Koz, my point is not that conservatism is at all wrong, or that limited government is wrong, or that the opposition party is wrong - it is that populism is a dangerous game to play, and these particular populist fires have a way of getting out of hand. How far from this current brand of populism is a resurgence of protectionist policy, for instance? Not far I'd wager.
There have always been populists on either side of the political spectrum. At different times they have had more or less power, influence, etc. "These days" I think would apply to various points in history, but not every point.
ScottBrown - if you're referring to Bob Cheeks with surprise, then you don't hang around here too often. That's just his way. And we let a lot get through the censor's fingers around here - pretty much up until specific commenters are attacking other commenters directly with some sort of bad language or false accusation. You can joke about the fascist right-wingers if you want, just like Bob can joke about the commie-dems. What I really don't like is people whining. Maybe less of that would be good.
Michael Drew - I'm a little disappointed in your response. I've always admired the strength of your arguments and respected that where we disagree we do so amicably. You provide challenging defenses of what you believe in and you do it well. That liberal ideas are "resisted" by more libertarian-leaning writers on this site is not surprising, nor should it be viewed as some form of implicit censorship, and I find it somewhat hard to believe that you'd come to that opinion.
What hope did you have exactly? That this site would be more ideologically in tune with your beliefs? Because that's not the point nor will it ever be even if we keep adding liberal writers like Jamelle. The point of the site is to have a conversation, and one in which many sides can disagree and some can do so jokingly and others more seriously but also one in which nobody leaves wounded or (too) angry.
And perhaps I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.
You can also ask me to my face instead of using the somewhat contorted "Why does ED Kain find endless...." phrasing. In any case, I think I'm fairly balanced in my critique of the GOP and its tactics overall. I fail to see how I let either the Republicans or Democrats off the hook. But maybe I'm just biased in favor of my own opinions. Who knows?
Regarding unions, I'm a lot softer on them than many people. I'm not against unions at all, actually, any more than I'm against corporations. What I am against is either unions or corporations wielding too much power in government. With the bailouts both these groups have gained power. And in the healthcare reform deal, the unions were going to be exempted from taxes other working Americans were going to have to pay. That, along with their resistance to any reform which taxed benefits (including Wyden/Bennett) earned them my ire.
I'm not sure it ever got to that point (Wyden/Bennett notwithstanding). Nor am I saying that it would have gotten to that point with any other bill. But I think that the Democrats approached the whole notion of compromise poorly. The entire Gang of Six, behind closed doors thing was a terrible idea. And yes, I also think this could have been done more incrementally. If they could have snagged Snowe and ditched all talk of public options and so forth completely they may have had a bill. They could have come back later with the public option.
Meh. There was a great deal of liberal reaction to this. I was looking for that Keith Olbermann silliness because it was soooo over the top. But hey, there were several writers over at True/Slant I could have used instead, mourning the death of American democracy and such. And others elsewhere in your typical liberal stomping grounds. Not all liberals of course. The point I'm making is that both sides can have silly reactions to things.
It doesn't have to be a Republican resurgence. But I think the Democrats could certainly take the Republican's health care plan and use that as their springboard (I'm not saying take it as it is, but take it as the starting point). That would be a pretty overt attempt at bipartisanship, and would neuter GOP opposition to some degree.
That's a tricky thing, though. Did Republicans back off or did they merely read the writing on the wall? The unions were never going to let that bill through.
Who gets the money? Anyone who asks? How many signatures would this require? Would you have to win the primary first - or would primaries be covered by this as well? Would all independent candidates get as much money as the Dems and Repubs? Even the Crazy Party (with only 20 members)? The Green Party too? What about the White Nationalist Party? Who decides?
You're allowed to say stupid things on this blog. As stupid as you can think up. But you're not allowed to hurl around blanket insults like "you fucking hypocrites."
So how much money is too much, by the way? What are the monetary limits we should place on free speech? Should it vary by region? Should it only apply to corporations or should it also apply to rich people? Who should decide? And should it only be applied to political stuff? Should we limit the amount media corporations can spend on 'electioneering'?
Which 30 second spots should the government censor? Why shouldn't I be able to see any 30 second spot I choose? What if a corporation other than a media corporation hosts a blog? What if on that blog the blogger takes a political position? Should he be censored? At what point do we draw the line? Is it a line we can draw without any infringements on our right to free speech?
I would say that the 30 second spot you so deride is just a way for you to simplify a much more complicated problem. The repurcussions of stripping away the right to free speech are much deeper than merely losing some spots on TV. But even that is too much power for the government to wield over what we can or cannot express. Why can't I form a corporation with several other people and then use the money we earn legally to sponsor candidates or political causes? Why is my freedom of speech suddenly limited by the state now that I have decided to put my time and money into a business? I'm still the same person with the same political views.
Why can a corporation spend millions of dollars selling its product but not touting a candidate? There are no good answers to these questions.
On “The politics of pettiness”
Koz, my point is not that conservatism is at all wrong, or that limited government is wrong, or that the opposition party is wrong - it is that populism is a dangerous game to play, and these particular populist fires have a way of getting out of hand. How far from this current brand of populism is a resurgence of protectionist policy, for instance? Not far I'd wager.
"
I sort of kind of figured you might say that.
"
Mike, you're totally welcome to write a post on that more productive topic.
"
There have always been populists on either side of the political spectrum. At different times they have had more or less power, influence, etc. "These days" I think would apply to various points in history, but not every point.
"
It has indeed always been thus, Sam. And we bloggers, from time immemorial, have nevertheless continued to write about it I fear.
On “The Architecture of Modernity & the Joy of Science”
Lovely intro post, David. Glad to have you aboard!
