i really enjoyed this one. Eric and Reihan are great together. The only thing I'd disagree with is Reihan's description of Kristol as a strong social conservative. I couldn't disagree more. I do see him as the foreign policy neo-conservative flank of the GOP, but his descriptions of and use of Palin during the general election show only understanding of the evangelical/social conservative movement as a political tactic and mobilizing the base. I get the impression, others might disagree, that he does look down on the "rubes" within his party. I do think he looks at them the same way he claims liberals do. His phaux populism is forever contrived. Much of his act is contrived and obviously so. It's a shame these political tactics are believed by Reihan. I really hope that's not the case, but Reihan is far to rational to misspeak or lie about Kristol's motives. Nothing Kristol did in his column was done with the intention of explaining or thinking through his movement. His actions are forever political.

Reihan Salam in the only conservative I love. Because he is so charming, I am more open to hearing him out. It was unfortunate that he refused to articulate why he is a conservative. Is it because black boys in Brooklyn were cruel to him growing up? Or, growing up in Brooklyn, did the dignity and value of hardworking black and brown immigrants, many of whom were deeply religious, influence his thinking? Is Reihan religious? He mentions that Ross is, but he says nothing of himself. Reihan should write a piece on what it is like to be a charming, smart, young brooklyn-raised conservative and how he developed his political philosophy. He is truly a singular figure and I think he would have been a better pick for the NYT.

Quoting mmacklem: Yes, why is a smart fellow like Reihan a conservative? I've often wondered that myself.

I've always thought that Reihan is playing a conservative, the way a child learns about the world by playing a teacher or a doctor (He sure seems to be enjoying himself). Or maybe he's postmodern ironist. He doesn't seem to be animated by conservative values or libertarian values. Maybe he's the world's only conservative technocrat. They way he talks, it's as if at the end of every sentence he says, "Or not. Whatever. I could be wrong." It's not a bad attitude really.

Quoting claymisher: They way he talks, it's as if at the end of every sentence he says, "Or not. Whatever. I could be wrong." It's not a bad attitude really.

Perhaps an example of that "conservatism of doubt" that A. Sullivan is always braying about? (As for me, I 'doubt' Sullivan is conservative - or in any event, intelligent in any way.) Anyway, what a great diavlog! (Up until the last few minutes, where Alterman put forward the canard that Chas Freeman was pushed out solely because of his Israel views.) More Eric please!

Eric Alterman proves that liberals are smarter than conservatives: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/183...8:26&out=28:45

Quoting nikkibong: Eric Alterman proves that liberals are smarter than conservatives:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/183...8:26&out=28:45

Just an aging pothead.

I agree - very enjoyable diavlog. At the end, they seemed to have enjoyed the conversation so here's hoping they can arrange time for more. Since both of these men are very well versed in the history of their own movements, I think it would be fascinating to hear Eric talk about the history of the Left and Reihan talk about the history of the Right and see where differences in interpretation arise.

Reihan,
you shouldn't call yourself a legend. You are not any kind of legend and is not funny when you say it. Also, you never say anything funny, so why do you laugh all the time?
Why you never debate conservatives on bhtv? Is it because bhtv never lets Republicans debate each other, as Razib Khan remarked when he apologized to his readers for his appearance on this site?
What's the point of discussing these liberal potheads? You like hearing how smart and likable you are?
I've been wondering what you are going to do now that you and your fellow big-government, neo-conservatives are getting kicked out of the party: you, George Bush, David Frum, David Brooks et al. The job market is tight, are you going back to being Brooks' fact-checker? I've tried to imagine what David’s and your speech at CPAC would look like: you standing behind Brooks, as his faithful fact checker. What would Brooks say? Would he share his impressions from the wonderful tea party he attended with President Obama?
Would he tell the audience how beautiful Barack's hands are? Or what?

Quoting claymisher: Or not. Whatever. I could be wrong." It's not a bad attitude really.

Not a bad attitude, a liberal attitude. Always a happy day to see Mr. Alterman on here. And one of the reasons I love this place is for the great conservatives it gets, Mr. Salam being among them. Thanks for the chat fellas.

Quoting JoeK: Reihan,
you shouldn't call yourself a legend.

He never called himself a legend Sir, check the tape.

Quoting Surcam: He never called himself a legend Sir, check the tape.

You are right. My bad, as Michael Steel would say.

Quoting nikkibong: Eric Alterman proves that liberals are smarter than conservatives:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/183...8:26&out=28:45

Yeah, Alterman botched the letter and spirit of the that Mill quote. The saying in question leaves ample room for the likes of Reihan. "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

Quoting JoeK: Why you never debate conservatives on bhtv? Is it because bhtv never lets Republicans debate each other, as Razib Khan remarked when he apologized to his readers for his appearance on this site?

I Google for Khan's mea culpa and found no such thing. Can you provide the link?

So is this the Barbara Ehrenreich that Eric was praising?
Of course, John Stossel could have edited her remarks to make her look bad.
As for Iraq, nice to see Eric will not let go of his pre-surge talking points.
I would like to see Alterman's figures comparing gross federal receipts vs. tax cuts.
Will Eric cite the decrease in gross federal receipts during the first Bush "Middle Class" taxcuts as opposed to the increase in gross federal receipts after the second Bush "full" taxcuts?

Quoting bramble: I Google for Khan's mea culpa and found no such thing. Can you provide the link?

The mighty Khan:
I interviewed Greg Cochran on bloggingheads.tv recently, talking about evolution, etc. I think this might be the only way that you could get two registered Republicans on that show; have them talk only about science.

The word is "apostacy". Itzik Basman

Alterman is clearly so ignorant of the conservative movement, the alternative right and the libertarian right that he can only summons a political hack, imperialist, neo-con like Bill Kristol when trying to find a representive 'conservative'. Alterman your a socialist who would pick and choose which part of the Bill of Rights and Constitution you would have the government follow. The only reason you can call youself a liberal is because the neocons have conceded the high ground to a century of statist ideology.

We need more Alterman.

Reihan Salam seems a very smart, charming, attractive, pleasant, fair minded guy with a twinkle in his eyes, the kind of person you'd love to have a drink with, loosen your tie and talk with him enjoyably about many things. Alterman seems the opposite in some ways, like a mean old--though not so old--dog who snarls, hisses and bites any time he feels like it. He's got a lot of gruff, blunt cocky New York in him. And none of that's necessarily bad. Plus he is smart and he is learned. He makes no bones about stating and staking out his views. He would have been a formidable litigator. He's as tough as nails. And that's where Reihan, Mr. Really Nice Guy, starts to lose out in the exchange. He makes a few subtle and interesting points, understated like, but, unlike the mean old dog, he, to my ears, refuses to take a position and defend it. So I guess I'd need to read his book, which I haven't, but I could not tell from what he said why he is a conservative, what policies or traits of temperament or ways of looking at the world constitute his conservatism, except for skepticism perhaps. Alterman kept asking

Quoting mmacklem: Yes, why is a smart fellow like Reihan a conservative? I've often wondered that myself.

Not only is this a good question, I was fascinated by how Reihan could not or would not respond. Almost every other conservative has a succinct answer for this question. Clay and nikki have two good guesses -- "playing at it" as a way to learn, and "conservatism of doubt." I often think when I hear young, smart people profess to be conservatives, especially when they don't have religious motivations that drive their social views, that they come to that position out of an instinct to be contrarian, or an impatience with the shortcomings of liberal positions their friends are discussing, or both. When I lived in the People's Republic of Northampton, MA, I often felt these instincts. [Added] Reihan's claim to have found Kristol's NYT columns useful rang hollow. Combined with his reluctance to talk about the Christopher Buckley kerfuffle, I started to wonder about something he plainly stated at a later point -- that he wants himself to be seen as a go-to voice that can "talk to the other side." So, another thing I often think about young, smart people who identify as conservatives is that

Quoting basman: The word is "apostacy".

Itzik Basman

Actually, it's apostasy. [Added] My bad. I didn't realize there was a (ch. Br.) different spelling. Only one way to settle it. ;^)

Quoting mmacklem: Yes, why is a smart fellow like Reihan a conservative? I've often wondered that myself.

I'm a Reihan fan, but I don't think he answered that question very well. What he should delineate is why he is working from the right, trying to reshape it, rather than working from the left going the other way. What are his convictions that make the Republican party his homebase. I should read their book, although I haven't gotten to it yet. I will, though.

Quoting yamascuma: I agree - very enjoyable diavlog. At the end, they seemed to have enjoyed the conversation so here's hoping they can arrange time for more.

Quoting otto: We need more Alterman.

Quoting basman: Nonetheless, I'd watch the two again any time.

I fourth the emotion. Way too short a diavlog. And Eric comes on far too infrequently. Here's just one claim of many made that I'd like to hear Reihan elaborate upon. (Or anybody else, of course.)

Quoting nikkibong: Eric Alterman proves that liberals are smarter than conservatives:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/183...8:26&out=28:45

Yeah, that was a moment of cringe, wasn't it? I could not help but think of this.

