehension of your own, you might have been able to pick up on the difference between the recurring sense of the present tense I’m agreeing with him that people who do say that – you know, like you - and the past tense, which would have been people who do say that – like you did –
I didn’t distort a single thing you said in your comment, because I wasn’t writing about your comment, but rather, your recurring behavior.
Oh, and congratulations on managing not to do it in the comment immediately after being called out on it. That is impressive.
But, as I have repeatedly pointed out with quotes, I did not do or say. I specifically said they are not the same.
Is it an English language problem that’s leading you to continue to believe I was talking about your comment on this thread, instead of your habitual behavior?
Quoting yourself on this thread has absolutely nothing to do with your habitual behavior. You have done this many times.
Going out of your way to deny it in response to my comment about how people often do this? More like ass-covering than evidence of what you’ve done. Citing it means nothing.
Seriously, what is wrong with you?
I quote Krugman, agreeing with him, when he chides those unwilling
And you “correct” me by saying that Krugman isn’t saying both sides are to blame?
Uh..gee, thanks. That’s kind of you.
I’m unclear on how criticizing the policy choices of the Democratic party (or, for that matter, how they respond to the dysfunction of the the political system) is at all relevant to Krugman’s point. Saying “these are our policy preferences and what we’d like you to do” in order to push your party back from the imaginary center is NOT the same as drawing equivalence between the two parties.
Good thing I never wrote anything chastising people for criticizing the Democrats for policy choices.
Would be a pleasant change of pace.
See mine above, as your reading comprehension seems impaired today.
Sorry if I was confusing. I was agreeing with you, Dr. Dick, and not with JfL. (Unless your comment was directed at Joe and not at me in which case we still agree. Damn commenting system.)
I should have clarified, I was responding to Joe and not you. I just threaded below you as we both responded to his post.
But if we’re talking reading comprehension, I fail to see how what Krugman says here is at all at odds with what those that JfL criticizes are saying:
It’s not criticizing the Democrats that is the problem it is how you do the criticizing. (And to be perfectly clear, I’m still agreeing that Dr. Dick is much closer to Krugman’s position here than JfL).
Shorter Dick: It’s ok when we do it! He was talking about someone else!
Shorter Joe: Obama always gets a free pass and it is unAmerican and objectively pro-fascist to criticize him regardless of what he does or says.
Except for that being neither “shorter” nor “joe,” great comment.
Let us know when you’re done with that punchbowl, joe. We’ll clean it up & have it ready for you for next time.
We?
How many of you are in there?
Can I talk to Sybil now?
DNFTT, Doc.
We are legion.
Nice one.
I must have used that line a couple dozen times, that’s the first good comeback anyone’s ever had.
Props.
Fuck off, hypocrite.
When there is ever, at any point, any insult or rudeness thrown my way that generates even the slightest objection from you, I might consider paying some attention to your etiquette lessons.
Until then, I’m just going to write them off as the my-team cheerleading they are. So save your breath.
Stage 4: degeneration into spiteful name-calling and self-victimization
Oh look
Trolling
How droll
DNFTT.
Since you kept feeding Normy the other day, and since DM is not a troll, this is pretty assholeish.
I don’t really give a crap, you hypocrite.
When you can ever, at any time, bestir yourself to give one of these manners lessons to anyone except me, I will consider paying attention.
I will consider paying attention.
No you won’t.
You are the only person, other than Normy, who keeps being an aggressive asshole to people who were here years before you.
Beyond that, I did tell hv he was being a dick to you, back when you and he were having an endless, pointless goaround.
Of course, remembering that would require dropping the chip on your shoulder.
Either way, you fed Normy. It disrupted three threads in one night. And now you have made this thread all about you.
I remember back when LGM had a decent comments section. Good times, those were. Now? Not so much.
No, honestly, I would pay attention. But there is absolutely no reason for you to hold yourself out as a fair arbiter. There is nothing anyone can write to me that would ever motivate you to object, so what do I care about your admonitions?
Oh, and I’m terribly impressed by tenure. If someone’s an asshole to me, I’m going to slam them, and I don’t really care how long they’ve been commenting here. What kind of a bullshit aristocratic doctrine is that?
I did? Me?
I get multiple commenters writing “Where’s joe, where’s joe?” comments if they think they have a chance to pick a fight with me, but I’m making threads all about me.
