Happy Birthday to Kathleen Turner, 59.
Good stuff:
1. John Side does some teaching: why we should care what happens to Obama's approval rating. (I thought I remembered writing a version of this myself a while back, but I can't find it; either way, John's is better.
2. Kevin Drum on medical inflation.
3. And very good one from Ezra Klein on Bobby Jindal.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Oh, Bobby Jindal. If I were a liberal strategist, I would put that screed in every inbox in America, if I could. That stuff is silver and gold for the left; these idiot Republicans think they are throwing haymakers, and all they are doing is punching themselves in the face.
ReplyDeleteIts a shame, I guess, that Jindal and all the rest don't read this blog (understandable due to their ideological slant), because in that 'backyard v. anonymous' tete-a-tete about English depravity the other day was encapsulated the essence of the liberal/conservative split in the 21st century. Backyardfoundry (speaking for the right) was comfortable pointing at (indolent, narcissistic) chav culture in Britain and said "That sucks and is unacceptable". And liberals fired back at backyard that he sucked for being judgmental, the flaws - real or imagined - of the chav kids be damned.
That's the difference, governor. Its not denying global warming (no one does) or celebrating the murder of fetuses (no one does) or even idealizing huge government (no one does). It is, quite simply, whether and to what extent you are willing to place the locus of responsibility on individuals, in particular on the other guy.
Everything else is irrelevant, and Jindal's screed is therefore worse than useless, its dangerous.
Red meat should be rationed? I can't imagine what the grain of truth is that he is perverting in that case.
DeleteCSH,
DeleteI agree that Jindal's screed is dangerous. The problem, however, is that he and the far right simply can't see the danger. I'm not talking about ideological differences, so much, as in approaches to life rooted in real experience. One of the wisest things I have heard recently (and it sucks to be me because I can't remember where I heard it) is that when you see people acting in a supremely dysfunctional way, they are either 1) addicted, 2) clinging to beliefs and behaviors that worked for them in the past, or 3) both. In Jindal's case I suspect it is 2, although 3 is also to be found in the GOP.
I think much of the dysfunction in our current politics is due to historical accident, with the GOP and the Democrats both having depressing instances of very bad luck over the last forty years. In the case of the GOP, they have had the misfortune to win a string of victories, some of them overwhelming, with poisonous candidates such as Nixon, Gingrich, and Bush II. Even worse, they have experienced disappointing defeats with some of their more reasonable and honorable leaders, including Ford, Bush I, and arguably McCain, Sarah Palin notwithstanding in the last case. The effect of this has been to greatly strengthen the worst instincts of party actors and the GOP base. Not to put a fine point on it, but they have learned that this kind of thing seems to work (whether it actually does or not is another matter) and, human psychology being what it is, they have come to strongly believe that since it works is must be true. It isn't just that Jindal and his followers believe something strange or different, its that they have, in their own experience, had their beliefs strongly validated. They may or may not be addicted to this kind of thing, but it has certainly seemed to work for them in the past, and it is, unfortunately, only natural for them to cling to it, despite the alarm bells it rings among people not so invested in that way of thinking.
grain
DeleteI can tell that you don't read any libertarian news sources, or else you could have come up with SOMETHING. Reading people you disagree with probably causes migraines, hence your ignorance.
I should point out, most of what I said above about the GOP and bad luck comes directly from JB's previous observations. He can correct me harshly if I have gotten it wrong.
DeleteCSH,
DeleteIt was "unborn babies don't matter" and not "celebrating the murder of fetuses."
To put this in perspective, which reason would the average prog say was good enough for a woman to have a state-funded abortion of a 14 week fetus?
I'm 19 and I want to party more.
My career in marketing is too important to me.
Wait ... I don't think there are any reasons.
No wonder I agreed with it so much!