Quoting SpikeTedAgnew: Alterman is clearly so ignorant of the conservative movement, the alternative right and the libertarian right that he can only summons a political hack, imperialist, neo-con like Bill Kristol when trying to find a representive 'conservative'.

I would be interested to hear you list some better representatives.

Quoting bjkeefe: Actually, it's apostasy.

Good eye, and thanks for the catch, but more *actually* you could argue it both ways, for one example: http://http://www.tulip.org/trf/wsc047d.htm

Quoting mmacklem: Yes, why is a smart fellow like Reihan a conservative? I've often wondered that myself.

A good question. It's like, "why is a smart person like Saul Kripke a theist?" Or more succinctly, "how can X be smart, and yet disagree with me?"

Quoting bjkeefe: Actually, it's apostasy.

[Added] My bad. I didn't realize there was a (ch. Br.) different spelling. Only one way to settle it.

;^)

Cute and nice touch, but I am a formalist and an elitist snob. British is best, the older the better, and not the pillaging of the mother tongue by the colonials. The votes of the masses sway me not all all. In fact, I want to get back to "thou" , "thine" and "ye" (without the "haw") and ban all contractions. Itzik Basman

Quoting basman: Cute and nice touch, but I am a formalist and an elitist snob. British is best, the older the better, and not the pillaging of the mother tongue by the colonials. The votes of the masses sway me not all all. In fact, I want to get back to "thou" , "thine" and "ye" (without the "haw") and ban all contractions.

Itzik Basman

I was about to call you a reactionary bigot, but "ye" (without the "haw") is hilarious.

Quoting Bobby G: A good question. It's like, "why is a smart person like Saul Kripke a theist?"

Or more succinctly, "how can X be smart, and yet disagree with me?"

Your rhetorical question is not without merit, but it still does not address why Reihan had no answer for the original question.

Quoting bjkeefe: Your rhetorical question is not without merit, but it still does not address why Reihan had no answer for the original question.

Well, surely there are less sweeping explanations for that than, "the reason Reihan didn't have a good answer is that no good answer can be given; therefore, the only reasonable explanations for why Reihan presents himself as a conservative are that he is a fool or a knave (or some variation thereof). Since he is not a fool, he must be a knave, or at least so psychologically immature that he is still trying on personalities." And please don't tell me that the only reason this question came up is that Reihan didn't have a good answer; the original question read: "Yes, why is a smart fellow like Reihan a conservative? I've often wondered that myself." Don't tell me that the implication isn't: "the fact that Reihan is both smart and conservative is paradoxical; how do we dissolve this paradox?"

I see now that one of the topic headings is "Why a smart fellow like Reihan is a conservative." I'm certainly not in love with that phrasing, though I see now that the original question from mmacklem derives from that formulation. Still, the fact that no one until me drew attention to one of the possible implications (i.e., that smartness and conservatism are qualities that are in tension) of that question is somewhat telling. I grant, though, that another reading is that "smart people often have unusual rationales for why they endorse particular positions. Since Reihan is smart, let's see what his rationale is for his conservatism." I haven't listened the whole way through yet, so I'm curious as to the context in which it comes up.

I've now reached the point in the diavlog. And indeed, the original reading I took of it was correct. Alterman's words: "It seems to me that conservatism in the United States for the past decade or so has just been a swamp." And, the phrase that Alterman was amusingly, ironically struggling for is: "not all conservatives are stupid people, but all stupid people are conservatives."

Salam is good fun on bhtv, but his political writing is mostly waffle. See if you can find anything here that gets any traction: http://theamericanscene.com/archive/...r=Reihan+Salam Oh, and that book he and Douthat wrote is just hilarious. Their basic idea is that the Republicans can win by promoting social and economic programs that benefit the middle class. Let's ask Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh what they think about that. On the other hand, as a general interest blogger, he's pretty cool.

Quoting Bobby G: I see now that one of the topic headings is "Why a smart fellow like Reihan is a conservative." I'm certainly not in love with that phrasing, though I see now that the original question from mmacklem derives from that formulation. Still, the fact that no one until me drew attention to one of the possible implications (i.e., that smartness and conservatism are qualities that are in tension) of that question is somewhat telling. I grant, though, that another reading is that "smart people often have unusual rationales for why they endorse particular positions. Since Reihan is smart, let's see what his rationale is for his conservatism."

I haven't listened the whole way through yet, so I'm curious as to the context in which it comes up.

I winced at reading the question too. Too bad Salam couldn't answer. Therefore, I conclude he's not a conservative.

Heh. Seriously, surprising as it may seem, not everyone will have a ready answer to hand about this question. A lot of people arrive at a label for their political tendencies only after they arrive there, not beforehand. So, if Reihan is someone who found certain policies attractive and then realized he was a conservative, he might not have anything to say about this point, or what he says might be something that changes a lot or about which he is unsure. I admit that, along the way to one's development, one usually realizes that one is, by and large, conservative or liberal, but for someone as eclectic as Reihan, and who may not think of being conservative as something that is so unusual as to cry out for a conversion narrative, he might not really have a story available. Anyway, I'm listening to his case now and will draw my conclusions in a bit. EDIT: OK, my answer is that he just didn't get to his answer. He started talking about his background growing up in a lefty milleu, saw that such people didn't apologize for their views, added that he wouldn't apologize for his views, and

Potential official bloggingheads drinking game: take a drink every time Salam says "y'know". He's an interesting speaker so it's tough to notice the verbal tic without getting distracted by what he's actually saying, but once you do it's incredible. I counted 7 times in 10 seconds.

Quoting claymisher: Salam is good fun on bhtv, but his political writing is mostly waffle. See if you can find anything here that gets any traction:

http://theamericanscene.com/archive/...r=Reihan+Salam

I do read TAS from time to time, mostly because of Reihan. I agree that he posts a lot of things that aren't Very Serious Politics, but I have a vague memory that he has done so occasionally.

Oh, and that book he and Douthat wrote is just hilarious. Their basic idea is that the Republicans can win by promoting social and economic programs that benefit the middle class. Let's ask Grover Norquist and Rush Limbaugh what they think about that.

I am not inclined to read that book, based on what I've heard R&R say about it, but I'm all for their views gaining ground as a counterweight to the insanity favored by Grover and Rush.

On the other hand, as a general interest blogger, he's pretty cool.

Agreed. I like his off-beat take.

Quoting bjkeefe: Here's just one claim of many made that I'd like to hear Reihan elaborate upon. (Or anybody else, of course.)

You may find your answer in a great, substantive article Reihan wrote today:
http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio..._matters_11823 Now, it begs the question: why does he elect to keep all this away from bhtv audience and just goofs around for 45 minutes? And that's how Reihan, in my opinion, behaves in every diavlog. Bob Wright should demand an explanation.

If RS can't give a two-minute explanation of why he's a conservative, and begins by saying "each party is built to optimize different things," whatever that means, that's embarrassing. There are some people you meet who are very bright, and have the inability to come to a point. Animation, high pitched giggling, throat clearing and chin stroking are not substitutes for convictions backed by arguments and experience.

Christopher Beam's piece in Slate makes a nice contrast to Reihan's view (sidebar link repeated) of Mark Sanford. [Added] More from Reihan on Sanford in JoeK's post, which I just noticed.

Quoting bjk: If RS can't give a two-minute explanation of why he's a conservative, and begins by saying "each party is built to optimize different things," whatever that means, that's embarrassing. There are some people you meet who are very bright, and have the inability to come to a point. Animation, high pitched giggling, throat clearing and chin stroking are not substitutes for convictions backed by arguments and experience.

true, he does not give any specifics. But then, Eric Alterman does not give a rational for democratism. I think the larger government gets, the more incapable the citizens are of taking care of themselves. Deficit spending is destroying the economy. The gov is crowding private enterprise from the credit markets. If I had to choose, I would raise taxes to balance the budget. The excessive taxes would tank the economy, but at least at the end of the year there would not be debt owed by a generation that did not benefit from the borrowing. Anyway, Altermann did not even try to convince the conservative inclined why his ideas are best. Democrats have the votes and cant be bothered to explain themselves to those they rule.

Quoting JoeK: You may find your answer in a great, substantive article Reihan wrote today:
http://www.newamerica.net/publicatio..._matters_11823

Thanks, Joe. It seems to me the answer is: focusing on tax cuts exclusively caused neglect of the other old-school conservative agenda item -- reducing government. So, maybe Reihan's use of the word "contradicted" in the diavlog wasn't exactly the word he'd choose when not speaking extemporaneously. Was that your sense, too?

Now, it begs the question: ...

I beg you: prefer raises the question for this formulation, and reserve begs the question for its more logical purpose. Grousing from my inner Miss Thistlebottom aside ...

... why does he elect to keep all this away from bhtv audience and just goofs around for 45 minutes? And that's how Reihan, in my opinion, behaves in every diavlog.