Whatever, hypocrite.
There is nothing anyone can write to me that would ever motivate you to object,
Well, except for the time that I did object to hv, but, again, remembering that would require your general aggression to go down about 5 notches.
And you know, when you have ten or so people calling you an asshole, and no defenders, you might want to ponder the possibility, however slight you may think it is, that you are being an asshole.
Well, except for that one time…yawn.
Oh, look, the cheerleader says his team is bigger. Yawn.
Joe is here to make LGM safe for OFA talking points.
I spent this thread talking about Krugman’s column and the ideas in it.
What have you been talking about?
I talked about Brad DeLong, and generally ignored the thread, like I ignore most threads that you decide you need to dominate.
But then I decided to defend dm, and that has you very offended. But you are the only person who considers dm a troll, while probably a dozen think you are.
I don’t think you are a troll, but I do think you are a needlessly belligerent asshole.
And now, I will go back to ignoring a thread that is unfortunately now all about you.
I suppose there are valid arguments either way for whether the proper term for what Joe does here is trolling vs. being an asshole.
I just wish people would stop feeding it.
Gee, you don’t want to do your “Miller Time” comment again?
Piss off, troll.
What have you been talking about on this sub-thread?
Exactly.
This is the person who has written “Psshhht! Miller Time!” roughly twenty times over the past three days for no other reason than to pick a fight with me, and neither you nor your clique considers that trolling.
This is somebody who wrote
in response to my comment agreeing with Krugman, and you don’t have the slightest problem with that.
Fucking. Hypocrite.
Nothing but cheerleading.
I mean I don’t really mind Joe throwing trolling accusations at me because, hey, that’s what trolls do.
Just as the sort of straightforward, blatant derailing in the post of Joe’s to which I was responding is what trolls do.
Just like throwing around accusations of being a hypocrite (and you’re one of the people who’ve made an effort to interact civilly with him), post-bombing threads (I’m sure by the time I finish this he’ll be up to what, maybe 20 ITT? 25?), repeatedly claiming about how you just ~aren’t interested~ in the views of people you’ve spent much of the thread responding to at length, and generally posting with one level of another of obvious bad faith and treating threads like some kind of point-scoring exercise where the score is tallied based on number of times you post, number of responses you get, and number of times you can say fuck-you to other people.
Call that trolling or whatever else you like, it turns these threads into an awful drag.
Let me some up this thread:
Mr Vibrating: Come in.
Man: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
Mr Vibrating: I told you once.
Man: No you haven’t.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I have.
Man: When?
Mr Vibrating: Just now.
Man: No you didn’t.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: You didn’t
Mr Vibrating: I did!
Man: You didn’t!
Mr Vibrating: I’m telling you I did!
Man: You did not!!
Mr Vibrating: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
Man: Oh, just the five minutes.
Mr Vibrating: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
Man: You most certainly did not.
Mr Vibrating: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
Man: No you did not.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: No you didn’t.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: No you didn’t.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: No you didn’t.
Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.
Man: You didn’t.
Mr Vibrating: Did.
Man: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
Man: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn’t.
Man: It is!
Mr Vibrating: It is not.
Man: Look, you just contradicted me.
Mr Vibrating: I did not.
Man: Oh you did!!
Mr Vibrating: No, no, no.
Man: You did just then.
Mr Vibrating: Nonsense!
Man: Oh, this is futile!
Mr Vibrating: No it isn’t.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr Vibrating: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
Man: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr Vibrating: No it isn’t.
Man: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
Mr Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn’t!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
Mr Vibrating: No it isn’t.
Man: It is.
Mr Vibrating: Not at all.
Man: Now look.
Mr Vibrating: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
Man: What?
Mr Vibrating: That’s it. Good morning.
Man: I was just getting interested.
Mr Vibrating: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
Man: That was never five minutes!
Mr Vibrating: I’m afraid it was.
Man: It wasn’t.
(Pause)
Oh look, several more posts from Joe. How droll.
I forgot that he’d decided I’m Anonymous, on the basis that we both quoted the same particularly stupid phrase from one of Joe’s uglier and more protracted episodes.
I’d point out all the ways that makes no sense, but I’ve expended so many valuable cares this morning on Joe and I’m sure he adds all of them to his total score.
I didn’t say you were Anonymous.
