Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktVital Statistics:
| Close | Change | Percent | |
| S&P Futures | 1405.82 | 7.91 | .57% |
| Eurostoxx Index | 2306.69 | .26 | .01% |
| Oil (WTI) | 106.29 | 1.29 | 1.23% |
| LIBOR | 0.466 | 0.000 | 0.00% |
| US Dollar Index (DXY) | 78.83 | .01 | 0.02% |
| 10 Year Govt Bond Yield | 1.9435% | .0298% | |
| RPX Composite Real Estate Index | ? | ? |
Sorry for the delay in getting this posted in Brent’s absence. Busy day for me today, although the markets themselves weren’t that busy, what with most of Europe out today on holiday for May Day. Strong ISM and Construction data did move rates a bit higher today and equities rallied, but the afternoon was pretty slow.
Davis Polk’s latest monthly analysis of the progress that the regulatory agencies are making on Dodd-Frank. One notable statistic: regulators have missed two-thirds of the 221 already passed deadlines for rule making. And we still have 158 to go. It’s tempting to say that D/F is the worst legislation passed in the last 100 years, but unfortunately its not even the worst legislation passed during the last 4.
In non-financial news, Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas came out today. I’ve read the intro and am reminded of some of the discussions we’ve had here.
We’ve debated here whether or not Elizabeth Warren is a hypocrite, but apparently there’s a new debate brewing over whether or not she’s a Native American. (This, BTW, is a bit of a bugaboo for me. Isn’t everyone who was born in the US a native American?)
Top ten revelations about bin Laden garnered from the raid on his compound. Most interesting: he was a porn addict. Least surprising: he thought Biden was unprepared to be president. (Who doesn’t?)
Never, ever date your own dentist.
Filed under: Bits and Pieces, Morning Report |
All Things in Moderation 
Two things Scott, first thanks for putting up some financial news for us and second, this In non-financial news, Jonah Goldberg’s new book, Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas came out today. I’ve read the intro and am reminded of some of the discussions we’ve had here. probably won’t encourage me to read either the link or the intro……………………………..plus it’s Jonah Goldberg.
LikeLike
lms:
probably won’t encourage me to read either the link or the intro
I hold out no hope of being able to encourage you to do anything, no matter what I say. Besides, it was written for the benefit of someone else.
LikeLike
Thanks, Scott.
LikeLike
Better late than never, I suppose.
LikeLike
If you want a sample of the Jonah Goldberg book and you want to save yourself $16.77 or even a trip to the library, you can get a good taste of it in the Five Myths article he wrote for WaPo. Goldberg is a stunningly glib lightweight even among what I call Airport Bookstore Conservatives. After all, in a previous book he broke Godwin’s Law right in the title.
LikeLike
yello:
Goldberg is a stunningly glib lightweight even among what I call Airport Bookstore Conservatives.
Which of his books have you read?
After all, in a previous book he broke Godwin’s Law right in the title
Talk about stunningly glib.
In the first place it doesn’t make any sense to accuse someone of having “broke” Godwin’s law. It being the observation that eventually any on-line discussion will invoke Hitler or the Nazis, you accuse someone of fulfilling it, not breaking it.
Second, the title of his book referred to Fascism which is a much wider subject than simply Hitler/Nazis. Perhaps you should read the book and familiarize yourself with the subject.
LikeLike
I actually though Liberal Fascism was pretty good. Of course, I’m predisposed to see progressive politics as authoritarian in nature.
LikeLike
nova:
I actually though Liberal Fascism was pretty good.
Quite a lot of people dismiss it because they don’t like Goldberg the NR pundit, so they feel comfortable dismissing the book without having read it. I thought it was both well researched and quite informative.
LikeLike
I thought the best parts were the history of how fascism rose in Europe and it’s counterpart here. What was particularly intriguing was the lesson learned from WWI was that people wouldn’t easily give up their national pride/allegiances in favor of a international workers party ….. so they instead doubled-down on the nationalism.
LikeLike
That didn’t turn out so well.
LikeLike
Admittedly, I’m one of those who hasn’t read the book “Liberal Fascism” but I am sort of wondering if “Liberal Fascist” needs to be added to rule number 6. Just sayin’.
nova
Of course, I’m predisposed to see progressive politics as authoritarian in nature.
