I didn't want to be the one to break the news, but someone should spread this around.
Brooks also mentioned Megan McArdle, now writing at The Atlantic. Unpredictable, intellectual, policy-oriented, witty, with a brain the size of a planet. If there a better public intellectual for our day, I don't know who it is. In Megan McArdle, I see the potential to transform the Right; to tear down the sacred cows and rebuild a much more coherent, effective movement.I thought carrying the weight of the world was Atlas Shrugs' gig. And no, I've no idea who fantasist Jon Henke is. But he is fantastic.
brad adds:
Henke was a guest-blogger for Megan during one of her countless vacations, along with Conor Freihoffer and some other schmendrik I forget. He's pimping her for his own gain, in other words.
Posts
16 comments:
Man, Jonah Goldberg's gotta be disappointed.
If Megan McArdle is the best young right wing writer out there, then a liberal majority is guaranteed for the next generation at least.
Helping Megan's move upward is the fact that many young right-wing writers are functionally illiterate and incapable of expressing a coherent thought. Megan is the tallest dwarf around.
The Krugmeister name-checked Our Megan (with Tyler Cowen) in blog post today. Even if it was to correctly chide her, he shouldnta done that. He shoulda just nailed Cowen without acknowledging OM and left it at that.
Why?
The issue originated with McArdle.
Megan said something wrong. Brad DeLong said it was wrong. Krugman backed up DeLong. Cowen backed up McArdle. Krugman said Cowen was wrong. The only question is who is right, DeLong and Krugman or Cowen and McArdle. Two are libertarian hacks and the other two aren't.
See, this is why I get so mad at myself. I didn't even bother to think ahead about the ramifications of this situation. I was so busy looking back that I never looked forward, and therefore entirely missed the anticipation of McArdle's inevitable public explosion.
Susan,
I kind of agree with Anon. Any attention she receives from bonafide economists, even if it's negative, just validates her belief that she's a qualified writer and pundit on the subject. She can easily dismiss the criticism on the grounds of partisanship.
To her credit, however, she admits her critics are now misunderstanding her point because she did not make herself clear. That's progress, even if it's still that tired, condescending tone that suggests the rest of us dumwits are too stoopid to understand her writing.
People are pushing her for a permanent gig at the Times; now is the most important time to push back. She already thinks she's qualified by virtue of birth.
(Imo)
Jon Henke over at Wikipedia
As a lowly MBA...
Man, her humor irks me.
Roger Ailes was all over this a day or two ago.
He fooled many of us into following the link.
That was humor? I figured it was a mix of her faux-modesty and the obligatory tri-weekly reminder to her readers that SHE! HAS! AN! MBA!
OK, now she's gone totally cocopuffs:
I do not think of spending money to build the bridge as a net increase in the country's wealth.
She's just redefined the GDP to 0.
To her credit, however, she admits her critics are now misunderstanding her point because she did not make herself clear.
Nah, that's the same horseshit tactic she always pulls. Expect 4-7 more increasingly desperate posts pretending to "clarify" her meaning. Predictably horrible she is.
Anon,
No, before the fault was *entirely* with her critics misunderstanding her point. She's now admitting she's at least partly to blame.
But I do always love it when she has those pathetic meltdowns after being called out for being wrong where she writes, as you noted, a series of five posts "clarifying" over and over again. It borders on psychotic.
Megan McArdle ... Unpredictable, intellectual, policy-oriented, witty, with a brain the size of a planet.
That's it, the word 'intellectual' has finally jumped the shark. Next time somebody calls me that, violence will ensue.
Post a Comment