I pointed out that you write comments that are exactly the same, word for word, as a troll.
That’s what makes a you a troll.
“that are exactly the same, word for word, as a troll.”
Hahahaha holy shit.
That was fantastic.
What do you want a link?
You and Anonymous wrote, over and over again, word for word, the same comment.
Do you want to pretend you didn’t?
Tell you what, say “No, joe, that never happened! You’re lying!” so I can make you look like even more of a dishonest troll than you already do.
Go ahead. I triple dog dare you.
Yes, lol, isn’t it hilarious to say that you wrote exactly, word for word, the same comments as Anonymous?
dangermouse says:
July 21, 2011 at 6:26 pm
pshhhhhhhhhht
miller
time
Literally, word for word, you wrote the same comment, over and over again, that Anonymous wrote.
Ha ha ha that’s so awesome.
Just like to throw my voice in here as someone who is tired of joe from lowell and his aggressive assholish domination of threads. This whole thing was started by JfL who, despite his claims otherwise, is not engaging with Krugman’s argument, but is trying to make a point about every other commenter on this site.
It’s tiresome. I prefer Normy for a troll, as at least he brings some new crazy to each thread. JfL’s trolling is always the same. Criticism of Obama is always wrong (or will be proven to be wrong someday!), then a long personal exchange with whomever disagrees, finishing with DADT, bitches! (or, as it’s otherwise known “the one time joe was right and everyone else was wrong, aka ‘the greatest day ever!’”).
Way to tip your hand.
What is my “trolling?”
Disputing someone’s criticism of Obama. That’s trolling.
Making a point about the “both sides are the same argument” that isn’t P.C. around here. That’s trolling.
You know, disagreeing with the local party line isn’t actually what the word “trolling” means.
Could you give just one example of where someone (other than, say, soullite) has argued “both sides are the same.” I’m being sincere here. I have never once seen this claim. (Note: arguing that a Democrat’s position is not progressive enough is NOT the same as arguing they are the same as the GOP.)
jeer9.
Ah yes, this is true.
IB occasionally comes close to acknowledging that the two parties are working in concert to undermine core principles of the New Deal and promote the plutocratic agenda, but he always concludes by saying he will vote for Obama next year. I have climbed out of the shallow end of the pool and I no longer believe that it is possible to tirelessly work to reform the Democratic Party from within at either the state or local levels given the predominance of Third Way ideologues cramming the conference rooms – though I am still entertained by much of the splashing.
Just one?
Tell you what: every comment by Incontinential Buttocks arguing that Obama is devoted to slashing Social Security and Medicare, and has been working to make it happen.
Not buying it for several reasons. 1) Whether I agree with IB, it is not an equivalence argument 2) citing a single poster does not a “party line” make 3) if it is a party line then please point to where any of the actual blog owners make this argument. The people I see who DO make equivalence arguments are hardly warmly embraced. To refine my point (and repeat what I said upthread), Krugman’s argument is not that we should not be criticizing the Democrats or that they have behaved well but that there are better and worse arguments for critiquing them. I see most people here avoiding either the dumb balance arguments or the dumb equivalence arguments. Now, if the prevailing ethos here is that posters are doing what Krugman describes and what you say people here do, I’d like to see it.
1) It is indeed an equivalence argument. One can make that argument both on the individual issue and holistic level.
2) and 3) You asked me for “just one.” Your words.
Fine, you win. You found one. Still not buying it but I’ll bite here–prove to me the party line.
Second, do you think Krugman is also a hypocrite and guilty of the very sin he condemns for saying what the vast majority of people on this site also accuse Obama and the Democrats of for writing:
I would rather shove red-hot ingots through my eyes that try to convince you.
Second, no, I do not. As the example I chose demonstrates, I’m not talking about the dispute over tactics, about whether the Democrats should be more confrontational and ideological vs. appearing conciliatory and winning the middle in their efforts to achieve the best policy under the circumstances. I’m talking about people who think that “there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.”
Let me ask you something, cer: you acknowledge that IB is engaging in this false equivalence. Have you ever seen anyone call her out for it? Except, of course, when I’ve done so and been roundly damned?
I don’t think IB has ever claimed that. I believe her view is (and I hope she clarifies it) is that Obama has been willing to make significant cuts in those programs for the sake of a grand bargain budget deal. You seem to be of the view that he’s lying about that; she’s taking him at his word. In any case it’s not as if she’s claiming that he sees such cuts as per se desirable, which really would be an equivalence argument.
