Phatose on 6/8/2011 at 07:18

---

Are we still pretending CCCToad is relevant?

Rug Burn Junky on 6/8/2011 at 15:26

---

Not really, but at least it gives me an opportunity to write up shit like my pizza analogy above, which I'm rather proud of, if I do say so myself, even if it is long-winded. Where's the love?

But he's good as an example - that sort of hell-bent ignorance existing out there is what underlies the problem. When people believe stupid shit, you can't get them to focus on the real issues. And the question of whether it's better to confront their blind spots, or try to work around them is an interesting one, but sometimes it's just not possible - as in here. And the ability to sharpen my mind by carving up his is appreciated, by me at least. But it does obscure my larger philosophy to a great degree, because I'm not hostile to "conservatism" per se, but rather the strange corruption of it that passes as conservatism in the modern media landscape.

Right now, my absolute favorite political commentators are David Frum and Andrew Sullivan.* Which is somewhat interesting because if you spoke to me about either in 2003 I would have dismissed them - and rightly so. They were part of the Bush-Iraq-War-Drumbeat to an unhealthy degree, but each of them had a come-to-jesus moment where they said "What the fuck, the people I'm supporting are actually betraying the thoughtful ideology I espouse."

I still disagree with each of them, often. But both offer a view of thoughtful conservatism. And the real war in this country, politically, is between a faction consisting of those two, and the Malkins/Hannitys/Becks/Coulters of the world that Toad follows and regurgitates. Liberalism, by and large, has moderated - most of the big goals are accomplished: general acceptance of civil rights, a non-intrusive safety net, and relatively effective regulation of business industry. But the goals have been tempered limiting outright affirmative action, accepting limits on the safety net, and acknowledging the necessity of market mechanisms and the limits of regulation.

Conservatism on the other hand is still hell-bent on extremes: undoing everything that the progressives have done. They've had a 70 year war with FDR and Keynes. And guys like Sullivan and Frum are the ones that are realizing: "Hey, the liberals aren't extreme leftists anymore. Their agenda isn't a trojan horse slippery slope to outright socialism. We don't have to keep fighting a war against communism. We won, and Joe McCarthy lost."

Frum has been on a roll lately, and he's spent the last week acknowledging the vindication of keynesianism, and the failure of the conservative punditry's economic claims (noting that ACTUAL conservative economists have long ackowledged the same).

Examples (highly recommended):

[INDENT][INDENT](http://www.frumforum.com/could-it-be-that-our-enemies-were-right) Were Our Enemies Right?

(http://www.frumforum.com/if-the-conservatives-were-right-about-the-economy) If Conservatives Were Right About the Economy

(http://www.frumforum.com/if-conservatives-listened-to-actual-economists) Economists vs. Economic Commentators (If conservatives listened to actual economists)

(http://www.frumforum.com/less-politics-more-economics) Less Politics, More Economics[/INDENT][/INDENT]

So there is a branch of sane conservatism. I can only hope that it blossoms, because I would love to have political choices, rather than have to vote to defend sanity from ideologues.


* and actually, they're the only two political blogs I read daily, with the caveat that Krugman isn't a political blog.

Rug Burn Junky on 6/8/2011 at 19:45

---

Ignoring Krugman is a mistake, since he actually knows what he's talking about. The conversation amongst the economists (Krugman, Cowen, Mankiw, Delong etc.) is probably the most valuable one going on today. And if you've read Krugman consistantly since '07, you'd see that he's been spot on, with his analysis AND predictions.

As Frum says:

[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Imagine, if you will, someone who read only the Wall Street Journal editorial page between 2000 and 2011, and someone in the same period who read only the collected columns of Paul Krugman. Which reader would have been better informed about the realities of the current economic crisis? The answer, I think, should give us pause. Can it be that our enemies were right?[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]

Rug Burn Junky on 6/8/2011 at 20:43

---

That's always the line against him, but it's an unfair characterization. He's "Partisan" in the sense of "Holy shit you guys, can't you see just how fucked up and wrong your facts/analysis are?"

I mean, given that the subjects he's vocalized the most strongly against the republicans about (the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq war, the response to the recession) have all pretty much vindicated his critiques, it's hard to say that he's motivated by partisanship so much as against outright stupidity.

Rug Burn Junky on 6/8/2011 at 23:40

---

Oh please, that's just as silly as the fake "partisan" canard.

If the Cincinnati Enquirer hires you to write a spec article or two, and three years later they end up in a scandal because someone in their management is giving lobbying kickbacks to politicians, do you think we should then ignore everything you say? Do you honestly, in your heart of hearts, believe that there a connection? Just because you did legitimate business within your profession with someone who later turned out to be unethical in other areas?

He's an economist, not a trader or an accountant. There's no way to draw any sort of connection between what he did, and what Enron did wrong, other than "he once had a connection with bad people." I know you're not that simplistic, you're retrofitting a reason onto your pre-existing dislike, because that simply doesn't stand up to examination.