A Little "Rogue" Every Now and Then Can Be a Good Thing

Re: Re: Re: Re: My Main Objection...

By: kcar1 | Mon, 11/16/2009 - 08:21

Snowman, this is still an example of false equivalence. I would not classify Krugman's comments as "lies" any more than I would Friedman, Fama, Feldstein, Hayek, etc. You disagree with Krugman, think he's being a little sloppy maybe, that is not the same as lying. One's understanding of economics cannot be easily disentangled from one's politics because so much of politics is about how best to manage (or for free markets *not* manage) the economy. There are a lot of people who look at what has happen in the past 2 years, plus what happened in East Asia, Russia, Mexico, and Latin America in the 1990s and don't like the dog-eat-dog, unbridled risk that comes with free market for very real reasons and would prefer that some give up the possibility for their 2nd Lear Jet so that we don't have additional starving people in Jakarta. Or that the goal of limiting carbon emissions trumps the goal of "free trade" (although, I don't see how if the emissions tax is level equally across domestic and foreign goods this could possibly be seen as protectionist). I, personally, see the question as coming down to whether the economy is a means of organizing work for the well-being of society or for the most efficient production of goods, services, and wealth. Different goals, time horizons, etc. can lead to different policy prescriptions.

On the other hand, Palin was multiple times essentially caught red handed misrepresenting actual cold-hard facts, including in her book which already has McCain campaign staff releasing emails to refute her version of the story. As far as the effect on political discourse, Palin's main influence was to add "real American" and "terrorist connections" to the campaign effort. Whereas Krugman, as critical as he is, takes about trade, labor, monetary, etc. policy... I see a big difference. Even if you disagree profoundly with Krugman, it is about issues not about name calling.

I don't see her as having

By: mumchup | Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:28

I don't see her as having "thick-as-hell skin". So much of her public conversation involves complaints about people and entities she perceives as having insulted her or hurt her image.
As far as her opinions and politics; I must admit that aside from standard conservative stuff, everything I hear from her is either divisive and insulting or half-to-completely untrue.
I think she is a useless addition to American politics, don't we have enough angry name-callers already? And I also can't imagine how someone like her helps us get to the day when women are given more respect.

Re: Re: Re: My Main Objection...

By: Melting_Snowman | Sun, 11/15/2009 - 18:26

An interesting response. I agree that a distinction can be drawn between Sarah Palin and, for example, Paul Krugman based on their qualifications, but the only equivalence that really concerns me is the equivalence of their effect on political dialogue. Let's assume that Krugman knows more about macroeconomic theory than Palin. Sarah Palin shouldn't call people socialists because she apparently doesn't know that the word "socialism" can be construed to condemn anything funded by tax dollars. The word retains limited facility as an adjective, a warning against too much restraint on economic competition, but it is useless as a noun. All nations are socialist, and none of them are. On the other hand, it is also very destructive for Krugman to use his considerable academic credentials to provide intellectual top-cover for a protectionist trade policy that he knows (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/negot.html) has more to do with political partisanship than the economic health of the nation. I don't like the sway that Sarah Palin holds over the growing hordes of stupid Tea Partiers, just as I don't like sway that Paul Krugman holds over the shrinking hordes of stupid New York Times readers. Stupidity is stupidity, and lies are lies, no matter who says them.

Re: Re: My Main Objection...

By: kcar1 | Sun, 11/15/2009 - 17:49

Melting_snowman, false equivalences abound. The difference between Sarah Palin and the most of women (and men) you listed is that there is SOMETHING behind their political accomplishments - like decades of hard work, late nights, etc. and they can have a cogent conversation about real policies, name a newspaper that they read with regularity, etc. Palin may have been a fantastic local politician -- people who's primary qualification is "hockey mom" often know a lot about local issues and how to address them (I write completely genuinely). But she was out of her depth on the national stage and reverted to baseless name calling ("terrorist!") to cover. Maddow, Krugman, etc. have real, substantive, if partisan, critiques of the other side of the political spectrum informed by years of study and/or experience - that's not name calling.

I won't speak for Nora Ephron, I think that intellectual snobbery is deplorable... but she wasn't the Dem VP candidate, she's a screen writer. It doesn't make sense to compare Ephron to Palin just like it doesn't make sense to compare Clinton to Colter -- they have different role and thus different standards for public discourse.