Also, it’s not as if Obama is “the Democrats.”
Indeed
You’ve got to be kidding me. She’s been writing about Obama scheming to undo the New Deal and eliminate entitlements for weeks.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
Quotes?
On their way.
Not having any trouble find them.
Watch the moderation filter.
Here she is on taxes:
Here’s a few on entitlements, denying that he’s motivated by strategic concerns, but rather, genuine support for cutting them:
More on the way.
Here’s a good little exchange:
Whether the offers of entitlement cuts by Obama were a strategic ploy or genuine policy preferences is exactly what’s at issue.
Those quotes are very weak tea. They are perfectly consistent with my interpretation of IB’s take on Obama views (which as Hogan points out isn’t the same thing as “the Democrats’, views”), which is that he’s willing to make major cuts in SS and Medicare as part of a deficit reduction package. She has never claimed, AFAIK, that he he would want, as the less incoherent right wants, to reduce those programs as a matter of principle even if there were no fiscal pressures on them.
You mean where she declares the offer to reduce those programs to be his “genuine policy position?”
Oh, sorry, she agrees that the cuts to entitlements represent his genuine policy preference.
Not just position. Preference.
Here’s the link.
It’s even worse in context. She claims that he, not Republicans, proposed cuts to entitlements, which demonstrates that it was his desire, and not Republicans’, to implement those cuts as part of a deficit reduction package.
There really isn’t a whole lot of room for dispute about her meaning.
It’s a question of the difference between regretfully agreeing to cuts because “we can’t afford these programs at their current rate of funding” and wanting to cut them because you would prefer to eliminate them altogether if that were a political option. This is a significant difference. I don’t see IB as claiming Obama is in the latter camp. You are ascribing a remarkably extreme position to her on the basis of quotes that are much more plausibly interpreted as I’m interpreting them.
In the thread you cite, IB makes an argument about a belief that Obama wants to cut entitlements. gmack provides a counterargument and defends you which does not fit with your narrative that no one ever disagrees with IB. Is your complaint that names are not called and that people lay out positions in a reasonable manner?
Paul,
I’m not going quote-diving anymore, but she also argues that Obama is pushing the claim that Social Security is a deficit-driver, despite knowing better, in order to further the effort to cut entitlements.
It is an extreme position, but it’s undeniably hers.
And I once saw a two-headed cow.
BTW, you wrote this:
So, which is it? Is “finding one” enough to “buy it, ” or not?
Paul,
I wrote
Actually, it’s right in the thread I linked to:
This is an extreme position: Obama is lying about Social Security’s finances in order to justify a proposal to cut it. Republicans, of course, did exactly that in 2005 in their privatization drive, and now IB is attributing that same move to Obama.
Oh, Paul?
At the time Paul wrote
he had already read IB’s description of Obama’s discussion of entitlement cuts as disaster capitalism.
Paul is never going to acknowledge that I provided a quote falsifying his claim, is he?
IB from yesterday:
But Obama and Reid want an austerity budget and this gives them the opportunity to get one.
I don’t acknowledge your characterization of IB’s position because I feel that it is closer to Paul’s description here. And I recognize there is a difference between, say, someone who is willing to make cuts in a program for because it is politically or fiscally necessary, and someone who is ideologically committed to the eradication of those programs. I think it is fair to say that Obama might be the former, it would not be fair to assert the latter (which is the GOP position). None of this, however, is germane to the argument in question which is whether people on this blog are guilty of the same thing that Krugman is complaining about in his post. To point out a potentially problematic area of overlap in policy is not to assert that “both sides are the same” or “both sides are equally crazy.” It is to say that the strategies or positions taken by the Democrats directly if inadvertently forward Republican positions.
Now, what about my other questions?
But this is not what Krugman is discussing in his piece. He is discussing people who take a centrist position saying that we all just need to get along or find a middle ground between the two parties, that we need to stop demonizing the right because everyone knows the left is just as bad, etc.
Consider me unconvinced by your unwillingness to try.
I know what Krugman was discussing. I was pointing out that people do so from other positions as well. Libertarians love to do it. So do a certain variety of leftists.
Thank goodness.
My question is, when is David Brooks ever on?