DeleteFord, GHW Bush, Bob Dole, Howard Baker, Pete Domenici, any number of governors.
or even idealizing huge government (no one does)
DeleteI suspect this is because progs don't think that half of GDP going to government is huge. Or because progs generally respect no limitations on what elements of commerce the Congress can futz with. Progs have almost no grounding in public choice theory, so can see almost no government action as going too far.
which reason would the average prog say was good enough for a woman to have a state-funded abortion of a 14 week fetus?
DeleteIt always amazes me when Ayn Rand libertarians suddenly become Christian moralists.
Question for backyardfoundry: Jindal is Indian --- doesn't your fetish over race-based IQ variations have something very profound to say about that?
Deletepurusha,
DeleteI'm basically pro-abortion, but I can understand the conservative view that a fetus should be considered a person based on something other than a woman's whim. And I think that serious progs should be able to approach the subject with that understanding.
Thanks, JB. I have been wondering, lately, what might have happened had the recession of 1992 been frameshifted twelve months to hit after the election. GHW Bush would have been re-elected, road out the recession, and left office probably quite popular, with such policies as ADA and the Andrews budget agreement celebrated among the GOP. There would have been no Clinton Administration, but also no Gingrich Revolution, no impeachment, no souring of the national culture. Given Quayle's problems, Bush I might have been succeeded by, oh let's say Jack Kemp. How long Kemp would have lasted ... well, who knows? But now we might be looking back at the Reagan Era like we think of the Jefferson Administration -- a sharp ideological deviation in one direction followed by a gradual return to the norm.
DeleteSo blame it all on Clinton! (Yeah, I know Carter is a lot more to blame -- he embodied the Democrats worst episode of bad luck in the last 40 years -- but there's just something about Slick Willy that cries out for blame).
purusha,
DeleteI answered your beef question above with one search. Did you not see it? Do you need other examples? Are you avoiding it because I destroyed your snark with facts?
I can judge Jindal without reference to his race. If I'm trying to answer the question of why it is that the 3% of Americans who call themselves Jewish comprise a third of the 400 richest Americans, most top execs in Hollywood, etc. then the founder effect and moderate inbreeding are going to have to be considered.
Anastasios,
DeleteYeah, I know Carter is a lot more to blame -- he embodied the Democrats worst episode of bad luck in the last 40 years
Was it bad lunch that the dems chose so badly by accident?
I'm basically pro-abortion
DeleteOh, I see. You were trolling.
I answered your beef question above with one search. Did you not see it?
DeleteOh, you got me there! Score one for the master race.
Backyard,
DeleteIn a way, I think it was. Carter's gained the nomination, at least in part, due to many contingent factors. Granted, all nomination battles depend on contingent factors, much more so than do general elections, but 1976 was arguably unusual in that unforeseen circumstances played an especially large role. I will refer to JB for the effects of the nomination reforms, as he understands those much better than I do, however I think many Democrats were caught off guard by the way the new system played out. Ted Kennedy was still too close to Chappaquiddick, surely another blow for the importance of contingency. Although contingency is usually less of a factor in general elections, 1976 was very close as I recall and some have argued that several factors, including the timing of election day and Ford's decision to pardon Nixon, as well as Ford's debate gaff, may well have made more difference than such things usually do. Finally, of course, as Carter was a dark horse no one expected him to turn out to be such a total political nincompoop in either national or Democratic terms (You have large majorities in both houses, you still have liberal and moderate GOP people willing to work with you, and you don't even try to do anything with labor or national health -- really? You waste your time rearranging executive departments and meddling with budeting procedures -- really? You fiddle while the economy burns -- really? Carter -- hawk, spit.)
So, yeah, it was a very bad choice. It was also very bad luck. The two things go hand-in-hand (as they do with the GOP and GW Bush).
Well, let's not overstate the Bush thing. He did win a second term and he did get his stupid tax cut. And his popularity is rising in the usual way (I heard he topped Obama in one poll recently.)
DeleteBut I accept that Carter was mostly an unlucky break.
I don't think that the Kennedy situation was just some crappy accident; the story I've come across is that he was just an awful person who did terrible things. It was luck that he was still tainted.
purusha,
DeleteOh, I see. You were trolling.