A quick guide for telling name calling from real critique:
- Assigns a label to person that is popularly understood to be "unAmerican" if not verging on evil,(e.g., "fascist," "socialist," "terrorist"). This is back to Godwin's Law: the first person to bring up Hitler loses the argument.
- Accuses the other person of *wanting* to harm the US, Americans, troops, etc. but can't logically explain why that might benefit that individual (i.e., profit can be a motive if the individual has financial interests involved, "hatred for America" without unambiguous evidence of hatred for America cannot be the motive).
- The average person reading/hearing the comment would be more afraid but not more informed (i.e., labels and accusations are just asserted not explained).
- It takes less than 2 minutes to fully develop a critical argument without repeating one's self.

Re: My Main Objection...

By: Melting_Snowman | Sun, 11/15/2009 - 16:52

"My main objection to her is that I think that she promotes hatred and division."
like Everyone on The View

"I despise politics that pits an "us" against a "them," that feeds and thrives on fear and disdain and hatred and faux victimhood."
like Maureen Dowd's Columns

"If you like that kind of person--a person who is not only not well-educated, but incurious about the world around her..."
like Nora Ephron ("I'm proud of the fact that I don't know any Evangelicals" - Nora at Aspen Ideas Summit)

"...a person who lies and repeats lies with no shame..."
like Nancy Pelosi

"...a person who has contempt for education and expertise..."
like the creative team behind the "General Betray Us?" advertisement

"...a person who values personal loyalty to her above honesty and integrity..."
like Hillary Clinton

"...a person who thinks that some people are not good enough to pray with..."
Ephron, again (see above)

"Sarah Palin is a mean girl with a national platform."
Like all of the above, as well as Rachel Maddow, Samantha Bee, Ariana Huffington, and (irony of ironies) Tina Fey. I could have included the names of Ann Coulter, Carrie Prejean, and Michelle Malkin, but the "Pox on both your houses" theme would have been lost. It would also have worked to include the menfolk: O'Reilly and Olberman, Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck, Paul Krugman and George Will, etc. What becomes clear is that I'm not just listing the names of those who have added the most poison to the dialogue of our body politic, but I'm also naming the most popular opinion makers in the country.

The thing about freedom is that although we don't always get the best political class, we always get exactly the one we deserve.

Out of nowhere... for a reason

By: kcar1 | Sun, 11/15/2009 - 13:20

If her rapid rise had been similar to Barack Obama's, clearly backed up real talent and capability (even if you disagree with his policies, most people with agree he is incredibly talented), I hope that I would also be a big fan of Palin despite disagreeing with nearly every position she might have eventually taken. But her rise was not a function of her ability, it was a function of her sex appeal and the worst sort of mean girl manipulation of her smallest of ponds - Wasilla and Alaska. That is not a victory of feminism but extraordinarily retrograde. It is not an example of the meritocracy that we like to think the US is: if she had been a little bit overweight, a little less willing to throw around the word "terrorist" and link it to her opponent, a little more like Dede Scozzafava, for example, she'd still be mayor of Wasilla, maybe state senator running for the House of Reps spot for Alaska, not VP-candidate-turn-talk-show fodder.

She promotes hatred - agreed

By: kaysong | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 17:41

I have a hard time admiring her feminist credentials when she denigrates anyone in opposition to her as not a "real" American.

keep them all in one place

By: lorikay4 | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 16:41

Agree, Jerseygirl, it's less work to know that they are all stored in one location.

Rachael, do you really admire someone whose acquaintance with any written culture is so.... tenuous? Aren't we still having enough fun cleaning up after the most recent semi-literate national leader?

She promotes hatred

By: Kit-Kat | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 15:22

My main objection to her is that I think that she promotes hatred and division. Every time she talks about "real America" and "real Americans," I cringe. You know what? I'm a real American, too, even if I did go to graduate school and live in an Eastern seaboard city, and I despise politics that pits an "us" against a "them," that feeds and thrives on fear and disdain and hatred and faux victimhood. If you like that kind of person--a person who is not only not well-educated, but incurious about the world around her, a person who lies and repeats lies with no shame, a person who has contempt for education and expertise, a person who values personal loyalty to her above honesty and integrity, a person who thinks that some people are not good enough to pray with, then you go right ahead. You and your party can have her. FWIW, she drove my Republican mother into the arms of the Democrats during the last election. (Her exact words: "How dumb do they think women are?" and "She really scares me.")

Sarah Palin is a mean girl with a national platform. I didn't like them in high school, and I don't like them now.

You can have her

By: jerseygirl | Fri, 11/13/2009 - 15:11

Rachel, I'm damn glad she's in your party, too.