I am going with his wedding night. he probably got it on then
Here he is bragging about it to Ross Douthat.
I wish Corporate Media wasn’t so corporate.
“Both sides do it” might as well go on the coinage instead of “e pluribus unum’.
It got 250,000 people to turn out on the Mall last October.
Republics have ended in tyranny before — has one ever ended from irony?
SWEET!!!
Add that to the list that I’ve stolen from you.
Hey, I only steal from the very best!
This ‘too cool for school’ nonsense makes my blood boil.
This stuff matters, dammit. And self-government is hard work. I want to tell people “Don’t repackage your indolence as ‘attitude’, and call it a virtue.”
God bless Colbert. I can’t watch him — the premise of his act sets my teeth on edge; fake conservative extremism is as funny as a mock execution, to me at least — but it’s clear from his act that for him this stuff matters.
I’d like to think that maybe Jon Stewart recognizes that the “both sides do it” argument is silly at this point (especially since he has recently been the Fox whipping boy) but his characterization of the Boehner and Reid bills as basically giving in to the other side was hopelessly naive and stupid.
He is frequently hopelessly naive and stupid. There’s something ironic about the fact that Colbert has a much better show. But then Colbert just does mockery. It’s a lot harder to advance an actual positive position since you have to actually know something.
But I don’t think Colbert just does mockery. His SuperPAC was a pretty well thought out exercise in the use of political satire to demonstrate a point. True, satire is a better tool for critique than for some sort of constructive political project but I don’t think it is accurate to say that he doesn’t actually know something.
Stewart did a whole episode just last week on how extreme and unbalanced the Right’s criticisms were, which sort of, kind of, undermined the main point of his big rally in the fall. Apparently, when he’s the one under attack he gets it. Still, I have a certain amount of sympathy for the often uninformed voter (and fairly astute observer like Stewart) who wants to believe in the “higher” power of common sense, that there is some inner good nature that each side can appeal to, that a magical balance does in fact reside somewhere, but those are not the political times in which we live. The game is rigged, and the corporate mainstream media own the tools of persuasion – which is why Colbert’s PAC has the potential to be so subversive and influential. If only there existed a deserving candidate who might benefit from the scathing advertisements about to be unleashed. Staid and complacent Iowans and Granite Staters, I suspect, are not quite ready for the brand of Swiftian hyperbole coming their direction.
I think that’s a good description. Stewart had a rally for common sense, received mild criticism, doubled down, and has felt the sting of Fox recently (plus the increasingly unhinged nature of the GOP). I have a feeling ColbertPAC was never intended to be about candidates but precisely about continually raising awareness about money in politics. I would guess they will run ads about the people who run ads. I’m not entirely optimistic about the outcome but I think it is much more serious and thought out than it might appear.
As Krugman is surely all too aware, there are very great limits to the pleasures one can take from being right. He’s a very bright man, obviously, but his columns make a rare kind of sense not because they come from a surpassing intellect but because Krugman’s personal circumstances are unique if you don’t count a handful of distinguished old conservatives who also have a special license to speak out. Unlike the armies of pundits and consultants who depend upon the system for their upscale lifestyles, he had already made it financially and professionally before he began to write for the Times. He’s Princeton full professor with a Nobel prize no less. We’re screwed because something like that is what it takes to tell truth to power in contemporary America. Unfortunately, it will probably turn out that those whose opinions matter can’t afford to hear what he has to say any more than they can afford to make sense themselves.
The part that spooks me: if you read Krugman’s books, you’ll find him comfortably capitialist and centrist. I recall a long piece he wrote excoriating rent-control measures, for example. In the current climate, however, he’s treated as though he’s the heir to Karl Marx.
The Overton Window is now the Overton Peephole.
Scarier still: Brad DeLong is just as “left.”
This is very true. I’m a RWinger and I often use Krugman to bolster my opinions when debating those on the left because, as a rule of thumb, a cite within your opponents ideological fold carries more weight.
Krugman is an effective foil against any economic policies to the left of Keynes.
Economically Krugman is still very much a Keynesian centrist, but I get the impression he has been pushed significantly to the left politically over the past few years (though still fairly moderate).
I agree.
Capitalism, as proposed by Adam Smith, is not the huge evil everyone believes it to be. Smith himself had some very firm and even socialistic (by today’s definition) of what should constitute a firm, even about taxation.
