For The Record

Via sources, Jonathan Chait handed Ms. McArdle her lunch (whatever that means). Let's see.

All of it:
Obamacare Is Now Beyond Rescue from Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates on FORA.tv

Axes Ground

So. If you still give a hoot about Megan McArdle, who seems to be increasing her output at what is an excellent fit for her, the Daily Beast-Newsweek publishing powerhouse, here is The eXiled w/ a recap of her resume & her other offenses against decency.

McArdle should be very familiar to eXiled readers. Many of you probably first learned of McArdle’s existence more than three years ago, when she led a smear campaign from her perch at the Atlantic to discredit the first media investigative piece exposing the Tea Party as an Astroturf campaign funded by the Kochs and FreedomWorks, written by eXiled editors Mark Ames and Yasha Levine and published in Playboy in February, 2009. That’s when we first got to know the McArdle name too, and we were wondering then why someone who called herself a “journalist” would work so hard to discredit other journalists’ investigative work while defending powerful rightwing oligarchs, rather than the other way around. The S.H.A.M.E. profile on Megan McArdle clears up the air on McArdle’s long, deep undisclosed ties to the Koch brothers’ libertarian influence-peddling machine, and to the GOP activist community. Read the profile on the S.H.A.M.E. site or check it out below — we’re sure Ms. McArdle will appreciate it if you do.

Last Gasp, Maybe

This thing still on? We thought we should share, just in case.

As lifted from mediabistro.com's FISHBOWLLA.

Ames also wrote this blistering piece calling out The Atlantic‘s Megan McArdle, among other journalists, who trashed Ames and Levine’s reporting while failing to disclose the full extent of their personal and financial connections to the Koch brothers. Worth the read.

Heh indeed.

I Like The New MS Paint.

Apparently our boss is all mad cause we're not doing our jobs. Sorry about that. It's his fucking fault for giving us the internet. If he doesn't want us looking at cat pictures her shouldn't have done that.

Anyway, so Megan.

A number of my readers are claiming that the only reason Obama is running such a big deficit is that revenue has collapsed. I don't see that in the data:

Awesome. Yet again the first sentence of the first post in my first visit in months just smacks me in the face of stupid. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT. The number of readers saying that is zero. NONE.

But, hey, since we got this strawman around, let's go ahead and pour some gasoline on it:
Hrm, I guess she mistook water for gasoline. Thankfully, there's a lot of freelancers in the comments these days so I'll just hand it over to "zosima":

There's nothing to argue. Megan doesn't source her data, and it conflicts with the St. Louis Federal Reserve Data. To use a phrase of Megan's, her argument is "Garbage In Garbage Out"

To see what this plot looks like when not constructed with fictional data, follow this link:
http://tinyurl.com/373tzsd

She's making some sort of mistake, if she provided her sources/methods, we might be able to figure it out.

p.s.
Here's another plot from FRED with the Federal Series.
http://tinyurl.com/33c9ybu

p.p.s. Stimulus spending in 2009 was about $250 B and the 2009 budget was put together by Bush. So, at best, you can blame Obama for $250 B in 2009 and the change from 2009 to 2010. But wait there's more! Here's a post from the CBO which indicates that the deficit declined from 2009 to 2010: http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1457

G.I.G.O.

Another commentor replies that those aren't the right numbers either, so, ok, fine. Let's use Megan's. But first, let's look at Megan's foray into linear regression:I never realized how fucking hilarious trendlines can be. Here, let me give it a shot:Fucking ghosts.

There's a shit ton more stupid to go around, but what the fuck is the point. I'll just leave you with this amusing exchange:

McMorality

It's simple, really:

I don't think there's anything wrong with Michelle Obama vacationing in Spain; they have the money, so why not?

Indeed. Nothing more to know or ask.

Yes, yes, I know--mean Republicans would make hay out of a vacation no matter where it was. Probably so. But no one would be much interested in those charges, while this does seem to have some grip. And while characters in novels may improve their lives immeasurably when they learn to stop worrying about what other people think and just be true to themselves, this is not a life path that is open to political figures.

I wish I had access to the economic knowledge that allows her to determine the relative effectiveness of "those charges" & the "this" that "does seem to have some grip."

Elements of Style©: And I wish she'd stop w/ using "grip" for "traction." You could all stop using "traction" in that context, as far as I'm concerned.

Cross-posted at Whiskey Fire, where I (A pathetic web log-pimp.) am guest-blogging this wk.

