Month: March 2011

Yglesias mulls Romney's chances. He says the foremost "known unknown here is whether key conservative media figures who supported Romney in the past would still like him today":

I think it’s worth recalling that Mitt Romney won National Review’s endorsement in 2008 explicitly on the theory that he was equally conservative as Fred Thompson and more conservative than the others. Rush Limbaugh also endorsed him. Romney certainly hasn’t become less conservative in the ensuing time, and well-informed elites were prepared to accept him four years ago.

Copyranter captions this one, "Skin your pet alive with the Bissell pet vacuum attachment":

Cassidy defends himself against the onslaught:

Some people like cars, some people like bikes, some people like both. Since there is a limited amount of space on city streets, trade-offs have to be made. In making such trade-offs, a democratic polity should take into account the preferences of motorists, who happen to be far more numerous, as well as cyclists. That is all I am saying.

Avent looks at the debate from an economic prespective. Ezra Klein thinks Cassidy is arguing against his own best interest:

I see the Bloomberg administration’s aggressive pursuit of bike lanes and related alternatives as an almost radically pro-car position. If driving is to remain half as pleasant as Cassidy wants it to, it will only be because most New Yorkers decide against purchasing cars. And they’re only going to do that if the other options seem attractive.

Early in Cassidy’s piece, he recalls his bike trips of yore, where “part of the thrill was avoiding cabs and other vehicles” and the danger left him “shaking.” That’s fine for a hobbyist, but not for a commuter. If the walk is too long, biking is too dangerous and the subways and buses are inconvenient, then cars are the final answer. That means a world in which the roads are more clogged and Cassidy spends more time in traffic. I’ve seen that future and it’s called Los Angeles. New Yorkers should want no part of it.

Erik Voeten flags a new paper:

Courtenay Conrad and Will Moore have an important new article (ungated version) in the American Journal of Political Science that analyzes why states, if ever, stop using torture. The use of torture is remarkably persistent: 93% of states that are accused of using torture in one year will face similar accusations in the following year. Conrad and Moore find that liberal institutions matter, especially in the absence of campaigns of violent dissent. If violent dissent persists, however, even countries with strong liberal institutions are highly likely to carry on torturing. 

From the abstract:

[S]tates rarely terminate the use of torture when they face a threat. Once campaigns of violent dissent stop, however, states with popular suffrage and a free press are considerably more likely to terminate their use of torture. Also given the end of violent dissent, the greater the number of veto points in government, the lower the likelihood that a state terminates its use of torture.

It took the US seven years before we got rid of it. But we still have not held anyone accountable for it. And one party has core elements that want to bring the waterboard back.

Hand-drawn.

Nyhan argues that Romney is being caricatured as inauthentic. Waldman half-agrees; he thinks that Romney's pandering is self-evident but "that doesn't mean that everything [Romney] does should be presented as evidence of his phoniness." Bernstein zooms out:

[T]he big takeaway from this isn't whether or not the press gets these things "wrong" — that is, it's not about whether or not Mitt Romney is authentic. The point is that once they adopt that frame, anything that happens is interpreted through it — so if Al Gore in 2000 said something factually incorrect it was always about Gore as a liar, whereas when Bush in 2000 said something factually incorrect, it was about Bush being too stupid to know the difference. Part of interpreting the press — that is, part of following campaigns and politicians intelligently, since we all do it through the press — involves identifying these sorts of things, realizing when they drive coverage, and discounting appropriately in response.

Today on the Dish, Andrew rebuked Hitchens and his "Do Something" brigade on Libya, Leslie Gelb made the case for staying out, Lexington and Scoblete considered America's Iraq Syndrome, and food aid was on its way. J. Dana Stuster warned of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, Issandr El Amrani wanted an Egyptian truth commission on crimes, a former Iraqi PM laid the truth down, and Ackerman kept tabs on the steady number of Afghan insurgents. The torture that sustained Gitmo in the Bush era ended, but that didn't solve the question of the remaining prisoners.

Andrew explained why NPR's liberal bias is different than FNC's on the right, and Peter King dug himself deeper. Palin fans didn't like Newt, but it was more about the arrogance than the infidelity. Steve Kornacki eyed Romney's chances, Douthat awarded him the win by default, and Limbaugh's second caricature of Obama contradicted his first. Bernstein countered Ezra Klein on whether Republicans need their own healthcare plan, readers shared their own views of American inequality, and the economy doesn't always represent how much (or what) people consume online. Prison rape could be prevented, but Balko wasn't impressed with government efforts to do so. A new paper questioned the emotional and economic rewards of having children, and Andrew engaged Dan Savage on his conservatism and the human capacity for monogamy. 