Were you here when we took the tests from Mark and FB? If I recall correctly most of the authoritarians were on the right.
LikeLike
Nice Von Mises quote, by the way.
LikeLike
McWing;
Nice Von Mises quote, by the way.
Thanks. I liked it.
LikeLike
I would think that this doesn’t apply to rule 6. it’s basically a history book. But the underlying premise is that fascism was a rejection of the “old right” or the classical liberals, who put a premium on individual and property rights. — something authoritarians of neither stripe do.
I can’t find the quiz
LikeLike
nova
it’s basically a history book
I’ll take your word for it nova as I generally trust you.
If I recall the tests were for basically all political thought. Most of us agreed some of the questions were poorly written though so we weren’t sure how useful it was. I can’t remember how long ago it was, I feel as though I’ve lived about 3 years in the last four months so my frame of reference is off. I think we treated it as rather suspect though, especially the “authoritarians”.
LikeLike
lms/nova:
I think we treated it as rather suspect though, especially the “authoritarians”.
Brent pointed out quite well what was wrong with the test, and why all the liberals were scoring as libertarian.
LikeLike
His other point was the term basically has no meaning anymore other than “something I don’t like.” Anyway — it’s an interesting read if for no other reason that it challenges the “fascism is totalitarian right wing” conventional wisdom. It’s much more nuanced than that. I took an ideology course as an undergrad. we basically skipped over fascism as nobody seems to be able to talk about it reasonably, which is really a shame, because these ideas didn’t occur in a vacuum. and it was responsible for unspeakable horrors. You’d think we’d want to learn about it.
LikeLike
I’m out for awhile, have a busy week. I’ll be putting up a post Friday morning re ABC’s book, Suite Harmonic and I’m hoping those of you who read or are reading it will participate in the discussion. I’ve really enjoyed the read and think she’s a terrific writer. If you didn’t read it, you don’t know what you’ve missed.
LikeLike
We’ll see nova if I ever read the book or not, my list is long and I’m not getting any younger. It takes me much longer to read a book than it used to as I have a tendency to fall asleep in the middle of a page……………………………….haaaahaaaaa. I’m pretty sure the next book I read will be “Classified Woman” by Sibel Edmonds, a Turkish interpreter working for the FBI (if I remember correctly) pre 9/11.
LikeLike
that sound more fun. have a good week.
LikeLike
Thanks Scott. I looked through the thread and found my score:
Economic Left/Right: 3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
But i’d agree with Brent’s criticism
LikeLike
you accuse someone of fulfilling [Godwin’s Law], not breaking it.
I defer to your much better locution.
Second, the title of his book referred to Fascism which is a much wider subject than simply Hitler/Nazis
There’s a Hitler mustache right on the dust jacket. Sometimes you can judge a book by the cover. I’m familiar enough with the work of Jonah Goldberg to know it’s not a perspective I would appreciate.
LikeLike
yello:
Sometimes you can judge a book by the cover.
Goldberg actually discussed the source of the book cover “deep inside my book . . . on page 1” (as he once amusingly put it.) The source was actually that big anti-leftist, George Carlin, who once sagely noted that “When fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jack-boots. It will be Nike sneakers and Smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley.”
I’m familiar enough with the work of Jonah Goldberg to know it’s not a perspective I would appreciate.
So I take it, then, that the characterization "Airport Bookstore Conservative" is just a creative way of saying "Conservatives whose books I've never actually read."
LikeLike
” Were you here when we took the tests from Mark and FB? If I recall correctly most of the authoritarians were on the right.”
Brent made good points about how there should have been a wider array of questions on libertarianism. Despite that oversight, the results were amusing for pointing out how self-professed libertarians sometimes approach that ideology like a cafeteria.
LikeLike
bsimon:
Despite that oversight, the results were amusing for pointing out how self-professed libertarians sometimes approach that ideology like a cafeteria.
Like who?