One Good Apple Saves a Rotten Bunch

Take a look at this video. What is the crowd's reaction?

Sounds to me like dissension. Some booing and some cheering. I don't know how you'd go about guessing as to which was more predominant.

Let's hear what Megan hears:

Andrew Sullivan has been doing a lot of blogging about Ryan Sorba, the [expletive deleted] who got up on stage at CPAC to condemn them for inviting GOProud. Andrew's mostly given a lot of space to illustrating what a [censored] [redacted] Ryan Sorba is, and I fully agree. One can only cherish the hope that thirty years from now he will writhe in shame at this performance, and given the vagaries of youth, there is a good chance that eventually, he will.

But [expletive deleted]s getting up at political conferences and saying asinine things are not exactly a surprising happening. To me, the news story was this: Sorba got booed off the stage. At CPAC.

Well, he didn't seem to leave the stage. Maybe the "booing off" happened later. Maybe it's just an expression.

Or maybe that a handful of people at CPAC have part of their hearts and brains still intact doesn't change the fact that the GOP has been championing gay-hate for as long as I've been paying attention. So have a number of assholes Dems. So fucking what? America hates gays; the Republicans slightly more so -- or maybe just more honestly so, but whatever. A handful of fucktards at CPAC that are fucktarded in a different way doesn't change the fact that an open homophobe was invited to talk at CPAC. Does she think Sorba didn't make his stance on homos known before he hit the podium? I'm gonna guess he did, though you can prolly guess whether or not I will bother to look it up.

Anyway, this is what booing sounds like:

I wish I had the chance that Gomez did to tell Palin what a horrible person she is in front of thousands. Alas, Scotty appears not to have taken the opportunity. Fucking Alaskans, always sticking together.

UpdateHere's a video showing that he did, in fact, leave the stage. Immediately the MC started saying "freedom of opinion" over and over. That has nothing to do with anything, though. Skip to 1:30.

This Didn't Used to Have a Title

Shorter "Quote of the Day"

I try to pretend that I'm a moderate so I'm going to say something vaguely bad about Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. However, I'm aware that only batshit insane right-wingers give me any credence, so I'm going to drown this baby gerbil of a criticism in backpedaling and coaching. Also, the book I'm talking about now? The one I'm trying to speak of in a nuanced fashion? Haven't actually read it. Oh, wait, lemme go back in and throw in a potshot at Al Gore just to keep my fans happy.

The comments indicate that her gambit worked, as her denizens lap up the Goring.

Oh, Yeah, Weren't We Getting Someone Fired?

No, we really weren't. But let us dream. My thoughts on the week:

1) Megan doesn't know what a link farm is. It continually amazes me that someone whose ostensible job is to write doesn't even bother to get the basic things right. Link farm is a common phrase, yet she can't be bothered to throw it into google before she starts using it thrice weekly to show us stupid articles.

2) Somehow this hasn't gotten mentioned: Megan is reposting Glenn Beck clips again: Only this time, approvingly! Yes! Of course! When a women says something about Mao and Mother Teresea being her favorite philosophers any reasonable person who knew that Mao hated religious people and Teresea was possibly catholic would think she was being literal. Here's Megan in the comments:

Guys, it was a moronic thing to say. That's all. This does not mean Obama is a communist, etc. It just means that his communications director said something moronic. And it was moronic. Beyond calling Chairman Mao one of her favorite political philosophers, her speech is borderline incoherent.

Guys, just cause we say Megan McArdle should be fucking fired doesn't mean she's incompetent, lazy and stupid. It just means we think she should be fired. I don't know how you could possibly think we're saying there's anything wrong with her just by constantly linking to her disapprovingly.

Later she says:

Matt, the problem with this quote is that it is precisely the attribute she is praising--Mao's indifference to the opinions of others, as well as a pig-headed unwillingness to acknowledge the potential downsides of his actions--that caused the millions of deaths. It's one thing to approvingly quote Roman Polanski on film. It's another thing to approvingly quote him on sexual morality.

Which is a major speaking comprehension fail as the speaker was quite obviously talking about perseverance. Which is cool. I mean, I can't understand Hugh Jackman so I guess Mille is allowed to not understand whatever this woman's name was.

3) And finally for my little morning "Oh, yeah, I should do my job sometime this month" we've got another example of Megan just setting 'em up in her own mind so she can knock 'em down on her blog.

I have to admit, I'm kind of shocked by the number of people willing to advance the theory that political speech done by trade associations is not real political speech, or that it's okay to use the threat of regulatory punishment to shut down political speech just as long as you don't actually seize the printing presses.