He proposed, for example, that no company’s ownership should be more than one level removed from responsibility for the company’s actions.
Imagine Tony Hayward sitting in the dock over the Gulf oil spill from last year.
He thought corporations ought to be outlawed, for the most part, and envisioned competition with strict government oversight.
Capitalism, as America and the rest of the world practices it, is not the laissez-faire that Smith pleaded.
Krugman’s a capitalist in the Smith sense. Free markets do work, with some conditions. They certainly create opportunities for people to make a fair living.
Has he moved left on positions outside of economics? He seems to focus on a couple of pet issues: the southern strategy (broadly speaking) and eliminationist rhetoric.
The latter is Krugman at his weakest, imo. Shrill, hackish, and unhinged to the point of entering Pam Gellar territory during The Giffords saga.
On electoral politics he’s a little schizophrenic. Being a Wonk he’s embraced fellow Princtonian Larry Bartles revisionism of the Southern Shift but maintains the same position thats its all about race.
On civil rights in general he seems to be have stopped reading at Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Kennedy’s a hero, Nixon’s a villian, etc.
In one jaw-dropping broadside against Barack Obama, where he all but called him a racist, he cluelessly cited the 1956 election. Here Stevenson was standing up to Nixonland, and we all know what Krugman means by that. The good Professor was apparently unaware of the segregationist in Adlai’s VP slot. That ticket’s electoral map looked like George Wallace’s.
Luckily he has a day job.
The “certain variety” you were talking about were people here:
So, either you are making the claim that specific people (or the “party line”?) here are doing what Krugman claims OR you have hijacked a thread about Krugman’s argument in order to take a swipe at people here you don’t like.
That last is directed at me, in relation to a post where I said:
I do not see how I could be any more explicit in stating that these things are not the same. Yet Joe continues to insist that I do what he is asserting.
It’s not the explicitness of your denial that I reject; it’s the accuracy.
That is not from any “denial”, but is rather the post to which you reacted with the statement quoted above. You have become so wrapped up in your self-righteous indignation that you cannot even keep the arguments straight.
eyeroll.
I was talking about your denial that you engage in the equivalence argument – you know, the denial you made?
Jesus, just shut up already! What are you doing?
I’ll use small words: I don’t find your claim that you don’t say Ds and Rs are the same to be true.
I think you do it a lot.
I don’t care that you denied doing it today, in your first comment. You can say it again. I still won’t care.
Let me know if this is still too hard for you.
And I am saying that you are flatly wrong and I do not do that (with evidence to the contrary). All of my statements have been like the one I quoted here, which is a very different thing than saying they are all the same. I really do not care what you believe, as you are clearly delusional.
“Evidence to the contrary” being you making sure to demonstrate that you don’t do it, in response to an complaint about people doing it.
Okay then. Tell you what: I’ll take your word for it, and trust that you won’t ever do anything like that.
Yes, yes, I’m always delusional, making up strawmen about people drawing false equivalences.
You said I do this, but those are not quotes from me, but rather IB. We really are different people.
I really do have to walk you through everything, don’t I?
You characterized me as being delusional for making an accusation about someone drawing a false equivalence, and I responded by referencing another situation when I was characterized as wrongly making that same accusation, and then proved that I was not delusional.
Der der, you’re not IB? Really? Durh, really?
Yup, this. Krugman describes centrists doing this, and I made the point that other people did as well. And?
You accused specific people of engaging in the same behavior Krugman described. Krugman was not critiquing the “the Ds and the Rs are the same” argument which tends to be made by those who critique the desire for centrism. Krugman was critiquing the “they both do it” thing generally by those who make stupid centrists argument. You suggested people here are doing that. You have not provided evidence that they are. There is some evidence that the former does happen here but not the evidence that it is the “party line” as you claim. There are even people who defend you (even though, apparently, the evidence you provide is not evidence enough of that. I would also note shah8′s impassioned defense of you). But I have yet to see anyone regularly (particularly any of the masthead) doing what Krugman is discussing in this article. Instead, you decided to take the opportunity to grind an ax with people about something else and I, sadly, have participated in this derailing instead of discussing the substance of Krugman’s argument which is really a shame.
Nope. Never, ever, at any point, did I accuse anyone here, ever, of making that argument from the center. Not once. In fact, I have stated on several occasions now that it is not just centrists who do that.