I know what you mean, but I don't mind Reihan's manner. In fact, I always enjoy his diavlogs, I don't feel as though he only goofs around, and I believe that he generates enough interest to push people into finding out more about what he has to say elsewhere.

Quoting Bobby G: Heh.

Seriously, surprising as it may seem, not everyone will have a ready answer to hand about this question. A lot of people arrive at a label for their political tendencies only after they arrive there, not beforehand. So, if Reihan is someone who found certain policies attractive and then realized he was a conservative, he might not have anything to say about this point, or what he says might be something that changes a lot or about which he is unsure.

I admit that, along the way to one's development, one usually realizes that one is, by and large, conservative or liberal, but for someone as eclectic as Reihan, and who may not think of being conservative as something that is so unusual as to cry out for a conversion narrative, he might not really have a story available.

Anyway, I'm listening to his case now and will draw my conclusions in a bit.

EDIT: OK, my answer is that he just didn't get to his answer. He started talking about his background growing up in a lefty milleu, saw that such people didn't apologize for their views, added that he wouldn't apologize for his views, and

Reihan is not religious. I don't know why he's a conservative. I especially don't know why he's basically a neoconservative (particularly on foreign policy) even after that crashed and burned. Since he has written in Critical Review before, I assume he must be smart nevertheless. Putting my biases up-front: I'm a paleo and I've been a fan of Ron Paul since the 90s, though I couldn't muster up any enthusiasm for his doomed-from-the-start campaign.

Just a brief point of information: I very much enjoyed talking to Eric, but we actually had a very bad connection -- I couldn't hear several of his questions. And so that's why I didn't answer his some of his questions: I wasn't sure of exactly what he was saying. Also, I don't think there's anything slightly mysterious about the fact that there are smart conservatives, as I know a lot of them. Why am I a conservative? In no particular order, (a) I am a Pax Americana realist: my thinking on foreign policy is heavily influenced by Wohlforth/Brooks, Aaron Friedberg, and Peter Feaver, as well as by 4GW and 5GW thinkers. This doesn't mean that I agree with PNAC on every issue -- but I do agree with them much of the time. Fred Kagan is a person I greatly admire, and I think he's been proven right on a number of key foreign policy questions. (b) I think that while broadly representative governments are generally superior to the alternative, different societies require different political settlements. The normative commitments of the U.S. state have been, and ought to be going forward, shaped by our particular historical experiences. And so I think while the so-called European model, or models, have merit, we'd be best served by reforming and

Quoting Reihan: [...]I'd love to write more on these and other related issues.

And we'd love to read more. Meanwhile, thanks for checking in.

I just don't get the appeal of Douthat as the new breed of conservative. He is, in every sense of the word, a twit. Reihan called him a catholic intellectual - what an oxymoron. The catholic church is all about blind obedience to an inbred clerical hierarchy with no room for critical thought. Some opening after Vatican II but now really getting back to its essence under the leadership of Hitlerjugend Ratzinger. Douthat's entire worldview is formed by this backward, insular and criminal organization whose leaders at every level are either sexually abusing children and teens or covering it up. How can you take this man seriously? Some apparently are not - Michael Kinsley is taking him on for his stem cell views. Brad Delong takes a nice shot at him as does Mark Kleiman. If Reihan thinks Douthat is the future of conservatism, they will be wandering in the wilderness for a long time. If anyone wants to take me on for my views on the sclerotic evil known as the roman catholic church, bring it on. My parents said I was catholic at the time I was born. At age 12, I examined

Quoting thprop: [...]

Thanks for the links. [Added: I gotta say, since Ross was named for the NYT slot, I have been amazed at how many things people have come up with that I hadn't been aware of before. I guess I always skipped his posts once I saw they were on anything to do with abortion or sex. Anyway ...] In return, perhaps you will enjoy the attached portrait, courtesy of the artisans at S,N!

Quoting bjkeefe: given what the louder voices from the right have been saying for the past ten or thirty years, the question "Why is a smart guy like you a conservative?" is not completely out of line. I often wonder that about you, too, truth be told.

I think it's mainly been the "conservative" voices of the last ten years that have given the movement a bad rap, at least to me. Rush Limbaugh was something of a different animal in the late 80s and early 90s--raw and vicious, to be sure, but also informative about views alternative to the more liberal mainstream media (given the relative lack of the internet and Fox News). And entertaining. I can remember just how astonishing it was to hear conservative ideas uttered out loud by someone besides my immediate family. That said, I fully admit that the "movement" (and I wonder whether there should be any such thing as a conservative "movement") is in shambles. You have a bunch of shallow thinkers thoughtlessly mouthing talking points promulgated by dishonest, hedonistic elites who often don't behave--and don't even want to behave, I should guess--in the way they preach others ought to (that

Quoting Bobby G: Nevertheless, I'm conservative on social issues and moderate on economic and foreign policy issues, so I'm a conservative. If you want individual arguments on each social issue for why I'm conservative, I'm happy to give them.

Nah. Not unless you feel like expounding on them for your own satisfaction. When I said "I often wonder," I was speaking rhetorically.

Quoting Reihan: (a) I am a Pax Americana realist: my thinking on foreign policy is heavily influenced by Wohlforth/Brooks, Aaron Friedberg, and Peter Feaver, as well as by 4GW and 5GW thinkers. This doesn't mean that I agree with PNAC on every issue -- but I do agree with them much of the time. Fred Kagan is a person I greatly admire, and I think he's been proven right on a number of key foreign policy questions.

(b) I think that while broadly representative governments are generally superior to the alternative, different societies require different political settlements. The normative commitments of the U.S. state have been, and ought to be going forward, shaped by our particular historical experiences. And so I think while the so-called European model, or models, have merit, we'd be best served by reforming and revitalizing the American social model. (Note that I don't think we should just defend the status quo, and I think that any analysis of "statism" has to take into account tax expenditures and other aspects of the "hidden welfare state." I've often written of the dangers posed by what I call "corvee economics": sometimes -- usually -- explicit state spending is better than mandates and other regulatory interventions.) To understand the normative foundations of the

Quoting Bobby G: I've now reached the point in the diavlog. And indeed, the original reading I took of it was correct. Alterman's words: "It seems to me that conservatism in the United States for the past decade or so has just been a swamp."

And, the phrase that Alterman was amusingly, ironically struggling for is: "not all conservatives are stupid people, but all stupid people are conservatives."

There is a certain strain of American conservatism---socially aspiring (i.e. snobbish), Ivy League, intellectually anti-intellectual, and above all anglophile---that fits Mill's description and goes a long way to explain people like Reihan, Kristol and Frum. Mill, who himself was torn between Benthamite radicalism and an admiration for social traditionalists like Coleridge, would have understood this mentality without difficulty. The paradox, of course, is that there is nothing in American life that corresponds even remotely to the British aristocracy or to Coleridge's ideal of a "clerisy" devoted to things of the mind.

Quoting bjkeefe: So, another thing I often think about young, smart people who identify as conservatives is that they see the ladder as easier to climb on the Right side of the mountain -- there is less competition.

Hmm, well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not going to let that remark go entirely unchallenged. I would concede half a point insofar as because academia, the media, and the arts are so dominated by those with a liberal or left-of-center outlook, the universe of "professional thinkers" who constitute their counterparts on the right is vastly smaller. So that takes care of the "supply side." On the other hand, I would argue that precisely because the "professional intelligentsia" has such a strong leftish tint, the "demand side" for dissonant right-of-center voices is proportionally smaller. Thus, it seems plausible to me that things even out in terms of intellectual competition within the subset of professional thinkers on the right. For whatever reason, intelligent conservatives, including those whom The Economist calls "economic liberals," are drawn to other professions: business, the military, the clergy. [I'm giving you a fat pitch on that last one, I know, BJ.] While there may be something to the notion that intellectual pursuits naturally draw iconoclasts, and that such people, by definition, are mostly

Quoting Bobby G: Heh.

Seriously, surprising as it may seem, not everyone will have a ready answer to hand about this question. A lot of people arrive at a label for their political tendencies only after they arrive there, not beforehand. So, if Reihan is someone who found certain policies attractive and then realized he was a conservative, he might not have anything to say about this point, or what he says might be something that changes a lot or about which he is unsure.

I admit that, along the way to one's development, one usually realizes that one is, by and large, conservative or liberal, but for someone as eclectic as Reihan, and who may not think of being conservative as something that is so unusual as to cry out for a conversion narrative, he might not really have a story available.

Anyway, I'm listening to his case now and will draw my conclusions in a bit.