How many kinds of fail can we count in here? Well, first I'm kind of shocked that she doesn't link to a single person saying that. Maybe there are some people out there. Next to some unicorns and a pot of gold. Second, we've got the absurd proclamation that Obama is threatening to muzzle the insurance companies, which makes sense if time goes backwards and the study to which she is vaguely alluding happened before Obama decided to take on health care. Third, we have this crazy bum-fuck confusion about what freedom of the presses means, or, rather, what it's paired with ie freedom of fucking speech in general. Guess what doesn't matter? WHO THE FUCK SAYS WHAT! The whole "printing press" bullshit or whatever she's talking about just doesn't make any fucking sense. I believe now we're two out of ten for misinterpreting the bill of rights.

The real hilarity comes with her hypocrisy, though. What is Obama doing other than painting his opponents with the evil obstructionist brush? To be sure, that's a legit crit if you happen to be able to find it, but it's not exactly a new thing for McArdle. You don't have to scroll down very far to find notations of her pointing out how bad brown people are. It's not like she wasn't making up violent anti-war protesters in her brain and threatening to bash their heads in.

And we're done.

A Different Kind of Dog-Whistle

We begin, as we so often do, with a non-nonsensical title: "Saving the Stimulus From its Critics?"

I'm a bit flummoxed seeing columnists arguing that critics had better just shut up about the stimulus, because most of it hasn't even been spent yet. For many of us critics, that's precisely the point. A stimulus is supposed to counteract a sharp contraction in aggregate demand when that demand is contracting, not wait until the economy is recovering, at which point its effect is much more likely to be distortionary and inflationary.

Heh, awesome guys, we're in a recovery. Unemployment continues to increase and I haven't heard about any GDP growth, but, hey the market is up and that's NEVER wrong.

The porkulus sacrificed stimulative power in order to slide Democratic legislators' pet projects past without ordinary scrutiny. Now the economy seems to be turning around without it, and we're stuck with the pork.[my bold]

Bullshit Bonus!(x2) +100000 pts!

Annnnnnnnd now she's gunning for a job at Red State. Hoo-rah.

Shorter Partisan Detective

Shorter "ACORN Story Gets Curiouser and Curiouser:"

If I'm deliberately obtuse, I can make it look like all of ACORN is a killing puppies for profit and using the money to abort Republican babies. Also, my titles are absolute fucking nonsense.

Hate is Such a Strong Word

From the Glenn Beck piece comments:Megan takes offense when the rubes thinks she hates Limbaugh and Beck now. That's odd, coming from a person who claims not to be able to like Limbaugh less. (That is, she did, until she realized that rhetorical flourishes weren't literally true. A shock to us all, that discovery.)

What's the matter, Megs? Tired of hate mail from your hateful fans when you hate on the haters? Must get icky when the despicable people start to despise you, too, eh dear? Well, if you can't beat 'em... at least don't say anything bad about them so their idiots followers don't give you flak.

PS I went into the thread to see if someone explained what the fuck she meant by the title of that piece, "When Glenn Beck Says Frog, You . . . Die?" Any ideas, or is she free-associating again?

Counting is Even Harder

"What Does Olympia Snow Want?" asks our curious analyst. And, really, who hasn't tried to glean the inner workings of the moderate Republican Senator's brain?

I think what Olympia Snowe wants is not to vote for an unpopular health care bill that pisses off her constituents. She's already the Republican who enabled the stimulus. If she does this, she's going to have to leave the party. The electoral history of Lieberman, Jeffords, and Specter does not indicate that leaving your party for the other side is the gateway to an exciting and rewarding electoral career.

Of those three people who "left" their party, only Lieberman has run for reelection. He won. Additionally, he didn't "leave" his party so much as he was forced out by a loss in the primaries, but whatever.

It's true that going zero-for-zero isn't really "exciting" but it also seems to me to not be very "relevant."

If she leaves the party and Republicans regain the Senate, they will take their revenge.

Huh-doy. And if she doesn't leave the party and Dems gain further ground, she will also be marginalized. Captain Obvious called. He wants his fucking job back. He also wants to punch Megan in the fucking face, but we don't endorse violence here so we're not passing that message along.

The problem is that what she wants--a cheap bill that doesn't either force a bunch of people to buy coverage they can't afford, or leave a bunch of people uninsured--is not possible. I assume that she actually knows this. So her public dithering means one of two things: she has decided to break with her party, and she wants to signal how difficult this decision is; or she has decided to torpedo the hope of busting a filibuster, and wants to signal to her Democratic constituents that she was forced to it by a bad plan. Which is it? Only God and Olympia Snowe know.