No, there are just a lot of topics that partisan progs cannot think clearly about. One is abortion. I consider the sinking feeling that pro-deathers might experience if it came to light that, e.g. second trimester fetuses are much more aware and less vegetable-like than we currently believe and how that would affect support for abortion. So the cons might be viewed as having some legitimate points and it would make sense to have a shred of understanding. As a partisan prog, you're basically a zombie on this issue and react to stimuli in the expected ways.
Like I gave a corny shit that some 8th grade Nazi thinks that Dems are incoherent on abortion.
Deletepurusha,
DeleteKeep your head in the game, bro. It was CSH who stated "celebrating the murder of fetuses (no one does)" and it was to that statement which I replied. I know that some internetters are incapable of moving past "point and sputter" (thanks, Steve Sailer) so you might best choose to ignore me.
But that isn't at all what Klein was writing about. Sure, some of the items on the list is true. Some also are complete Republican fantasy. However, Republicans deny the true ones mostly because Democrats acknowledge the truth of them. The point is that Jindal, who used to call out his party on that, has decided to join them.
ReplyDeleteAside from Jindal's belief that these things are true, that paragraph is a grammatical nightmare! "Because the left wants government run health care is high quality"? Or "Because the left wants people of faith are ignorant and uneducated"?
ReplyDeleteIt reads like a screed posted by an elderly uncle on Facebook, not an op-ed written by a sitting Governor with national aspirations.
Of the things on the list, I believe that government financed healthcare - i.e., Medicare and Medicaid - are high quality and superior to the available alternatives. So does the Republican base, which doesn't want the government to change Medicare in any way other than to make it more generous to them, and which utilizes Medicaid to pay for elderly parents in nursing homes. Government run healthcare, in the form of VHA hospitals, at least until the huge influx of wounded veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq, scored well above average on cost and quality metrics compared to other private hospitals. I also believe that traditional marriage, if not available to same-sex couples, is discriminatory.
ReplyDeleteThe other stuff is arrant BS.
Kal,
ReplyDeleteNote the phrase:
they believe that
…which is the proper precursor to "government run health care is high quality," etc..
Geoff,
ReplyDeleteSo does the Republican base, which doesn't want the government to change Medicare in any way other than to make it more generous to them
Which is reasonable when one considers that they've been forced to pay for it for approx. their entire working lives. It's a funny prog idea that a 65 year old who's argued for market medicine his entire life is a hypocrite for wanting Medicare when the feds have done so much to ruin market medicine during his life time.
theBitterFig,
ReplyDeleteHowever, Republicans deny the true ones mostly because Democrats acknowledge the truth of them.
What are you talking about here?
The really delicious irony here is that compiling a list like this about the right would be so much easier and much of it (unlike anything on Jindal's list) would actually be true.
ReplyDeleteAnd the earth is flat? Is that a reference to Tom Friedman's book title?
ReplyDeleteAn interesting item on Congressional oversight of executive intelligence operations:
ReplyDeletehttp://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/06/snowden-revelations-cast-new-doubts-on-intelligence-oversight-process.php
Many of the details are interesting. The general slant of the piece is also fascinating: Butler is a very good and savvy reporter, but even he seems oddly sympathetic to many Congressional members' and staffers' complaints and self-pity. But they're the ones who wrote and authorized the legislation that thoughtlessly allowed and never categorically outlined how proper oversight should occur! If the legislature wants it, they have the whip hand over the executive!
Climate is the big one. I probably read too much into inner workings of individuals, but instead ought to say that that Republican denial seems to be highly correlated with Democratic acceptance of climate science.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, 32 oz sodas are kind of evil to the body. While Bloomberg does have his thing about sodas, most folks aren't trying to set up bans of soda and red meat. Jindal pretends we/they are, because he knows his crowd and they can't wait to have him bash liberals over it. Whenever Michelle Obama says anything nice about vegetables, invariably Republicans go on at length about red meat shortly thereafter.
There just seems to be to be some sort of reflex.