EDIT: OK, my answer is that he just didn't get to his answer. He started talking about his background growing up in a lefty milleu, saw that such people didn't apologize for their views, added that he wouldn't apologize for his views, and

What strikes me about this seeming inability by some on the left and on this message board to come to grips with a intelligent person who is also a conservative, is just how similar the people on the left and the right are. It amasses me how people on the left always consider themselves open minded, however they also seem to be of the opinion that their opinions are right and the only way that anyone could possibly believe otherwise is because they are stupid, ignorant or disingenuous. What’s quite funny is how similar this thought process is to the religious right who cant seem to understand how an atheist could possibly be a good and moral person without believing in God. As someone who is studying political science I am simply amassed at the complete arrogance of some people’s belief, that no intelligent person could possibly have a different worldview from them. If the left want to find stupid people they don't have to go to far, they could simply look in their own backyard. It wouldn’t take long to

Quoting pete776: What strikes me about this seeming inability by some on the left and on this message board to come to grips with a intelligent person who is also a conservative, is just how similar the people on the left and the right are.

It amasses me how people on the left always consider themselves open minded, however they also seem to be of the opinion that their opinions are right and the only way that anyone could possibly believe otherwise is because they are stupid, ignorant or disingenuous. What’s quite funny is how similar this thought process is to the religious right who cant seem to understand how an atheist could possibly be a good and moral person without believing in God.

As someone who is studying political science I am simply amassed at the complete arrogance of some people’s belief, that no intelligent person could possibly have a different worldview from them. If the left want to find stupid people they don't have to go to far, they could simply look in their own backyard. It wouldn’t take long to

Quoting AemJeff: Pete, if you want to make this argument, wouldn't be better to address it specifically, rather than at "the left" (or "some on the left" who do you mean?) whom, so far as know, is not generically represented here, even by those of us posting here who identify as liberals?

the simple wording of the question itself implies that it is at least an oddity that someone could be smart and conservative. all you need to do is visit some left wing blogs or listen to left wing university students to see this view being played out.

Quoting mmacklem: Yes, why is a smart fellow like Reihan a conservative? I've often wondered that myself.

Quoting bjkeefe: I started to wonder about something he plainly stated at a later point -- that he wants himself to be seen as a go-to voice that can "talk to the other side." So, another thing I often think about young, smart people who identify as conservatives is that they see the ladder as easier to climb on the Right side of the mountain -- there is less competition. I do not mean to dismiss Reihan as purely careerist, but I wonder if this is

Quoting pete776: the simple wording of the question itself implies that it is at least an oddity that someone could be smart and conservative. all you need to do is visit some left wing blogs or listen to left wing university students to see this view being played out.

Now of cause whilst they don't believe all conservatives are stupid there is a definate implication within the comments that most are and that it somehow diminishes people like Reihan Salam or that there is an implication that they are possibly being disingenuous and that the default position for intelligent people should be to be left of center and supporters of the democratic party

I heard some self-effacing humor in Eric's question. That's arguable, and I have a pronounced tendency to assume a degree of "meta" in some people's discourse where others don't seem to find it. But, I didn't get the impression that Eric was silly enough to be seriously making that implication.

Quoting AemJeff: I heard some self-effacing humor in Eric's question. That's arguable, and I have a pronounced tendency to assume a degree of "meta" in some people's discourse where others don't seem to find it. But, I didn't get the impression that Eric was silly enough to be seriously making that implication.

Maybe i’m reading a little too much into it, and I must say that I myself and not a conservative and disagree with conservative thought on many issues. Given that I’m surrounded at university by too many people who think that one can judge someone’s intelligence and moral virtuousness simply by which side of politics one allies themselves with and which party they support and the damage that this can do to political discourse. I thus get very cautious whenever I hear it bought up by rather intelligent political thinkers even if it is in jest.

Thanks for checking in with us, Reihan. My next Borders coupon is dedicated to you and Ross. Thanks for the preview. PS It's also good to see Eric. I wish he appeared more. There is an Eric/Mickey diavlog from long ago that I remember making a big impression on me. Also really enjoyed the one with Hitchens.

If you are studying political science, you may want to also amass some knowledge of related psychology such as the work of Haidt.

I think there are a couple things to keep in mind. Alterman doesn't pull any punches (which is one reason I love him.) A point-blank question like that is totally his style. It's one of those kinds of questions that is partly a tongue-in-cheek attempt to push the other guy's buttons, but also contains a grain of truth and sincere curiosity. A friend's husband one time asked me almost the exact same thing over dinner the first time I met him. He said "you seem so intelligent, except your a Liberal." Rather than take offense or make bold assumption's about his inability to understand an opposing political viewpoint, I took it as a joke and thought nothing of it. Eric's question is based on the fact that in his view, conservative policies have been given a long chance to succeed in the US over the past 20 years, and have failed in every respect. The level of success/failure is obviously subject to debate, but clearly these policies have not been the magic wand that they are often sold as. In this light, his question is perfectly reasonable. It's not that different from asking a Creationist

As someone who is studying political science I am simply amassed at the complete arrogance of some people’s belief, that no intelligent person could possibly have a different worldview from them. If the left want to find stupid people they don't have to go to far, they could simply look in their own backyard. It wouldn’t take long to find idiots who believe that George Bush was responsible for 9/11, that American foreign policy is controlled by a vast Jewish conspiracy, people who used to offer uncritical support of the Soviet Union and Cuba, that everything that Micheal Moore says is correct, or just listen to almost any halfwit left wing celebrity talk about politics for a couple minutes.

Undoubtedly, there are poorly informed, irrational and unintelligent people on the left. However, it's hard to associate the liberal base in the USA with a set of crackpot ideas. On the other hand, homophobia, creationism, global warming denial and warmongering have become core principles of Republicanism. It is hard not to be alarmed about the intelligence of the movement when -- at a national debate of the leading candidates for president -- three

Left? Right? It sucks. They suck. There has got to be a better way.

Quoting rfrobison: Hmm, well, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm not going to let that remark go entirely unchallenged. I would concede half a point insofar as because academia, the media, and the arts are so dominated by those with a liberal or left-of-center outlook, the universe of "professional thinkers" who constitute their counterparts on the right is vastly smaller. So that takes care of the "supply side."

On the other hand, I would argue that precisely because the "professional intelligentsia" has such a strong leftish tint, the "demand side" for dissonant right-of-center voices is proportionally smaller. Thus, it seems plausible to me that things even out in terms of intellectual competition within the subset of professional thinkers on the right.

First, I was thinking only of the career path in the pundit business when I made my "climbing the mountain" speculation about Reihan. Second, I doubt we will be able to solve this, since I don't have the foggiest how one would begin to support your view or mine, but nonetheless ... I don't accept the idea that there is a smaller demand in those other fields. Granted, a given shop may be more dubious about someone who wears conservatism

Quoting pete776: Now of cause whilst they don't believe all conservatives are stupid there is a definate implication within the comments that most are and that it somehow diminishes people like Reihan Salam or that there is an implication that they are possibly being disingenuous and that the default position for intelligent people should be to be left of center and supporters of the democratic party

Since you quoted part of one of my comments, I'll point out that what you excerpted was a paraphrase of Reihan's remarks, in which he himself was acknowledging that a lot of what represents as conservative thought is something he wants to distance himself from. Looks like others have already said much of what I would say, but I'll reiterate two points. First, the plural of anecdote is not data. To hold up some examples of some people saying some things does not prove a general claim that "the left" thinks conservatives are stupid full stop. Second, yes, I do think a lot of conservatives are stupid, or at least, a lot of their beliefs are. Adopting anti-science and general know-nothing attitudes, arguing for

Excellent response Brendan, and great Hollywood links. Except you forgot to list Mickey Kaus on your conservative roll call ;-)!!

Some more negative takes on Douthat - Michael Tomasky Earlier Brad DeLong Another Mark Kleiman I have to admit that a lot of my dislike for Douthat is because he reminds me of a typical catholic priest - and I basically detest priests. I find most of those I have met to be self absorbed, emotionally immature and narcissistic. I guess that is what is required for a man to stand in front of people and insist that jeebus is acting through him. So it is OK if he wants to molest children later.

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Excellent response Brendan, and great Hollywood links. Except you forgot to list Mickey Kaus on your conservative roll call ;-)!!

Heh. I was trying to list conservatives who I view as perennially portraying themselves as smarter-than-thou (and their opponents as dimwits), to dispute Bobby G's [edit: actually, rfrobison's --bjk] claim that "all those willing to do or say anything to appear smart are liberal." Kaus has his shortcomings, but this is not one of them; his approach is usually, "I don't quite understand why X is such a good idea." [Added] That is, if anything, his technique is not to act smart, but to play dumb.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: Left? Right? It sucks. They suck. There has got to be a better way.

In some senses, I'd say there already is. You are under no obligation to view the world as bipolar just because the media likes to tell every story this way, or because the louder voices tend to adopt an us-vs-them tone. In other senses, I'd say you're asking for something unrealistic. At the end of the day, one has to vote up or down, yes or no, approve or disapprove, on every specific question. While it is certainly true that not every such decision is fully explained by "the left voted this way and the right voted that," it is also true that most of what we are still fighting about is what defines those two camps. That is, it is not so much that "the left believes X, Y, Z, while the right believes X', Y', and Z';" it is that believing the former (latter) means people call you a lefty (righty). It's really just verbal shorthand, in that light.