The idea that a Republican is being naive or willfully obstructionist is, of course, out of the question. Only Democratic Presidents can do that.

The longer this drags out, the more opportunity there is for something to go wrong. Every time the Republicans force them to take some bad-sounding provision out of the bill, public trust erodes. So the longer she dithers, the less helpful she is to the Democrats. She may be hoping that if she holds out long enough, the Democrats will break ranks and she won't have to make a painful choice.

Love the neutral voice here. "She may be forgoing actually governing for her own political expedience, and I see nothing wrong with that!"

IOKIYAR.

The Fool or the Fool Who Follows Her?

Megan pulls off a joke (I'll generously call it intentional) that actually makes me smile by titling her most recent post "Department of Education." A rare feat indeed, though not as rare as the commentors. (If only)

The post itself is short and stupid, but the real fun is in seeing Megan's fans go wild. When "aMouseforallseasons" is the voice of sanity in your comment thread, you know you're preaching to the choir. The Arkham Choir.

Update:
This is awesome. Alsadius informs us of the various faults of some of our most recent presidents:

Yes, Obama has been a pretty awful President so far. But let's compare him to some of the others elected in the last 50 years:

- Kennedy: Drug-addled fool
- Johnson: Unmitigated asshole
- Nixon: Flagrant criminal
- Carter: Bigger socialist than Obama, with none of the backbone
- GW Bush: Abysmal public speaker

Funnily enough, cross out the "drug" and Reagan had the same faults as Kennedy!

Megan Discovers Google, Not How to Use It

This is just amazing. She takes shallow-pretension to a whole new level. Is there a good word for when you try to be probing but fail to get out your front door, let alone under the surface? Educate me, minions!

Oh, right, the dumbass:

Here's one indicator that doesn't look so good: my Google News feed around 7 am this morning. (Followed by a screen shot of the top stories.)

Wow, did she call her mother, too, to make sure her poll had a representative sampling?

That's how a machine ranked the stories, based on reader response. The Gates story is sucking up the public's very limited attention span for health care.

Right, and the second article is about ObamaCare, central to the point of the universe, I s'pose. Even if it weren't, who the fuck thinks that this constitutes research? Does she have a weather blog somewhere which tells you what she saw out her window when she woke up?

I was already pretty skeptical that this was going to do much good. Outside of elections and wars, it's hard to get people to watch a presidential address at the best of times. Late July is not the best of times. You don't want to counterprogram a wonkathon when people can flip to "So You Think You Can Dance" or wander outside to drink in the summer evening. Maybe it will move the poll numbers, but frankly, I'd be surprised.

Um, right, it was short sighted of liberals and Obama to never ever ever mention health care until this summer. Everyone knows that if it don't got 'splosions no one will watch it in July. Why did Obama have to dick around messing with that whole "economic disaster" thing his first few months? Totally lost the momentum. Man, he sucks at making decisions crucial to people's lives playing the game.

So I think the left-wing pundits worrying about the performance are missing the point. The performance was, in fact, not all that good, especially by the high standards Obama set during the campaign. But I'll be shocked if the overnights beat Law and Order reruns. More than one journalist of my acquaintance skipped the thing. If a press conference falls in the summer doldrums, and nobody watches it, does it really matter?

Alas, do these things matter indeed? Obama should have just kept his mouth shut instead of trying to speak to hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people.

C'mon, Obama, your day is done. Give it up. No one wants health care. The country is conservative again. Just declare war on Iran and make things easier for all of us. THEN people will get behind you. We're always up for a good war.

brad adds:

In her screenshot, the number of stories about Gates is 2670. The number of stories about ObamaCare is 10,272. Ahem.

Catty Sniping of the Day

Megan has a question. It's very insightful:

What happens to the cottage industry among Democratic-leaning armchair economists grinding out analyses proving that Democratic presidents are, like, totally awesome for the economy? Presuming that we're stuck--as seem very likely--in at least a couple of years of really grinding low-to-no growth, Obama is going to destroy their figures. Are we in for a resurgence of belief in exogenous growth factors?

Oh those silly "Democratic-leaning armchairs." They're always making silly claims like "the economy does better under Democratic presidents." I wish they were more like Republicans, whose sober prognostications about America's constant imperilment by foreign forces are always based on cold hard desire to keep people scared shitless facts.

