« Hack Gap IV | Main | Response To Ponnuru »
Matt Yglesias: Hypocrite
So I've seen several posts around the web taking me to task for saying bad things about McCain-Feingold. After all, I'm a liberal, and liberals love McCain-Feingold. Obviously, then, I'm a hypocrite. Except that I'm not. I don't think either of these posts I wrote at the time is quite right (what I've written more recently is better), but both express opposition to the bill. Hypocrisy is a property of individuals and to just assume I'm a hypocrite for both being a liberal and for disagreeing with liberals about some things is silly. David Frum is pro-choice; Charles Krauthammer wants to ban guns (which just shows, IMHO, that he has a predilection for extreme and wrongheaded views of all valences); I don't like McCain-Feingold; Bush supports drastic entitlement expansions; life is weird.
August 24, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8345696ff69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Matt Yglesias: Hypocrite:
» Liberals against McCain Feingold from Hunters Orange
I've got to stand with Matt Yglesias on this one, even if he is from Harvard. McCain-Feingold actually gives a subtle edge to conservatives because it doubled the donation cap for individuals. It makes sense for liberals to be against [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 25, 2004 8:12:25 AM
» Iraqi Soccer Kick from social tonic
Just a quick post before I go to sleep after a long night. Check out this article in The Nation as well [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 25, 2004 12:34:02 PM
» Iraqi Soccer Kick from social tonic
Just a quick post before I go to sleep after a long night. Check out this article in The Nation as well as Matt Yglesias' online article in The American Prospect about how some Iraqi National Soccer players feel about [Read More]
Tracked on Aug 25, 2004 12:38:27 PM
Comments
You mean "liberal" means something other than 100% agreement with the Democratic Party platform in its present form, and "conservative" has meaning outside of complete fealty to the GOP?
Someone should inform the Heritage Foundation.
Posted by: Gabriel Rocklin | Aug 25, 2004 12:02:55 AM
I'm with you as far as the first part goes, but that second part . . . I believe that the phrase "Hack Gap" may be of utility.
Posted by: Kimmitt | Aug 25, 2004 12:19:41 AM
Boy am I disappointed.
I saw the headline and expecred to read a story about Cheez Whiz.
Posted by: praktike | Aug 25, 2004 1:04:02 AM
So I've seen several posts around the web taking me to task for saying bad things about McCain-Feingold. After all, I'm a liberal, and liberals love McCain-Feingold.
Not the liberals at the ACLU.
Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Aug 25, 2004 1:07:33 AM
We need a new party that is truly conservative, and truly liberal. Libertarian, but with a minimal social safety net. Fiscally conservative, and socially moderate. Leave the "social issues" up to the states. For example gay marriage should be decided by each state legislature, not by the courts or by Constitutional amendment. The new party should be pro-environment in the Teddy Roosevelt tradition.
Get government out of education except for the provision of vouchers to low income parents. That would improve educational outcomes 500% and drive a stake through the heart of the Neanderthal teachers' unions and the parasitic, incompetent educational bureaucracies.
In foreign policy promote democracy and free markets, by diplomacy where possible and by military force where that is appropriate, as it surely was and is in Iraq. Guess what ladies and gentlemen. Democracy is superior to what Messrs. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have to offer, just as democracy was superior to Nazism and Bolshevism. If that contradicts the sophomoric relativism of the Michael Moore/Noam Chomsky latte left then so be it.
Stick it to the Christian right and the limousine Fidelistas of the "liberal" left. Vote for John McCain, or somebody like him, in 2008.
Posted by: Joe Willingham | Aug 25, 2004 1:33:23 AM
M.Y.: So I've seen several posts around the web taking me to task for saying bad things about McCain-Feingold. After all, I'm a liberal, and liberals love McCain-Feingold. Obviously, then, I'm a hypocrite.
Who exactly is calling you a hypocrite?
Posted by: Michael | Aug 25, 2004 1:53:22 AM
What's so wrong with McCain/Feingold?
Here's a piece of mine on one positive thing BCRA has accomplished - making this a very bad year for negative campaigning.
And the old post Matt refers to on BCRA being like the first civil rights bill LBJ passed in the late 50's seems apropos to me.
Posted by: Petey | Aug 25, 2004 2:06:16 AM
Until the last Islamist terrorist gets an American bullet through his brain we will need conservatives in power.
In retrospect, trusting in medications and pushing the psychotics out into the streets might not have been the wisest choice.
