Wednesday, August 26, 2009
There's No Such Thing as Bad Publicity
In response to a Wonk Room hit piece on young people trying to make a change in the world for the better--and if that's not a hit piece, I'm not sure what would be worthy of such a description--I was first going to use my rapier-like wit to issue a stinging rebuke. But then I counted to 500 and decided to go Rodney King on everybody. (Meaning "can't we all get along," not "I bet you pigs can't catch me.") Here are the last three paragraphs from my Kumbaya blog post:
I'm curious to see how many hits that Grist link draws in, though. If it's pretty big, maybe I will go the Bruce Bartlett route. I see the light! Sure we can trust the DC politicians with saving the planet! They've done such a knock-up job on inner city poverty and Afghanistan.
NOTE: I am not accusing Brad Johnson of anything dishonest with his link to my post. I'm just saying, it was rather misleading.
Now that I'm preaching, let me generalize it a bit: Earlier I mocked Paul Krugman for actually claiming that senior citizens were rioting. But since then, I've come to realize that Krugman really doesn't understand the people at these Town Hall meetings, or the tea parties. After all, Krugman doesn't get goosebumps thinking about property rights or checks on government power. So when he sees a bunch of angry people mouthing such concerns, he is suspicious and thinks they're either a bunch of racists or paid stooges of the health insurers.The author of the original hit piece, Brad Johnson, cross-posted it at Grist, and then added an update in light of my own post. He drew an excerpt from what I've reproduced above. Here is how Brad presented the new development to Grist's readers:
So, by symmetry, I think people on "our side" should realize that the great masses of Americans who are for health care reform and climate legislation (and it pains me to not put scare quotes around those phrases) aren't actually closet socialists who want to bring America to its knees. Don't get me wrong, it is still perfectly consistent to think the elites in Washington are power-hungry liars. I'm just saying that, as ridiculous as Krugman's paranoia over old people is, that's how ridiculous some of our side's rants against Obama fans must seem to people who know that they are really just trying to stem abuses they perceive in the health care system and so forth. They know they're not socialists, just like we know "our guys" aren't Nazis.
Ah, and the ultimate irony is that actual socialists (and the particular offshoot of Nazism) were real, and actually did seize control of governments and kill millions of people. Isn't life funny.
UPDATE: At Free Advice, Institute for Energy Research economist Bob Murphy writes that Paul Krugman doesn’t understand tea party protesters because he doesn’t care about checks on government power like they do, and continues:Hmm, I'm not so sure that's fully in context. (That's what I told the IER CEO when his Google Alerts on "AEA" tipped him off and he emailed me saying, "Grist is linking to Free Advice.")So, by symmetry, I think people on “our side” should realize that the great masses of Americans who are for health care reform and climate legislation (and it pains me to not put scare quotes around those phrases) aren’t actually closet socialists who want to bring America to its knees.
I'm curious to see how many hits that Grist link draws in, though. If it's pretty big, maybe I will go the Bruce Bartlett route. I see the light! Sure we can trust the DC politicians with saving the planet! They've done such a knock-up job on inner city poverty and Afghanistan.
NOTE: I am not accusing Brad Johnson of anything dishonest with his link to my post. I'm just saying, it was rather misleading.
Comments:
Bob, the significance of your recent admission is that you finally see that there's an actual *difference* between the positions:
"Politicians will botch any attempt to save the environment and actually make it worse."
versus:
"There is no scarcity in the atmosphere whatsoever."
Previously, if I tried to refute the latter, you would respond to it with an argument like the former, suggesting that you truly did not see the difference. That is, you would go on and on about how, hey, carbon permits are kind of inefficient to implement, just like this other dumb hypothetical scheme, even though I haven't actually done any research on it, so that proves there's no scarcity in the atmosphere, so people can emit all the CO2 they want without impacting anyone's consumption.
Can you tell why that's non-responsive?
Heck, for a while, you didn't even realize that you were simply assuming away the very reason people disagree with inaction on global warming in the first place -- that there is a scarce aspect to the atmosphere!
Are you starting to now get some kind of inkling about why I might get frustrated and angry when dealing with you? Sorta-kinda-maybe?
Post a Comment
"Politicians will botch any attempt to save the environment and actually make it worse."
versus:
"There is no scarcity in the atmosphere whatsoever."
Previously, if I tried to refute the latter, you would respond to it with an argument like the former, suggesting that you truly did not see the difference. That is, you would go on and on about how, hey, carbon permits are kind of inefficient to implement, just like this other dumb hypothetical scheme, even though I haven't actually done any research on it, so that proves there's no scarcity in the atmosphere, so people can emit all the CO2 they want without impacting anyone's consumption.
Can you tell why that's non-responsive?
Heck, for a while, you didn't even realize that you were simply assuming away the very reason people disagree with inaction on global warming in the first place -- that there is a scarce aspect to the atmosphere!
Are you starting to now get some kind of inkling about why I might get frustrated and angry when dealing with you? Sorta-kinda-maybe?
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]