Quoting bjkeefe: There's probably something to this, that a correlation exists between a general political outlook and the choice of profession.

I think you may indulging in my tendency to overgeneralization a bit here. I think that cocooning occurs, but does not select for profession as you suggest. Engineers at Boeing, Raytheon, or Lockheed Martin building weapons are for example lilely a group including a rather different Dem/Rep ratio than those designing video cards, games, and so on for NVIDIA, Microsoft, or whoever. One traditionally lists at least three such examples but you can surely get there on your own. As an aside, since these discussions tend to break into two sides, isn't the simplistic Left/Right description of the sociopolitical space a poor one that obscures more than it illuminates? Aren't we creating far more problems by trying to fit ideas and principles into a one dimensional binary soft-decision space?

Quoting bjkeefe: I don't accept the idea that there is a smaller demand in those other fields. Granted, a given shop may be more dubious about someone who wears conservatism on his or her sleeve, but I don't believe collecting a few anecdotes from those who perceive persecution proves anything in general.

Good point. I'm running late this morning, so I'll try to keep it brief. I would generally generally agree that there is no conscious, systematic discrimination against people with conservative ideas in any of the fields we're discussing, still less do I believe that such bias as may exist should or can be rectified by some sort of ideological affirmative action. Ugh! I do believe (and have experienced in a small way) the fish-out-of-water sense that conservatives are subject to in certain well-educated groups is real, and that that causes some who might otherwise pursue certain careers to lose heart and move on. At the same time, if conservatives have surrendered the field in academia, the arts, the media, etc., they have only themselves to blame. And now we see the result: "Joe the Plumber" covering the Middle East conflict and Sara Palin, well, being Sara Palin as vice

I think Eric ment a positive statement not a normative one

I was trying to list conservatives who I view

OMG! Grammar Patrol

Quoting Wonderment: OMG!

Grammar Patrol

L O'L. (Hey it is St. Paddy's Day.)

Quoting cragger: I think you may indulging in my tendency to overgeneralization a bit here. I think that cocooning occurs, but does not select for profession as you suggest. Engineers at Boeing, Raytheon, or Lockheed Martin building weapons are for example lilely a group including a rather different Dem/Rep ratio than those designing video cards, games, and so on for NVIDIA, Microsoft, or whoever. One traditionally lists at least three such examples but you can surely get there on your own.

To be sure, although to be picky, note that I said "a correlation," by which I meant something better than chance but likely not a perfect predictor. Your example of the disparity among engineers is a good one, though, although someone determined to maximize r would simply slice the professions more finely, don't you think? ;^)

As an aside, since these discussions tend to break into two sides, isn't the simplistic Left/Right description of the sociopolitical space a poor one that obscures more than it illuminates? Aren't we creating far more problems by trying to fit ideas and principles into a one dimensional binary soft-decision space?

I don't think this is always true (see also my reply to B.A.D.). I'd also

Quoting Wonderment: OMG!

Grammar Patrol

Heh. Got me there. I still have trouble with the who/whom thing.

I think Mickey's sincere when he admits to not knowing enough about a subject to speak intelligently on it. And I credit him for it. But then there's issues like unions, immigration, welfare reform etc., where he takes a relatively well-informed posture but never goes up against real heavy-weights on those subjects in diavlogs (or even young turks like Ezra Klein;-)

Quoting rfrobison: Good point. I'm running late this morning, so I'll try to keep it brief. I would generally generally agree that there is no conscious, systematic discrimination against people with conservative ideas in any of the fields we're discussing, still less do I believe that such bias as may exist should or can be rectified by some sort of ideological affirmative action. Ugh!

I do believe (and have experienced in a small way) the fish-out-of-water sense that conservatives are subject to in certain well-educated groups is real, and that that causes some who might otherwise pursue certain careers to lose heart and move on.

Yeah, I can buy that to some extent. However, since I can never let anything go completely ... I'd say first that I view this as mostly a good thing -- I (we/they) sincerely and strongly believe in some things, and there gets to be a point where saying "one view is just as valid as another" (another caricature of lefty academia!), no matter how dubious the belief, is insufferable. I'd say also that those who cannot stand up for their convictions don't deserve a whole lot of respect, and to flip it around, those who do

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: I think Mickey's sincere when he admits to not knowing enough about a subject to speak intelligently on it. And I credit him for it. But then there's issues like unions, immigration, welfare reform etc., where he takes a relatively well-informed posture but never goes up against real heavy-weights on those subjects in diavlogs (or even young turks like Ezra Klein;-)

Agree with your description, but I don't see that it supports the idea that he's one of those people who are "willing to do or say anything to appear smart." That he is willing to so obviously back down, even on the issues he's most passionate about, indicates self-awareness about limitations to me.

Quoting thprop: Some more negative takes on Douthat - ...

For laughs: Wolcott and TBogg jump on the first DeLong link.

I have to admit that a lot of my dislike for Douthat is because he reminds me of a typical catholic priest - and I basically detest priests. I find most of those I have met to be self absorbed, emotionally immature and narcissistic. I guess that is what is required for a man to stand in front of people and insist that jeebus is acting through him. So it is OK if he wants to molest children later.

Huh. Ross most definitely does not remind me of the Catholic priests I knew. Maybe I got lucky, but most of the ones I dealt with back in my altar boy days were pretty decent sorts, and several of them were even, yes, cool. In this regard, Ross reminds me more of the pushy and uptight laity types who jump on every board connected with the church. Which, of course, is pretty much what he is. Remains to be seen if he's going to turn out to be the next William Donohue. I hope not. As I've said before, I find his moral scolding unbearable (when I'm not

Quoting bjkeefe: Heh. I was trying to list conservatives who I view as perennially portraying themselves as smarter-than-thou (and their opponents as dimwits), to dispute Bobby G's claim that "all those willing to do or say anything to appear smart are liberal."

Actually, BJ, that was my claim, and I don't really believe it, any more than I believe Mill actually believed all stupid people are conservative. Heck, I don't really know if he even said anything like that. I just latched onto from an earlier post. I'm too lazy to look up the actual quote. My point, such as it was, is that these quips can be turned on their head and while they may make us smile when they agree with our own prejudices, they don't really tell us anything useful or interesting.

Quoting rfrobison: Actually, BJ, that was my claim, ...

Sorry about that. Multi-thread multitasking-induced neural crosstalk (i.e., brain fart). Now noted in my original post.

... and I don't really believe it, ...

Glad to hear it.

... any more than I believe Mill actually believed all stupid people are conservative. Heck, I don't really know if he even said anything like that. I just latched onto from an earlier post. I'm too lazy to look up the actual quote.

Allow me (presuming you're not too lazy to click a link.) ;^) The consensus appears to be that he said it, but he said "most," not "all."

My point, such as it was, is that these quips can be turned on their head and while they may make us smile when they agree with our own prejudices, they don't really tell us anything useful or interesting.

Well, sure, there are limits to how much nuance can be captured in one sentence. Nonetheless, a simple statement can contain truth, even if it's partly intended to be humorous, and points are always given for pithiness. (See also: shorters.) Really, there's no getting away from things like the one-sided support of Sarah Palin, the one-sided appeal of Rush Limbaugh, et al, and the fact that a big part of

Quoting bjkeefe: For laughs: Wolcott and TBogg jump on the first DeLong link.

Huh. Ross most definitely does not remind me of the Catholic priests I knew. Maybe I got lucky, but most of the ones I dealt with back in my altar boy days were pretty decent sorts, and several of them were even, yes, cool. In this regard, Ross reminds me more of the pushy and uptight laity types who jump on every board connected with the church. Which, of course, is pretty much what he is.

Remains to be seen if he's going to turn out to be the next William Donohue. I hope not. As I've said before, I find his moral scolding unbearable (when I'm not able to find it hilarious, I mean), but when he's not talking about sex or Blastocyst-Americans, he's usually worth hearing out.

I'm with Brendan on all of this. I never quite did the Altar Boy thing, but I had some priests that served as mentors along the way, and those were uniformly good experiences, with nary an inappropriate touch. (I kid, there wasn't even a hint of the possibility.) I find Ross, on religious topics, to be a little precious; but other than that he's smart, open minded, listens to the whole debate, and draws

Bring it

lol at clueless bh.tv liberals He's so SMART and ARTICULATE how can he be conservative??? airheads, your love of snark and question-begging Nation columnists doesn't make you an intellectual

Quoting Username: lol at clueless bh.tv liberals

He's so SMART and ARTICULATE how can he be conservative???

airheads, your love of snark and question-begging Nation columnists doesn't make you an intellectual

Thanks for that. Nothing is perfect, but that post does approximate perfection.

A more interesting question is why so many smart intellectuals, whether left or right, are so instinctively pro-government. Conjectures have been thrown around on this one, but to me the most convincing is that successful intellectuals are very much in control of their life and of their mind: it's their comparative advantage. From there it's an easy step to assume that rational government action will be able to solve and "control" reality more than it is safe to assume. We thus have the strange paradox that highly uneducated or strongly biased religious fundamentalists might in the end (without intending it) hold healthier positions of skepticism towards government action.