But beyond your basic failure on the facts, I find your argument morally and intellectually reprehensible. A false equivalence is a false equivalence, and what is wrong and stupid when it’s done by people outside of your political team is wrong and stupid when it’s done by those on the same team as you.
If you did not accuse anyone of this, why did you ask Dr. Dick if he had a guilty conscience?
And I simply do not accept that the argument “the Democrats and Republicans are the same” is the same argument as “there are extremists on both the Democratic and Republican sides and so we shouldn’t point fingers or blame and should find balance/compromise between these two positions.”
“This” is a reference to your statement about people making the argument “from the center.” I have never accused anyone here of making that argument from the center.
They differ only in their level of specificity, and as I demonstrate with the IB quotes, the people here who make that argument get quite specific themselves.
You keep drawing these finer and finer distinctions. “They made that argument from the left, not the center, so a false equivalence is ok.” “They made that argument with more or less specificity, so a false equivalence is ok.”
No, it’s not ok, and you should stop trying so hard to find excuses why it’s ok when people close to your politics do it.
This is where you give the game away:
You’re perfectly fine with the bullshit false equivalence – just as long as it’s being used to make a point you like, rather than one you don’t like.
No. I made the point about “from the center” because that is the argument that Krugman makes and, presumably, this is a thread about his argument. Though, as I repeatedly say, it is the “stupid center” and one that usually pushes the discussion to the right.
I’m sorry but they are simply not the same argument to me. It is not finer and finer distinctions. One is an argument is about the substance of the parties, that they both have the same policy preferences. The second is an argument about political style, people who want to avoid “extremism.” Indeed, in many ways these two arguments are the exact opposite. The first is arguing that the parties are not different enough, the second that the parties are too different.
Actually, it’s a thread about his op-ed. I found one part of his op-ed interesting and applicable. Despite being a soulless, unprincipled O-bot, I’m still allowed to give my take on what I found interesting in that op-ed, right?
And this sub-thread – the one begun by my take on his quote – certainly isn’t about the center. And the charge I made, that you responded to, certainly wasn’t about the center.
The general criticism of Obama and/or the Democrats generally has been this:
So. Do you believe in this statement Krugman is also guilty of a false equivalence?
That certainly has been my argument and criticism.
No, I don’t think that is a false equivalence at all.
I don’t know what a “general criticism” is. I provided a rather exhaustive list of quotations above demonstrating the specific criticism I was objecting to.
IB’s argument does not explain why you asked Dr. Dick if he specifically had a guilty conscience. And if Dr. Dick is making the same argument as Krugman, should they both have a guilty conscience?
Nor was IB’s argument offered to explain why I asked Dr. Dick if he had a guilty conscience.
Rather, Dr. Dick’s insistence on denouncing my implied argument is why I asked him if he had a guilty conscience.
Are you just trolling now? I JUST SAID, DIRECTLY ABOVE THE COMMENT BOX where you were typing, that I don’t think Krugman is making a false equivalence argument.
And now cer’s going to write, “But you accused Dr. Dick of making that argument based on his comment.”
To which I will reply, no I’ve explicitly stated already that I was not talking about his comment on this thread, bur rather his habitual behavior.
When I was typing I did not see that comment because of the confusing threading. My apologies. No need to yell. Nonetheless, my question still stands. You discuss IB’s specific argument. I have no idea what that has to do with Dr. Dick or most of the other people in this thread who have not made either version of false equivalence but have been disappointed in how Obama and/or the Democrats’ strategy has often pushed the debate or policy further right.
I have not called you names, yelled, or accused you of trolling. I have not called you an O-Bot or morally and intellectually reprehensible. I engaged in good faith but I think we’ve clogged up this thread enough.
I don’t feel like explaining it again, good night.
Joe -
Nor have I accused of being a soulless, unprincipled O-bot. We disagree on this and other things, though I do occasionally agree with you and have defended you on occasion. Your arguments here toward me and many others simply are not making sense, which is the source of my calling you delusional. While we disagree, I do not think you are normally delusional though your comments in this thread have become increasingly incoherent. I do not think you are a bad person, but you have grossly misrepresented me and several others here. On that not, I retire the field as I no longer have the heart to keep beating a dead horse.
He’ll be twisting arms in the Senate to push Boener’s bill through any day now.