Posted by: bad Jim | Aug 25, 2004 3:28:22 AM
Joe Willington rightly highlights the emergence of the latte as the iconic hot beverage of the liberal elite. You may ask what, exactly, is so distasteful and ethically comprimising about drinking lattes? The shocking truth: "latte" is actually shorthand for "caffe latte" -- and what but shame could lead these fiends to hide the fact that there is espresso (a beverage favored by Italian anarchists!) in there with the milk? It is time to ferret out these fifth-columnists who eschew good old American coffee adulterated with no more than a spoonful or two of non-dairy creamer. Someday soon the secret latte drinkers who masquerade as fine, upstanding family men will be forced to announce to a breathless press corps "I am a latte-drinking American."
Next up: Is the official alcoholic beverage of the liberal elite Chardonnay, or will any type of white wine do? Join the debate in Napa Valley next weekend.
Posted by: janet | Aug 25, 2004 3:41:26 AM
The left favors the seven deadly Zins.
Posted by: bad Jim | Aug 25, 2004 3:45:02 AM
There are a lot of nice Zinfandels around, and it may be because there are a lot of obvious puns. Cardinal Zin is rather nice.
Posted by: bad Jim | Aug 25, 2004 4:26:09 AM
When a Starbucks opened in my family's hometown (Waterloo, Iowa), rural folk from 30-40 miles around flocked to it. And they loved those lattes. Another reason Ruy Teixeira is right:)
But what is David Adesnik's favorite drink?
Posted by: cool blue reason | Aug 25, 2004 7:43:51 AM
No doubt that David Frum isn't prolife in the sense of wanting an absolute ban on all abortions under any circumstances. So he does depart from many conservatives.
But it's an odd prochoicer who (as Frum does) wants to repeal Roe, make 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions illegal (with a health of the mother exception clause), and ban partial-birth abortion.
I don't think he fits neatly in either camp.
Posted by: David | Aug 25, 2004 8:47:35 AM
Matt, this is a base canard. You're a hypocrite for entirely different reasons.
Posted by: Zizka | Aug 25, 2004 9:38:25 AM
Anyone seen Al, BTW? I want him to explain to me what's so awful about George Soros.
Posted by: Zizka | Aug 25, 2004 9:48:22 AM
Matt you are spending way too much time attacking the Repub justifications of the swift boat attack, and not enough time attacking the source and content of the attacks.
The big scandal, and real story, is that the Bush machine is heavily involved, in an almost Bin Ladenish-Venture capitalist way of assembling ridiculous and distracting 527 start ups with personell, content mavens, funding sources, media produciton staff, and media PR distibution connections, in order to prevent policy decisions from ever being addressed. Policy decisions which the majority of Americans do not believe to be in its their best interest.
Team Bush is essentially using the techniques of the modern day terrorist infrastructure to run their political shop. There are many striking parallels here.
Posted by: patience | Aug 25, 2004 10:49:04 AM
Yeah, the argyment about 527s is a diversion from the argument about the SBV liars and Kerry's service, which is in turn a diversion from Bush's actual vulnerabilities such as job creation and the Iraq war.
Ultimately we need to talk about the latter, not only because they are "really serious issues", but also because in order to really hurt Bush we have to get to his real weak spots.
Posted by: Zizka | Aug 25, 2004 11:03:26 AM
The main thing I carry away from your link is that you have made quite a bit of intellectual progress since 2002.
Posted by: Levi | Aug 25, 2004 11:03:35 AM
Get government out of education except for the provision of vouchers to low income parents. That would improve educational outcomes 500%
Right, just like magic. Are you sure it isn't 505%? I mean you didn't just pull this fantasy out of your ass or anything, right?
Posted by: absynthe | Aug 25, 2004 11:12:08 AM
Prof Brad Delong makes me proud of him.
THE MORE I THINK ABOUT BRAD'S PLAN, THE MORE I LIKE IT. LISTEN MY REPUBLICAN FRIENDS, THE PROBLEM OF AMERICAN HEALTHCARE IS A PROBLEM OF PAYING FOR EXPENSIVE NEW AND HIGH TECH THERAPIES. BRAD DOESN'T POINT OUT THAT AMERICAN HEALTH CARE IS MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE AMERICANS HAVE MORE AND BETTER OPTIONS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE MONEY TO BOTH FINANCE RESEARCH AND GIVE OUR CITIZENS BETTER CARE.