Responding to Anastasios and byf:
ReplyDeleteYes, picking Carter was essentially bad luck. It was a fluke of the transition from one presidential nomination system to another, and during the transition there was a great deal of randomness, with McGovern (helped in part by active Nixon Administration efforts, remember) and Carter lucking into two nominations they almost certainly could not have won before 1972 or after 1980.
But it's not quite the same kind of bad luck as the GOP examples, because (thanks in part to his being a terrible president, and thanks in part to luck) Carter mostly has a terrible reputation among Democrats -- no one seeks to emulate any of the things that made him such a bad president. His term had consequences for short-term political balance, but almost none for the future of the Democratic Party and its politicians.
no one seeks to emulate any of the things that made him such a bad president
DeleteTrue. It's impossible to envision Obama allowing a big and protracted hostage crisis considering his KEALGSEO! attitude about terrorists.
perusha: "You were trolling"
ReplyDeletebackyardfoundry: "you're basically a zombie on this issue."
I'm calling a strike on both of you. I give wide latitude around here, but personal attacks on other commenters are not welcome. Nor are back-and-forth pissing matches.
More generally, please avoid generalizations that amount to personal attacks on broad categories of people.
Basically, cut it out.
OK, I'll stop with the zombie prog stuff.
DeleteMore generally, please avoid generalizations that amount to personal attacks on broad categories of people.
Does this include broadly implying that large portions of opposing parties are crazy or stupid based on ostentatious members of Congress? And does this also include, e.g. calling people "racist" because they are open about what level of immigration they consider helpful to current citizens?
This is your blog, so you can do as you please, of course, but I'm wondering if your rules are only for people you disagree with. Which would be fine, because hypocrisy is totally normal.
Backyard, this is obviously not my bailiwick, but as a fellow traveler in the "frequent commenter, not preaching to the choir" category, I think I sympathize a little with your frustration, but don't agree with your conclusion.
DeleteFirst of all, of course the rules are intended equally for all. Its possible they may not be applied equally, but there's no doubt they're intended equally, because how could it realistically, sustainably, be any other way?
When it feels like they're not, when it feels like you're getting piled on, when it seems the conch shell is ready to come crashing down on your head - ask yourself: is there another liberal community that avoids liberal moral righteousness as effectively as this one?
If there is, I've never seen it, which is about the best thing you can say about this place.
I don't feel like I'm getting piled on and I do think Prof Bernstein is much more tolerant of my aggressive shtick than most Progressives. However, the following is clearly wrong:
Deletethere's no doubt they're intended equally, because how could it realistically, sustainably, be any other way?
purusha has called me a Nazi for a while. I don't mind because very few Americans can hear Darwin applied to humans without being filled with disgust and rage. I haven't noticed much pushback concerning this habit of purusha's ... because there is more than one set of rules. Which is fine, but it certainly makes sense for me to try to raise the level of discourse by asking PB whether he thinks that his own insinuations/statements comport with his own stated rules. Because Progressives have worked so hard to distinguish themselves from cons, I don't think they can even see how they're behaving.
backyard, this is clearly none of my business, but I think you're almost certainly wrong about the "rule" - that is, letting Nazi derisiveness pass while your zombie prog rhetoric is called out (which - ymmv - is not how it goes around here, but I digress). I think its fairly clear that, like anyone trying to build such a community, Prof. Bernstein would prefer not to parse "Nazi" v. "zombie prog" but would much rather y'all just cut it out.
DeleteWhich brings me to a bigger point: its beyond absurd to think that Jonathan's objective here is to shake down conservatives. Just put yourself in his shoes: which serves his personal interest more?
A community of all liberals, constantly rehashing warmed over talking points that one can find a thousand other places on the web, or a community of half liberals and half conservatives, intelligently debating the issues of the day? I'm not thinking in a philosophical or moral sense, I mean specifically which is better for business.
One final thought: there was a time, backyard, when we used to think that imaginary victimization was the most unattractive aspect of liberals. How things change.