Quoting Unit: A more interesting question is why so many smart intellectuals, whether left or right, are so instinctively pro-government. Conjectures have been thrown around on this one, but to me the most convincing is that successful intellectuals are very much in control of their life and of their mind: it's their comparative advantage. From there it's an easy step to assume that rational government action will be able to solve and "control" reality more than it is safe to assume. We thus have the strange paradox that highly uneducated or strongly biased religious fundamentalists might in the end (without intending it) hold healthier positions of skepticism towards government action.

Constitutional Government <> Hobbesian Hell.
It's an almost perfectly inversely proportional relation. You can be pro-government and pro-market simultaneously. That's not the issue - rather: what's the balance point where government interference with free markets becomes a loss. (And is there a different answer for different markets?) That's where the conversation ought to begin. It's not a binary issue of "control" at all.

Quoting Unit: A more interesting question is why so many smart intellectuals, whether left or right, are so instinctively pro-government.

Which rightwing intellectuals are pro-govt.?

Quoting shiftycharacter: Which rightwing intellectuals are pro-govt.?

A lot. They have different goals for govt like "energy independence", "world policing", "picking the right immigrants to let in", "telling people what they can ingest or smoke", "who can marry whom", "what medical procedure can be done", etc... How many rightwing intellectuals are in favor of legalizing the market organ donations?

Quoting AemJeff: Constitutional Government <> Hobbesian Hell.
It's an almost perfectly inversely proportional relation.

You can be pro-government and pro-market simultaneously. That's not the issue - rather: what's the balance point where government interference with free markets becomes a loss. (And is there a different answer for different markets?) That's where the conversation ought to begin.

It's not a binary issue of "control" at all.

Unfortunately the checks-and-balances contained in the Constitution have turned out to be almost irrelevant. Like every written law it quickly became detached from the actual "lived" law.

Quoting Unit: Unfortunately the checks-and-balances contained in the Constitution have turned out to be almost irrelevant. Like every written law it quickly became detached from the actual "lived" law.

Even if that were as strongly true as you seem to think, it doesn't follow that there would be a net gain in quality of life for most people in a regulation free environment. (I'll ignore the no government at all case, for which I'm assuming you really aren't arguing.)

Quoting AemJeff: Even if that were as strongly true as you seem to think, it doesn't follow that there would be a net gain in quality of life for most people in a regulation free environment. (I'll ignore the no government at all case, for which I'm assuming you really aren't arguing.)

Right, I'm only arguing against the propensity for more govt on the margin that many smart intellectuals, such as Alterman, seem to hold as a default position.

Quoting Unit: Right, I'm only arguing against the propensity for more govt on the margin that many smart intellectuals, such as Alterman, seem to hold as a default position.

Unit, I'm not sure you're being fair to liberals. Federal expenditure is something like 20% of GDP right now. You can pretty much get everything on the liberal wish list by ramping up to 24% or so. 23% if you cut defense. That is not the same as "liberals always want more government." If it got up to 35% you'd find a lot of Matt Yglesiases, Ezra Kleins, and claymishers complaining about it (Barbara Ehrenreich would probably want more). What motivates most mainstream liberals isn't love of the state, but just boring old pragmatism. Our mostly private health care system is terrible and costs too much. Other comparable countries have better public systems. So we think maybe that's the thing to do. That the government might increase in size is a size effect we can live with. It's not the point of it. What I'm saying is that a lot of people care about the actual state of society and the absolute level of public spending, and not whether

Quoting claymisher: Unit, I'm not sure you're being fair to liberals. Federal expenditure is something like 20% of GDP right now. You can pretty much get everything on the liberal wish list by ramping up to 24% or so. 23% if you cut defense. That is not the same as "liberals always want more government."

I disagree. Although the baseline for government expenditures as a share of GDP is lower in the U.S. than in Europe, the trend is inexorably higher and has been since the New Deal. No doubt if the Democrats get their 24% they'll find other "market failures" or social injustices that only the government can possibly hope to cure. Then it'll be, if we only had 30% we could lick these problems, then 40%, and so on. To be fair, as countries get richer, their citizens generally demand that their government provide more services, and as the economies grow they can usually pay for them one way or another. Once in awhile you still hear some on the left talk about the privations of the Thatcher/Reagan years, as if they cruelly slashed government. But Thatcher even at her "worst" only managed to shave a couple of points off government

Quoting claymisher: Unit, I'm not sure you're being fair to liberals. Federal expenditure is something like 20% of GDP right now. You can pretty much get everything on the liberal wish list by ramping up to 24% or so. 23% if you cut defense. That is not the same as "liberals always want more government." If it got up to 35% you'd find a lot of Matt Yglesiases, Ezra Kleins, and claymishers complaining about it (Barbara Ehrenreich would probably want more). What motivates most mainstream liberals isn't love of the state, but just boring old pragmatism. Our mostly private health care system is terrible and costs too much. Other comparable countries have better public systems. So we think maybe that's the thing to do. That the government might increase in size is a size effect we can live with. It's not the point of it.

What I'm saying is that a lot of people care about the actual state of society and the absolute level of public spending, and not whether the first derivative of public spending is positive or negative.

My worry is that it's never enough. You have a point that the big-govt advocates

Quoting rfrobison: I disagree. Although the baseline for government expenditures as a share of GDP is lower in the U.S. than in Europe, the trend is inexorably higher and has been since the New Deal. No doubt if the Democrats get their 24% they'll find other "market failures" or social injustices that only the government can possibly hope to cure.

If you checked the growth of federal outlays, and saw that it was more or less constant for the last 40 years, would you change your mind about spending going inexorably higher? That's the flattest slippery slope I've ever seen.

Quoting Unit: A more interesting question is why so many smart intellectuals, whether left or right, are so instinctively pro-government.

This is not necessarily true. What a lot of "smart intellectuals" (as opposed to dumb intellectuals?) favor is collective action -- accomplishing things that lead to a better society for all, that are hard to get started, or keep running, because of things like the free rider problem. Government is the one mechanism we have come up with for achieving such aims. Granted, government is an imperfect mechanism, it being made up and staffed by imperfect beings. But the only way forward is to improve the mechanism(s), not to just assert that government is inherently a bad thing. It is, in the end, us.

Quoting bjkeefe: This is not necessarily true. What a lot of "smart intellectuals" (as opposed to dumb intellectuals?) favor is collective action -- accomplishing things that lead to a better society for all, that are hard to get started, or keep running, because of things like the free rider problem. Government is the one mechanism we have come up with for achieving such aims.

Granted, government is an imperfect mechanism, it being made up and staffed by imperfect beings. But the only way forward is to improve the mechanism(s), not to just assert that government is inherently a bad thing. It is, in the end, us.

"The market is us, the govt is them." By the way here is a good post: http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybott...-keynesianism/

Quoting Unit: then you trust that the better and more rational way to get there is to use centralized planning, it's just a matter of electing enlightened politicians and voila'. Well, I happen to think that human society is highly complex and that it evolves and you can't just come in politically do a tabula rasa and rebuild it following the blueprint of your dreams. Especially in view of the well-developped public choice literature with all the rent-seeking opportunity, corporate welfare etc... that that entails. E.g. have you seen this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031602618.html

I'll see your public choice and raise you imperfect markets, asymmetrical information, barriers to entry, transaction costs, adverse selection (death spiral), and behavioral economics. Come on, you should know better than to bluff me with that public choice stuff. Unit, nobody is talking about replacing capitalism with workers' cooperatives and replacing money with flowers. Public health care is a not a pipe dream. It's boring system that other countries have used for almost a century. It works. There are dozens of systems that work better than ours, and none worse. We can do better. I held out against socialized medicine on economic theory grounds until eventually I had to say, "Fuck it, let's

Quoting Unit: "The market is us, the govt is them."

Hey, you're free to paste whatever sticker you want on your own bumper. This one will not grace mine, that's for sure. I think this is a simplistic, even pig-headed, attitude. I think it does not do anything to affect government except make it worse, by leading to the election of politicians who run on slogans like "the government is the problem" and then do their level best to make it true. I think people like you would do far better to view public service as something that could be a good thing, and channel your efforts accordingly.

By the way here is a good post:

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybott...-keynesianism/

Ugh. Snooze. I've never understood why people like going to church and hearing the same hymns and sermons week after week after week after week ...

Quoting claymisher: I'll see your public choice and raise you imperfect markets, asymmetrical information, barriers to entry, transaction costs, adverse selection (death spiral), and behavioral economics. Come on, you should know better than to bluff me with that public choice stuff.

Unit, nobody is talking about replacing capitalism with workers' cooperatives and replacing money with flowers. Public health care is a not a pipe dream. It's boring system that other countries have used for almost a century. It works. There are dozens of systems that work better than ours, and none worse. We can do better.