I HOPE BUSH HIRES BRAD TO IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN AFTER W CRUSHES KERRY IN NOVEMBER.
Some Thoughts on Health Care
This came out quite well, I think:
FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - A cure for America's ailing healthcare system: By Brad Delong | Published: August 24 2004 21:49 | Last updated: August 24 2004 21:49
Whenever I contemplate America's healthcare financing crisis, I find myself sunk in the Slough of Despond and the Pit of Despair. America spends easily twice as much per capita on healthcare as the typical post-industrialised country. Yet US life expectancy lags behind. America's doctors, nurses, pharmacists and molecular biologists do amazing things. But what things they do are constrained and controlled by the bizarre, disruptive and wasteful healthcare-financing system.
I have felt this despond and despair since 1993, when I worked (part-time) on the Clinton healthcare reform effort. How to provide patients and doctors with powerful incentives to reduce the proportion of US medical spending - roughly a third - that is unnecessary and inappropriate? We wanted to find some way to bring the incentives of the market system to bear on healthcare decisions. But that proved hard to do without producing a cure worse than the original cost-overrun disease.
Only one in 250 patients claiming on private insurance files for more than $50,000 a year. But these patients account for 20 per cent of insurance payouts. US health maintenance organisations (HMOs) and insurers have incentives to keep their customers healthy and to make sure they get preventive care. But their biggest incentive is to figure out who is likely to get really sick - and then to make sure they are insured by somebody else, or not at all. Increasing bottom-line pressure on HMOs and insurers increases their desire not to cover sick people.
Another problem is that consumers who purchase health insurance are charged both for those who do not have insurance and for their own care. If you do not purchase health insurance and you do get really sick, somebody else will pick up most of the tab. If you are relatively young and healthy with few assets, buying health insurance can seem like a sucker's game. Increasing the bottom-line pressure on the system encourages consumers to drop their coverage and so magnifies the problems of the financing system. Increasing market pressure gets you the gain of reduced unnecessary and inappropriate care but also big losses: powerful incentives for HMOs and insurance companies not to cover the really sick and for individuals not to buy insurance. Trying to keep the gains while avoiding the losses is what leads to despair and despond. Today, these problems are bigger and sharper than ever, and getting bigger and sharper every year. The Clinton reform was blocked because, as Republican insider William Kristol wrote at the time, a successful Democratic party-led reform of America's healthcare-financing system would be a mortal threat to the Republican party. The Bush administration today seems to have only four goals: keeping pharmaceutical companies from having to sell drugs to anybody with any bargaining power; keeping Americans from buying drugs in Canada; making it difficult for women to obtain emergency contraception; and telling actuaries to keep their cost estimates secret.
In this context, it is heartening to see that John Kerry's healthcare advisers have been thinking hard about steps forward. They are, alas, only baby steps: even proposals that look big from a federal budget perspective are small, given that America will spend $8,000bn on healthcare over the next five years. But they are steps forward.
The most important element...
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/08/prof_brad_delon.html
Posted by: Adrian Spidle | Aug 25, 2004 11:19:35 AM
MY: One of these days you're going to have to explain why gun ownership is good policy, aside from the fact that the contrapositive of "good policy => good politics", coupled with the experiences of 1994 and 2000, implies that it is.
Posted by: niq | Aug 25, 2004 11:24:17 AM
Adrian, you're loony even when you might be right.
Posted by: Zizka | Aug 25, 2004 11:45:51 AM
Nobody has to explain why gun ownership is good policy, gun ownership is so ingrained in US culture that no policy action will ever be taken to fundamentally curtail it.
Posted by: dave | Aug 25, 2004 11:50:43 AM
>>For example gay marriage should be decided by each state legislature, not by the courts
actually if a State Consitution contains specific language outlawing legal state discrimination of any kind against any class of citizens, much like Vermont's does - then it IS a matter for the courts and not the state legislature. Constitutional guaranties always trump leglislative action - otherwise, why bother to have Constitutions?
Posted by: Andy | Aug 25, 2004 12:28:05 PM
Matt, I don't think you're a hypocrite on McCain-Feingold. I just think you're wrong. :)
BTW, I'm surprised I haven't seen the Left trying to push a meme that Dubya has closer ties with the Swift Boats than Iraq did with Al Qaeda. Seems like the obvious sound-byte-ish thing to say about the whole thing.
Posted by: fling93 | Aug 25, 2004 2:25:24 PM