On “On conservatism”
ScottBrown - if you're referring to Bob Cheeks with surprise, then you don't hang around here too often. That's just his way. And we let a lot get through the censor's fingers around here - pretty much up until specific commenters are attacking other commenters directly with some sort of bad language or false accusation. You can joke about the fascist right-wingers if you want, just like Bob can joke about the commie-dems. What I really don't like is people whining. Maybe less of that would be good.
Michael Drew - I'm a little disappointed in your response. I've always admired the strength of your arguments and respected that where we disagree we do so amicably. You provide challenging defenses of what you believe in and you do it well. That liberal ideas are "resisted" by more libertarian-leaning writers on this site is not surprising, nor should it be viewed as some form of implicit censorship, and I find it somewhat hard to believe that you'd come to that opinion.
What hope did you have exactly? That this site would be more ideologically in tune with your beliefs? Because that's not the point nor will it ever be even if we keep adding liberal writers like Jamelle. The point of the site is to have a conversation, and one in which many sides can disagree and some can do so jokingly and others more seriously but also one in which nobody leaves wounded or (too) angry.
And perhaps I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.
"
You can also ask me to my face instead of using the somewhat contorted "Why does ED Kain find endless...." phrasing. In any case, I think I'm fairly balanced in my critique of the GOP and its tactics overall. I fail to see how I let either the Republicans or Democrats off the hook. But maybe I'm just biased in favor of my own opinions. Who knows?
Regarding unions, I'm a lot softer on them than many people. I'm not against unions at all, actually, any more than I'm against corporations. What I am against is either unions or corporations wielding too much power in government. With the bailouts both these groups have gained power. And in the healthcare reform deal, the unions were going to be exempted from taxes other working Americans were going to have to pay. That, along with their resistance to any reform which taxed benefits (including Wyden/Bennett) earned them my ire.
"
I'm not sure it ever got to that point (Wyden/Bennett notwithstanding). Nor am I saying that it would have gotten to that point with any other bill. But I think that the Democrats approached the whole notion of compromise poorly. The entire Gang of Six, behind closed doors thing was a terrible idea. And yes, I also think this could have been done more incrementally. If they could have snagged Snowe and ditched all talk of public options and so forth completely they may have had a bill. They could have come back later with the public option.
On “My Thoughts on the State of the Union Address”
Looks awesome...alas no TV. No PS3 or Xbox....
"
Well archaic was sort of tongue-in-cheek....
"
I read Sourcerer and liked it a lot - but that's the only one. Love Gaiman's stuff, so I should really read Good Omens.
"
Not quite midway, I guess. They've been mentioned and they sound awful, but I haven't come in to contact with them directly yet....
"
Lots of great characters in these books, but yes - Whiskeyjack is great.
On “On conservatism”
Well that's the topic of many a blog post, to be sure....
"
Well party discipline is okay so long as the leadership is decent. So perhaps the GOP can keep its party discipline and ditch its leadership.
And who called Palin a RINO? I don't doubt it, I just hadn't heard that.
"
Meh. There was a great deal of liberal reaction to this. I was looking for that Keith Olbermann silliness because it was soooo over the top. But hey, there were several writers over at True/Slant I could have used instead, mourning the death of American democracy and such. And others elsewhere in your typical liberal stomping grounds. Not all liberals of course. The point I'm making is that both sides can have silly reactions to things.
"
It doesn't have to be a Republican resurgence. But I think the Democrats could certainly take the Republican's health care plan and use that as their springboard (I'm not saying take it as it is, but take it as the starting point). That would be a pretty overt attempt at bipartisanship, and would neuter GOP opposition to some degree.
"
That's a tricky thing, though. Did Republicans back off or did they merely read the writing on the wall? The unions were never going to let that bill through.
On “The Boss Tweed-ization of national politics”
What is the difference in terms of freedom of speech? I fail to understand the constitutional position you're taking.
"
Who gets the money? Anyone who asks? How many signatures would this require? Would you have to win the primary first - or would primaries be covered by this as well? Would all independent candidates get as much money as the Dems and Repubs? Even the Crazy Party (with only 20 members)? The Green Party too? What about the White Nationalist Party? Who decides?
"
Golf Ball -
You're allowed to say stupid things on this blog. As stupid as you can think up. But you're not allowed to hurl around blanket insults like "you fucking hypocrites."
So how much money is too much, by the way? What are the monetary limits we should place on free speech? Should it vary by region? Should it only apply to corporations or should it also apply to rich people? Who should decide? And should it only be applied to political stuff? Should we limit the amount media corporations can spend on 'electioneering'?
"
Pat -
Which 30 second spots should the government censor? Why shouldn't I be able to see any 30 second spot I choose? What if a corporation other than a media corporation hosts a blog? What if on that blog the blogger takes a political position? Should he be censored? At what point do we draw the line? Is it a line we can draw without any infringements on our right to free speech?
I would say that the 30 second spot you so deride is just a way for you to simplify a much more complicated problem. The repurcussions of stripping away the right to free speech are much deeper than merely losing some spots on TV. But even that is too much power for the government to wield over what we can or cannot express. Why can't I form a corporation with several other people and then use the money we earn legally to sponsor candidates or political causes? Why is my freedom of speech suddenly limited by the state now that I have decided to put my time and money into a business? I'm still the same person with the same political views.
Why can a corporation spend millions of dollars selling its product but not touting a candidate? There are no good answers to these questions.
"
No. It's speech. And getting rid of it is government censorship.
On “No Fear of Citizens”
I think this is the best, most interesting thread of 2010. Anywhere.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.