I held out against socialized medicine on economic theory grounds until eventually I had to say, "Fuck it, let's do whatever France does, because people like and it makes them happy and they don't spend that much anyway." It turns out that the economics literature can back that up (see my buzzword list above), but they don't teach it in econ 101.

I completely agree with imperfect markets etc...but, as Arnold Kling was saying, I prefer market solutions to market failures. My point of view is that most market failures are actually govt failures, i.e. instances where govt regulation was set up to favor certain winners over others. On

Quoting bjkeefe: Hey, you're free to paste whatever sticker you want on your own bumper. This one will not grace mine, that's for sure. I think this is a simplistic, even pig-headed, attitude. I think it does not do anything to affect government except make it worse, by leading to the election of politicians who run on slogans like "the government is the problem" and then do their level best to make it true. I think people like you would do far better to view public service as something that could be a good thing, and channel your efforts accordingly.

Ugh. Snooze. I've never understood why people like going to church and hearing the same hymns and sermons week after week after week after week ...

Well, right back at you. You talk about govt solving the free-rider problems as if it was just an engineering problem: here is goal A, here are our means B, etc...when in fact time and time again we witness govt acting more like the proverbial elephant in the crystal shop (see current AIG mess). I would never want to serve and I hope none of my kids will ever serve in govt, because the

Quoting bjkeefe: I think it does not do anything to affect government except make it worse, by leading to the election of politicians who run on slogans like "the government is the problem" and then do their level best to make it true.

You do make a good point here. I don't really have an answer for this, seeing that even slogans like "govt is the solution" lead to the same conclusion.

Quoting Unit: Well, right back at you.

You talk about govt solving the free-rider problems as if it was just an engineering problem: here is goal A, here are our means B, etc...when in fact time and time again we witness govt acting more like the proverbial elephant in the crystal shop (see current AIG mess).

I would never want to serve and I hope none of my kids will ever serve in govt, because the institutional positions it produces require a certain type of actions. You just don't stay in your seat if you stray too much from the median voter opinion, you just won't win any election if you don't accept some money from some corporate shark, etc...No way. "Govt is not the answer" how'bout this sticker?

The thing that undercuts your attitude is that I am certain that you like some government, even if you will resist admitting it. I cannot believe that you would prefer that we have no way to enforce contracts, keep the peace, protect consumers from unhealthy food, polluted water, and shoddy construction, and a myriad of other things we all take for granted. If you're going to deny this, then ... well, that's

Quoting Unit: You do make a good point here. I don't really have an answer for this, seeing that even slogans like "govt is the solution" lead to the same conclusion.

No one is saying that. Please, the strawman has been punished enough. Leave the poor guy alone.

Quoting Unit: You do make a good point here. I don't really have an answer for this, seeing that even slogans like "govt is the solution" lead to the same conclusion.

You should not confuse my belief that government can be a force for good, or the appropriate way to manage certain things, with a belief that it should run everything. I am as appreciative as anybody that many things are best served when competition is allowed to flourish and individual initiative can be rewarded. [Added] I.e., what clay said.

Quoting bjkeefe: The thing that undercuts your attitude is that I am certain that you like some government, even if you will resist admitting it. I cannot believe that you would prefer that we have no way to enforce contracts, keep the peace, protect consumers from unhealthy food, polluted water, and shoddy construction, and a myriad of other things we all take for granted.

If you're going to deny this, then ... well, that's why we have the word glibertarian.

Well again there's a symmetry here: I might very well be taking for granted some govt but most people take for granted the market and to be honest it's much easier to take for granted market forces because of their 'invisible' nature. It goes back to 'what's seen and what's unseen" of Bastiat. Govt action is highly visible and highly publicized, also its nature of pseudo-rationality makes it easily appreciated: e.g. "there's a fall in aggregate demand so the govt just needs to spend a bunch of money" etc... As to your list, you're right govt does a lot, but I think I'm more sensitive to how much the market already does and could do in the future: 1. enforce contracts: common law

I want somebody to respond to the the chart I posted! Come on people!

Quoting Unit: Well again there's a symmetry here: I might very well be taking for granted some govt but most people take for granted the market and to be honest it's much easier to take for granted market forces because of their 'invisible' nature. It goes back to 'what's seen and what's unseen" of Bastiat. Govt action is highly visible and highly publicized, also it's nature of pseudo-rationality makes it easily appreciated: e.g. "there's a fall in aggregate demand so the govt just needs to spend a bunch of money" etc...

As to your list, you're right govt does a lot, but I think I'm more sensitive to how much the market already does and could do in the future: 1. enforce contracts: common law especially evolved with local judges and juries and often evolved by private arbitration. 2. keep the peace: 50% of the police force in the US is hired privately. 3. protect consumers from unhealthy food: consumer report and simply the forces of competition are better than the FDA (which should be abolished as every economist who has ever studied its role has concluded). 4. polluted water: this more complicated, there's the famous tragedy of the commons of course

Quoting claymisher: Please, leave the Coase stuff out of this. Coase too has suffered enough. CT is either so limited as to have no application in the real world, or it's just another instance of might makes right. Either way it's not that interesting.

I disagree, I find it quite deep.

As for the success of trusting private consumer protection in the long run, don't forget about Moodys and S&P. And Anderson Accounting. Sooner or later private managers will convert reputation into compensation. It's exactly what you'd expect any hedonistic sociopath I mean rational agent to do. And if there's anyone in reality like a real rational agent, it's a CEO.

Moody was given monopoly privileges by the govt. The banks were required to have triple As certified by Moody or the other two rating agencies otherwise it wouldn't have counted towards meeting capital requirements.

Quoting Unit: Well again there's a symmetry here: I might very well be taking for granted some govt but most people take for granted the market and to be honest it's much easier to take for granted market forces because of their 'invisible' nature. It goes back to 'what's seen and what's unseen" of Bastiat. Govt action is highly visible and highly publicized, also it's nature of pseudo-rationality makes it easily appreciated: e.g. "there's a fall in aggregate demand so the govt just needs to spend a bunch of money" etc...

I'm sorry, but this whole paragraph is so vacuous I don't know how to respond to it. You're tossing around empty jargon as though it means something, you're making unsupported (and unsupportable) claims about "most people," and once again, you're conflating emergencies like the one we have now with some imagined belief that the government should be trying to micromanage the economy always. Please, enough with the straw men.

As to your list, you're right govt does a lot, but I think I'm more sensitive to how much the market already does and could do in the future: 1. enforce contracts: common law especially evolved with local judges

Quoting bjkeefe: I'm sorry, but this whole paragraph is so vacuous I don't know how to respond to it. You're tossing around empty jargon as though it means something, you're making unsupported (and unsupportable) claims about "most people," and once again, you're conflating emergencies like the one we have now with some imagined belief that the government should be trying to micromanage the economy always. Please, enough with the straw men.

It's always good to point to a real or perceived crisis to pretend to be doing something about it while merrily squandering the public wealth: Obama is continuing in the same mold as Bush II.

1. This is pure glibertarianism. No one wants to return to the days where straying into the wrong town with some local dictator of a judge means you get tossed in jail and stripped of your possessions. (e.g.)

I was thinking of the evolution of gay marriage in CA that advanced through incremental decisions by local judges etc...I have more trust in such evolving processes.

2. You keep saying this number, and I don't believe it. Or, if there's some basis to it, I am imagining the only way it could be said

Quoting Unit: It's always good to point to a real or perceived crisis to pretend to be doing something about it while merrily squandering the public wealth: Obama is continuing in the same mold as Bush II.

You're entitled to your view. I don't share it, regarding the current mess we're in. I don't think it's a "perceived crisis," I do think government intervention is less bad than the alternative of doing nothing, and I don't think the money being spent as stimulus (or to provide emergency help) is "squandering."

I was thinking of the evolution of gay marriage in CA that advanced through incremental decisions by local judges etc...I have more trust in such evolving processes.

There's undoubtedly a place for such local initiatives, but that doesn't mean it would be a good thing to do away with the great swath of our justice system and let a million fiefdoms bloom.

yes mall security, campus security, businesses hire their own guards as well etc...

Glad to hear you acknowledge this. I don't have any wish to make real cops do all these jobs, for a myriad of reasons. At the same time, I don't have any wish to have

Quoting Unit: I disagree, I find it quite deep.

No, you don't. You're using it as an ideological bludgeon. CT never says what libertarians say it says.

Quoting claymisher: No, you don't. You're using it as an ideological bludgeon. CT never says what libertarians say it says.

You don't get to decide what I think.

Hmm, well, those numbers look official so I'm not going to quibble: government spending as a share of GDP has indeed held fairly constant since 1960. I said since the New Deal, but never mind that. Rather than slippery slopes one might think of staircases. Any move to provide universal government health care is going to ratchet up government expenditures significantly over time. The population is aging. I wonder if those numbers represent so-called discretionary spending only, or whether it includes Social Security outlays and payments on the national debt? In any event, the costs of Medicare and Social Security alone are going to eat up an ever larger share of the total. Over the next 30 years or so, as the baby boomers move fully into the ranks of the retired, the costs of those programs are going to explode. You could cut defense and all other domestic spending to zero and it still wouldn't make up the difference. Frankly, I don't see how you're going to pull it off with just a few percentage points of GDP. If I were a Republican strategist (and they could use a few right now) I would say to

One additional point: As a purely accounting matter, you may get your wish of having a couple of percentage points of GDP in government spending just by doing nothing. The economy is in free-fall and the treasury's printing presses are going full tilt at the moment. Just sit back and watch those public spending/GDP ratios go up and up!