LikeLike
Breaking news: Medicare Fraud Strike Force Charges 107 Individuals for Approximately $452 Million in False Billing
LikeLike
Scott, ‘who’ doesn’t matter – its merely amusing to me. But in my opinion, people who think the gov’t should regulate who can be married are not libertarians. People who think the gov’t should regulate the doctor-patient relationship are not libertarians. The quiz appropriately scored such positions as being more authoritarian.
LikeLike
Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas
I’d probably read that book. Although I suspect there are plenty of folks on most sides of most issues who (a) rely heavily on cliches or rhetoric to bolster their points, it has a long and storied tradition and (b) who “cheat” in the war of ideas. Arguably, anything that is not a dry comparison of mutually agreed upon factual data, with similarly dry disagreement about the likely outcome of clearly articulated plans (where the discussion is actually limited to the actual facts of the plans, and not “translated” into death panels or throwing old people out into the street) requires a bit of rhetorical cheating, or using cliches, comparisons, metaphors and language to win arguments rather than dry data with unappealing caveats (i.e., complex or simple solutions introduced into complex, multi-factor environments have limits as to what guarantees can actually be made as regards outcomes).
LikeLike
Kevin:
I’d probably read that book. Although I suspect there are plenty of folks on most sides of most issues who…
I’ve only read the intro and the first chapter, but the broad thesis seems to be that while conservatives are generally quite open about their ideology, liberals tend to pretend that they are not at all ideological. They claim to be focused on “what works” while deceiving themselves and others about that which defines what it means for something to “work”, namely ideology. I imagine that the cliches which he will get to in the meat of the book will demonstrate how they go about engaging in this deception.
This is definitely true of the current president, and it certainly corresponds to my experiences. For example, I have never met an obviously conservative person who denies his conservatism, but I know all kinds of out and out liberals who deny their liberalism, claiming to be simply “pragmatic”.
LikeLike
For example, I have never met an obviously conservative person who denies his conservatism, but I know all kinds of out and out liberals who deny their liberalism, claiming to be simply “pragmatic”.
Being old, I remember when the reverse was more true.
I have a guess about this apparent anecdotal phenomenon. I will use me as an example. The New Deal/Fair Deal was hated by conservatives, but much of it proved to work over time and some of it paid for itself; e.g., rural electrification [in west Texas, anyway] and the G.I. Bill. Some of it shaped society and the economy – e.g.; the home mortgage deduction. Some R initiatives were also far reaching: e.g., the interstate highway system. I might have opposed any of those ideas when they were floated. Now I am glad for all of them except the home mortgage deduction.
My default position is to be skeptical of new federal programs, but I now want to retain old ones that I think work. So that makes me a “liberal” in the eyes of conservatives and libertarians who are either not convinced the programs worked, or who remain certain that either local government or the market worked or would work as well or better, or who think that a category of expenditure is outside the Constitution, or who draw a line between public good and private good at physical commercial infrastructure and defense, not at public health and disease control. It made me a conservative among liberals at The Fix and The PL, because I opposed ACA there for the duration of the debate.
It makes me pragmatic in my own eyes. It made me support BigEars [Perot] twice. He preached that some stuff works and some does not. He understood that education is a state function, not a federal one, and in TX he was the greatest single education advocate we ever had. He was remarkable, and he did it for no better reason than his belief that education was a public good, but not a federal responsibility. He got no personal recompense for the reforms he pushed through in TX as a private citizen, spending his own money, c1988-91. He thought no federal initiative should go forward without a controlled pilot study, first.
So suppose we could identify 100 federal initiatives since the Great Depression that did not exist previously. To the extent that persons like me now accept, say 30 programs we would have opposed, originally, we have a large segment of the population that does not think of itself as liberal, but that now defends, or accepts, initiatives that were liberal in their inception.
***
There was a time in my life when the liberal/conservative split was identified by “liberals” as based on national security concerns – it was The Cold War. Persons who were identified as Cold Warriors from Truman to Nixon were called reactionaries by loud “liberals”. There were a lot of self proclaimed liberals, or so it seemed, and I agreed with them on civil rights but not on Vietnam. They demanded “purity”. A UT professor called me a Nazi because I said there was nothing bad about ‘Nam that could not be cured by a quick victory. It was a time when a lot of persons labeled “conservative” by others went to great pains to call themselves moderate. Donald Rumsfeld was one, I recall, from a speech I attended.