Dish readers gave the beard nod, the Sullivan nod helped sell wine, Andrew studied up on a scientific approach to beards, and Jesus was probably clean-shaven. Seattle could have shared Detroit's fate, Angry Birds saved a company, cycling was the new parcour, and bicyclists weren't to blame for traffic. The great debate over rural versus urban continued, and the only way to stop humming Britney Spears is to come to terms with it. We meditated on Lent, Andrew allowed for forgivness for Newt's sins, a reader gave up the Dish, and a four-year old answered all of life's questions.

Chart of the day here, email of the day here, dissents of the day here, VFYW here, MHB here, and FOTD here.

–Z.P.

A reader writes:

“To many on the right, this inequality is a non-issue, and in an abstract sense, I agree. Penalizing people for their success does not help the less successful.”

How could you write that with a straight face after a paragraph citing bank bailouts and mega-bonuses?  I’m sorry to be the one to tell you, but many of the über-successful got that way because the deck was stacked in their favor by the government they bought. Bailouts, tax-subsidies, toothless regulation, government engineered barriers to entry, and favorable legislation of every kind all operate to their benefit.  If the playing field were really level, most of the “successful” who whine about their tax burden would be mediocrities at best. 

I know, because I’m one of them. Were it not for helpful congresspersons, my stock options would have been worth squat. I worked hard, but not any harder than a schoolteacher, and my net contribution to society was likely less. Penalize them by taking away the fix and then see how they do. If they still manage to make a bundle, I’ll cheerfully agree that they can keep 65% of it.

Another writes:

"Penalizing people for their success does not help the less successful"? Of course it does. It provides the tax dollars from the rich that help the middle and lower classes with Pell Grants, or nutrition supplements for the poor, or hundreds of other programs that want to be cut by Tea Party radicals claiming "we're broke."

Those cuts will inflict long-term damage to the poor and less advantaged in American society. You should say instead, "Requiring the rich to give back a little more due to their success will help the less successful and even out the playing field of American society, providing a stable, equitable environment in which the truly talented will continue to get ahead."

Another:

You wrote:

At a time of real sacrifice, it does seem to me important for conservatives not to ignore the dangers of growing and vast inequality – for political, not economic, reasons. And by political, I don't mean partisan. I mean a genuine concern for the effects of an increasingly unequal society. Last night, we watched "Winter's Bone" about meth-fueled social collapse in the heartland and then clicked over to watch "The Real Housewives Of Orange County. It was a bracing summary of where America increasingly finds itself.

But what exactly are the dangers of vast inequality? For all the talk about why we should care about income inequaltiy, this is rarely spelled out. You mentioned the dichotomy of meth abuse in the heartland versus a coastal elite living it up, but what does one have to do with the other? Are people doing meth because others are able to afford liposuction and third homes?

As for the disappearing middle class, let's ask ourselves why this is occurring (assuming, in fact, it is taking place). What if it is because more members are exiting to the upper class? Is that something to be concerned about? If I get a raise of $5,000 and my boss gets a raise of $20,000, our income inequality has increased yet we are both better off – why is that a problem?

Look, if the poor and middle class are stagnating because the rich are getting richer, then that's a problem – but I have yet to see evidence that this is the case. I don't think anyone out there is struggling because Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs are doing well financially.

Lastly, as for this notion that income inequality is a problem because it could undermine societal stability, I don't buy it. I think people become angry and resentful not because someone else is doing well, but when that person is doing well because of unfair advantages. People get angry when they think the deck is stacked against them. This is why I am sure you can find lots of ire out there against those on Wall Street who received a taxpayer funded bailout, but I think most people don't begrudge Steve Jobs for becoming rich as a reward for producing useful products.

If the left wants to have a conversation about ways of eliminating barriers to letting the poor and middle class succeed, then by all means let's have it. I would welcome it. That conversation could consist of things like providing school vouchers to provide access to better education and reducing red tape and regulations that make starting up a small business more difficult. We could talk about eliminating the minimum wage so that the poor can more easily find jobs (why rich kids can sell their labor for free in exchange for experience through unpaid internships while the poor are prohibited from working for $5/hour is beyond me) or letting employers conduct intelligence tests, so that poor autodidacts can avoid the expense of college in order to prove themselves and get on the career ladder. We could also entertain various proposals for shrinking government in order to crack down on crony capitalism … the possibilities are almost endless. But this conversation is a different one from discussing income inequality for its own sake.

(Photo: A man looks out at the New York Stock Exchange on February 15, 2011 in New York City. By Spencer Platt/Getty.)