Gay-Baiting Josh Barro, Ctd

Conor takes apart another trope in Erick Erickson’s attack on Barro, the disdain for reformists from “Washington and New York, the two places least likely to lead any version of conservative reform”:

One minute, it’s inside-the-Beltway types who are worthless. The next, it’s disqualifying to have never had a job in policymaking. … It’s that “those of us outside Washington and New York” that really gets me. Erickson doesn’t live in Washington or New York, but is much more implicated in the conservative establishment in the northeast than Barro, for goodness sake; and much more of a media elite himself, with his regular gig on Fox News. That isn’t where Erickson started, of course; and it’s convenient for him to maintain the fiction that he is still an outsider relative to a 28-year-old editor at Business Insider. Barro is, in fact, going to rise in influence and prominence, given his intellectual honesty and smarts. Perhaps then Erickson can accurately attack him as more elite.

The tactic described in this post is one you’ll often see deployed against heterodox reformers.

Don’t ever fall for it.

Philip Klein defends Barro and Northeastern conservative reformers more generally:

For conservatives to have any chance of advancing their agenda, it’s not going to be a matter of whether reformist ideas are coming from inside or outside of the NY/DC corridor, as if it’s an either/or situation. It’s going to require conservatives from all regions — who bring their unique bases of knowledge, skills and backgrounds — working together to generate good ideas, hone them, write about them and then fight for them.

Krugman – surprise! – tells Barro to give up on the GOP:

[T]hings are actually a lot worse than Barro is yet willing to acknowledge; for the GOP’s derpitude doesn’t just involve the Ericksons and the Limbaughs, it extends to the party’s supposed intellectuals. … I feel for Barro; really I do. But he has no home in today’s GOP, which simply has no room for the non-derpy, and to all appearances never will.

Byers contrasts Krugman and Erickson:

I’m not sure what Barro is capable of achieving, but I am entertained at how Erickson and Krugman seem to be playing tug-o-war over his soul, both with the intention of destroying his raison d’être. Erickson is basically saying Barro isn’t a conservative; Krugman is basically telling him he can’t be. Still, they’re both taking seriously his effort to push the rock up the hill. Which is something.