***
I am suggesting that if it appears, in anecdote, that liberals now claim pragmatism it is because so much of the historic domestic liberal agenda is now part of our system, so that persons who defend the status quo, persons who are conservative in their risk aversion and who thus cannot think of themselves as liberal, now add their voices to liberals on many issues. And to the risk averse, economic libertarianism appears to be dangerous, and thus not “conservative”.
LikeLike
Mark:
I am suggesting that if it appears, in anecdote, that liberals now claim pragmatism…
Obviously my examples are anecdotal and recent, but I think Goldberg’s thesis is that this is not a recent phenomenon, and has been a running theme of liberalism at least since Woodrow Wilson. I’ll see how well he establishes this as I get further into the book.
LikeLike
There’s a Hitler mustache right on the dust jacket. Sometimes you can judge a book by the cover. I’m familiar enough with the work of Jonah Goldberg to know it’s not a perspective I would appreciate.
Which is too bad. Jonah Goldberg is whip smart, and has a mastery of his subject, and often has keen insights into political issues . . . but he (and his publishers) also know what sells books. There’s a reason that, had Ann Coulter written “Liberal Facism”, it would have featured a picture of Ann Coulter in a black dress instead of a smiley-face with a Hitler mustache.
Ann Coulter is also extremely intelligent, but very, very caustic and angry (at least in her public persona, but I’m prone to suspect it’s just “how she is”).
LikeLike
bsimon:
‘who’ doesn’t matter
It matters to me. Otherwise I wouldn’t have asked. I think jnc and nova are the only people here who might be characterized as self-professed libertarians, and nova didn’t even take the test until today while, unless i missed something, jnc never took it at all. I think you are imagining things.
But in my opinion, people who think the gov’t should regulate who can be married are not libertarians.
I agree. In fact the true libertarian position is that that the state shouldn’t be involved in sanctioning any marriages at all.
People who think the gov’t should regulate the doctor-patient relationship are not libertarians.
I largely agree, with the exception of the state protecting the patient (or others) from right violations by the doctor.
The quiz appropriately scored such positions as being more authoritarian.
Again, I think you are imagining things. I just reread the test and it didn’t ask anything about either of those positions.
LikeLike
” I think you are imagining things.”
You are welcome to think anything you like.
LikeLike
This will probably shock everyone Mark, but I not only campaigned and voted for Perot, I also campaigned and voted for Anderson. Everyone considers me a staunch liberal now precisely because I try to protect the bits and pieces of the safety net that I think are both essential and worthy. I am also very concerned with women’s issues, obviously, especially the young and the poor. I guess that’s where my liberalism really shines, for women, social security and medicare.
The other is health care I suppose and while I think you have a lot of great ideas that would have been much better than ACA, not my favorite solution, I genuinely think a single payer system similar to Canada’s is where we need to go. I freely acknowledge though that my vision of a health care system is colored by not only mine and my husbands financial burden, but also my niece’s death and our oldest daughter’s pre-existing conditions balancing act.
Regarding freedom and the quote above, the only loss of freedom I personally fear and believe we are all suffering from, has occurred since 9/11 and is in the guise of protection.
LikeLike
I am not at all surprised, Lulu – and I voted for Anderson, too.
Regarding freedom and the quote above, the only loss of freedom I personally fear and believe we are all suffering from, has occurred since 9/11 and is in the guise of protection.
I’ll get you to pair my Gary Johnson vote, yet!
When are you going to post the book discussion? I may have a busy enough weekend that I would drop in Saturday morning and then not get back to it ’til Tuesday night.
LikeLike
I was too young to vote, but my mother took me to a John Anderson rally. I still have the button somewhere.
LikeLike
I think it might be fun if we write endorsement posts as it gets closer to Nov.
LikeLike
Mark, I have a post ready for tomorrow around noon and we’ll just leave it open for awhile. ABC (Emily) will check in periodically so if anyone wants to leave a question for her please do so. I don’t know how many of us read the book so I told her not to expect a big crowd. We’ll be busy this weekend as well with our rental property.
It’s doubtful I’ll vote for Johnson at this point but I probably won’t vote for Obama. I have that luxury here in CA. I generally vote third party of some sort although I did vote for Obama last time.