Quoting claymisher: No one is saying that. Please, the strawman has been punished enough. Leave the poor guy alone.

Unit says (I'm paraphrasing): "The gov't is the problem." He's attacked for believing silly, simplistic things. BJ says (I'm paraphrasing): "If politicians believe 'the gov't is the problem', then they will act more incompetently than if they believe 'the gov't is not the problem'." No one, not even Unit, challenges him. Why is what BJ says not a completely unsupported generalization that sounds good only because you're already sympathetic to his view?

Quoting Bobby G: Unit says (I'm paraphrasing): "The gov't is the problem."

He's attacked for believing silly, simplistic things.

BJ says (I'm paraphrasing): "If politicians believe 'the gov't is the problem', then they will act more incompetently than if they believe 'the gov't is not the problem'." No one, not even Unit, challenges him.

Why is what BJ says not a completely unsupported generalization that sounds good only because you're already sympathetic to his view?

Good point. I blame Bush. I think that's all the proof you need.

Quoting claymisher: Good point. I blame Bush. I think that's all the proof you need.

If this is a joke, fine. If it's serious, then you've got to be joking. Why think you joke? First, because Bush is a mess of contradictions. I'm sure he somewhere said that gov't is the problem. He also said that if someone is hurting, gov't has to rush in to help. Moreover, even if he does believe that gov't is the problem, and then goes and demonstrates it, he's just one example. There may be other people who favor limited or small gov't who have done quite fine jobs of governing, at least if you ask their constituents. Now, of course, you're going to argue that Republicans in general do a worse job than Democrats in general of governing. Maybe you're right. But even if you're right, there could be a host of reasons for that: (1) maybe Republican politicians are just, by and large, dumber; (2) maybe, in general, they're in hoc to interest groups that, when their interests are satisfied, hurt the common good more; (3) maybe most Republicans don't believe that gov't is the problem, even if they say it; (4) maybe most Republicans don't even say that gov't is the problem. Etc., etc.

Quoting Unit: You don't get to decide what I think.

Of course not. You wrote:

4. polluted water: this is more complicated, there's the famous tragedy of the commons of course but there's also Coase's theorem that with low transaction costs the most efficient way is to settle privately. I also worry that by giving govt monopoly over these issues it ends up selling the right to pollute to its most loyal supporters

First, transaction costs are never low when you need lawyers. Transaction costs are most commonly low because of a pre-existing contract. Like, you know, a law. As for efficiency, Pareto efficiency isn't the kind of efficiency anyone cares about. Returning stolen property isn't Pareto-improving. Just because the allocation of resources in highly specific conditions is the same independent of who possesses the right doesn't mean that's the kind of world anyone wants to live in. And the allocation being the same either way assumes there are no wealth effects (that is, assumes quasi-linear preferences). But that's a heck of an assumption. For example, if the lead smelter in the village has the right to pollute, and the villagers are too poor to make them

Quoting Bobby G: If this is a joke, fine. If it's serious, then you've got to be joking.

Why think you joke? First, because Bush is a mess of contradictions. I'm sure he somewhere said that gov't is the problem. He also said that if someone is hurting, gov't has to rush in to help. Moreover, even if he does believe that gov't is the problem, and then goes and demonstrates it, he's just one example. There may be other people who favor limited or small gov't who have done quite fine jobs of governing, at least if you ask their constituents.

Now, of course, you're going to argue that Republicans in general do a worse job than Democrats in general of governing. Maybe you're right. But even if you're right, there could be a host of reasons for that: (1) maybe Republican politicians are just, by and large, dumber; (2) maybe, in general, they're in hoc to interest groups that, when their interests are satisfied, hurt the common good more; (3) maybe most Republicans don't believe that gov't is the problem, even if they say it; (4) maybe most Republicans don't even say that gov't is the problem. Etc., etc.

Well, Bush said a lot of things. I'm talking about what he did. I don't

Quoting rfrobison: If I were a Republican strategist (and they could use a few right now) I would say to their leadership in Congress: OK, here's how you negotiate with the Democrats on this problem: You want to present a plan that offers health insurance to everyone? We agree with you that the health care system is a hugely inefficient mess and something needs to be done.

We'll give you publicly funded health care if you'll agree to a significant reform of the Social Security system that moves from the current "pay-as-you-go" model (where today's workers pay benefits to today's retirees) to a fully funded public pension based on a mandatory savings plan. Give people three options: conservative, moderate, and aggressive investment styles (the default being conservative) and buy people an annuity with their accumulated savings when they reach age 75 (or 65 if the recipient can't work for health reasons).

I'd say that's the rough outline of a "grand bargain" that would actually take care of two mean birds with one stone.

I used to be a big booster for private accounts when I thought stocks returned 10%/years. Turns out it's closer to 5%. Then

Quoting claymisher: Of course not.

You wrote:

First, transaction costs are never low when you need lawyers.

The idea is to settle before going to court, privately.

Transaction costs are most commonly low because of a pre-existing contract. Like, you know, a law.

As for efficiency, Pareto efficiency isn't the kind of efficiency anyone cares about. Returning stolen property isn't Pareto-improving. Just because the allocation of resources in highly specific conditions is the same independent of who possesses the right doesn't mean that's the kind of world anyone wants to live in. And the allocation being the same either way assumes there are no wealth effects (that is, assumes quasi-linear preferences). But that's a heck of an assumption. For example, if the lead smelter in the village has the right to pollute, and the villagers are too poor to make them stop, the pollution continues. If the villagers are rich retirees, the pollution stops (assuming they can deal with the free rider problem). I happen to like the political solution, which is to tell the lead polluter to fuck off. I think that gets to the social optimum with a lot less hassle.

Sure, except that the political solution is more

Of course I admit that Bush was incompetent. What I don't admit is that his incompetence demonstrates the truth of the claim, "people who believe that gov't is the problem demonstrate that gov't is the problem only when they run it."

Quoting claymisher: I think just taking 4-5% of GDP and writing checks to old people is a lot cheaper and roughly equivalent to a your privatized retirement scheme. Either way the success overall will be determined by economic growth. SS just has much lower overhead.

But that's just the point. It won't stay at 4%-5% of GDP as the population ages, unless you plan to let the per-recipient benefits erode over time. People may be lousy investors, but they'll wise up to that quick enough. And Social Security payouts have little or nothing to do with the rate of economic growth. The (soon-to-be-tapped-out) trust fund is prohibited from buying anything but government securities, as far as I know. Of course a mandatory savings scheme would have to have careful public oversight. And people would need to be advised clearly about the risks they would be taking and again, the default position should be the "conservative" one with, say, 80% invested in 20-year government bonds. (I'm just tossing out a number.) Sweden (Now there's a country no liberal can hate!) has a system whereby every month contributors see exactly how much is in their accounts, the rate of return, and how much more

Quoting Bobby G: Of course I admit that Bush was incompetent. What I don't admit is that his incompetence demonstrates the truth of the claim, "people who believe that gov't is the problem demonstrate that gov't is the problem only when they run it."

Since you're going to talk about something I said, you might take the trouble to get it right (emph. added):

Quoting bjkeefe:

Quoting Unit: "The market is us, the govt is them."

Hey, you're free to paste whatever sticker you want on your own bumper. This one will not grace mine, that's for sure. I think this is a simplistic, even pig-headed, attitude. I think it does not do anything to affect government except make it worse, by leading to the election of politicians who run on slogans like "the government is the problem" and then do their level best to make it true.

To elaborate, I did not say that government is never a problem except when supposed government-haters run it. I said that government, as a problem, is only made worse when such people are elected.

Quoting bjkeefe: To elaborate, I did not say that government is never a problem except when supposed government-haters run it. I said that government, as a problem, is only made worse when such people are elected.

You're right. In my latest comment, I didn't get your point right. Sorry about that. In fairness to me, though, the first time I paraphrased you, I got it more or less right: "BJ says (I'm paraphrasing): "If politicians believe 'the gov't is the problem', then they will act more incompetently than if they believe 'the gov't is not the problem'." " More important, the discussion was not about whether you're right, it was about whether you're making an extremely general claim without offering any support. I think you are. (And your latest comment, quoted above, does nothing to dissuade me of this.) I think this is important given that Unit, in this very discussion, was called out for not offering support for his/her extremely general claim.

Quoting Bobby G: More important, the discussion was not about whether you're right, it was about whether you're making an extremely general claim without offering any support.

Give me a break. Have you read a newspaper in the past decade?