LikeLike
liberals tend to pretend that they are not at all ideological.
This is probably more true of the pundit and media class that Jonah moves within, and critiques, than liberals generally. I think. Though during my college career, I met no end of liberals (even when I still applied said label to myself) that could not seem to conceive of their being any legitimate point of view, other than their own, which tends to give a person a sense that they are non-ideolocial (it’s not partisanship, it’s just the plain truth!).
LikeLike
“conceive of their being any legitimate point of view, other than their own”
I think it goes beyond that and into the idea that “everything is politics.”
LikeLike
This is definitely true of the current president, and it certainly corresponds to my experiences.
For the most part, I think hard-lefties don’t consider Obama a liberal on anything, and even middle-of-the-road liberals don’t think Obama is a liberal on citizen’s rights issues, as far as domestic surveillance, privacy protection, etc., would be framed.
That being said, I think it’s rare that there isn’t a presidency that is not a tyranny of cliches. Though I confess Obama does wield cliches with wild abandon. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin:
For the most part, I think hard-lefties don’t consider Obama a liberal on anything…
It’s not how he is viewed by others, especially those who oppose his policies, but rather how he presents himself or is presented by his supporters. One of his primary campaign themes in ’08 was the end to ideology. From a speech by President-elect Obama in 2009:
Ideology is on par with, and to be avoided just like, small thinking, prejudice, and bigotry. Obama, the man with no ideology.
Or this, from Obama hatchet man David Axelrod:
There has undoubtedly been a concerted effort to portray Obama as free from any ideology, a mere pragmatician concerned only with what “works”.
LikeLike
nova
I think it might be fun if we write endorsement posts as it gets closer to Nov.
Maybe I’ll go Green Party then and get their message on the record here.
LikeLike
Mark: My default position is to be skeptical of new federal programs, but I now want to retain old ones that I think work.
I’m even more liberal than you! 😉
I sometimes think its best to retain old programs that I’m not convinced are effective (may even have been detrimental) but will leave a hole, should they be excised, that will create more problems, indefinitely, than will be solved by their absence.
On the other hand, modifications (ala the Bush Social Security reform package) are proposals I quite like, even though it keeps the government involved in nannying people’s retirements.
I am of the position that I am for (as the liberal cliche goes) “what works”. Where I differ from some is that I’m not as certain as some about what has proven to “work” and what has proven “not to work”. Or that “what works” is the same in 2012 as it might have been in 1982.
And “what works” is a complicated proposition. Regulatory oversight can work—but often does not. Frequent warnings as regarded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (by the folks in charge of oversight and review) went unheeded. Detection of problems worked, but prevention failed.
Also, “working” is sometimes oversold. There may be benefits to radically cutting taxes and leaving more money in the private sector, or there may be benefits to raising taxes and spending more on infrastructure, but sometimes the likely outcomes are oversold. Thus, the strategy may be called a “failure” because an idyllic world of rainbows and unicorns was not promptly produced.
LikeLike
This will probably shock everyone Mark, but I not only campaigned and voted for Perot
Yeah, I’m kind of surprised you campaigned and voted for Perot. Anderson, not so much.
LikeLike
Yeah Kevin, I was too, but I couldn’t stand Clinton and have never voted for a Republican. I thought he had some original ideas and I like the idea of a third party, I always have. I also thought all his little charts and whatnot were both informative and unique. I love charts.
LikeLike
First time I voted for Perot I cost Bush 41 a vote. Second time I cost WJC. ’96 was not a serious run for BigEars, but I may have mentioned this here before, in the fall I heard Archibald Cox lecture at UT LS and in answer to a question about foreign money he said Dole had Arab money and Clinton had Chinese money and whichever won would [or could] be impeached. So I voted Perot again. To punish the furriners.
Later, the vaunted protector of the ballot, the Election Commission, fined each party the sum of the illegal contributions. I think it was 4 years later.
LikeLike
Scott: Good points. I think it’s difficult to argue that even someone who views themselves as a fundamental pragmatist can be ideology-free in all things. Certainly, Democrats and Republicans don’t expect their standard-bearers to be ideology free.
LikeLike