God it's hard being a liberal these days. I mean, sure, we were right about the war, market regulations and tax rates and we pioneer for equal rights and an end to torture, but there are some of us who make silly claims about presidential omni-control over the economy and it just makes life seem not worth living. The fact that the worst economic disaster in our lifetimes hasn't been solved 6 months into a R to D transition makes me feel so worthless I could vote for McCain.

No One Goes There Anymore. It's too Crowded.

I haven't gotten to attend many panels this year, because I've been on too many.

o_O

The questions for Goolsbee are much more hostile than they were last year. I don't know whether to attribute this to the economy, or the fact that the disadvantages of Obama's policies are now apparent. All policies sound better when they're in white paper, and Obama's rhetorical deftness made it particularly easy to make his proposals sound like all things to all people. Now deficits have to be paid for, climate change bills turn out to lack teeth for anyone except the Chinese, health care gets scored by the CBO rather than optimistic campaign members.

Time taken to realize GWB was a failure: 6 years.

Time taken to realize that BHO is a failure: Less than 6 months.

Ideological win.

I'm A Moocher, Looting The Work Of Others

As no one here got to this Mega-item (I've a vague memory of scanning it, noticing that my hair was starting to hurt, & moving along) why not enjoy it from the perspective of the sort of person who is an "adult," has written books on, if not the economy, then right-wing presentation of economic issues, & gets TNR to pay him to do this sort of thing?

So McArdle's comparison -- some countries have cut taxes and thereby raised revenues, some countries have controlled costs with universal coverage -- turns out to be true if you replace the first "some" with "zero" and the second "some" with "all." Other than that, great comparison!

There does seem to be a pattern here of McArdle trying to explain away the influence of supply-siders on the conservative movement and the Republican Party. Two years ago, in response to me, she huffed that Laffer Curve devotees amounted to no more than a tiny fringe within the GOP. ("This motley collection of names is hardly proof that the Supply Siders Have Taken Over the Building.") Shortly after, in a hilarious bout of karma, McArdle had a book review spiked by a major conservative publication because, in the course of her otherwise orthodox argument, she noted that the Laffer Curve does not depict present-day tax rates in the U.S. (I would say better evidence of McArdle being wrong was the fact that the last Republican president and every GOP primary candidate in the 2008 election asserted that tax cuts could revenues to grow.)

So then, in the course of issuing a mea culpa, McArdle asserted that the same dynamic exists on the left with regard to unwillingness to criticize teachers unions. It was quickly pointed out that criticizing teachers unions is not only common but practically de rigeur among liberal columnists, magazines, think tanks, and even elected officials. So now, in her quest to show that it's not just conservatives, everybody does it, she's reaching for an even more preposterous comparison.

--Jonathan Chait

We'll scout about; perhaps Ms. McA. responded. Well, no. Not only no response, but the very next day runs an item about that ol' Laffer & his curve that makes no mention of Mr. Chait's rebuttal or takedown or vicious blog slam or whatever.

Let's Not Get Crazy Here, People!

Yeah! She's talking up affirmative action!

But hey, we all get things we don't deserve. I'll go further: almost all of us get something we don't deserve as a result of our race, including white people. Perhaps even especially white people.

Yes, perhaps. It might be that white people are overwhelmingly represented disproportionately in the ranks of the privileged. Or, maybe black people are just stoopid, too. I dunno. Too hard to tell, really.

If you don't believe it, ask yourself why repeated studies show that resumes with identifiably black names get fewer interview offers than identical white resumes.

Which is why she modifies her statements about racism? Wait, when she says "if you don't believe it" is she implying that she's trying to convince someone that racism exists? Perhaps not.

Sonia Sotomayor is not manifestly unqualified to be a Supreme Court justice, so focusing on affirmative action is completely irrelevant.

But the fact that your cohorts are doing it is only maybe, kind of, and indication that they're racist, short-sighted dicks. Perhaps.

You can argue with her politics or her legal judgement, and hey, I'm all ears.

Liar.

But the affirmative action complaints aren't advancing our quest to find out whether or not she'd be a good justice. They're just alienating the people you want to convince.

Megan, consistent with her uncanny ability to be about one or two years behind the conventional wisdom of even the most stubborn moron, is just now realizing that Republicans have gone insane. Perhaps.

Which Side Is She On? The Fence, Of Course. If We Understand Her Correctly.

At last, something not drowned in high-finance house-of-cards bullshit. This reporter does understand class struggle. An excerpt from a Foreign Policy article about middle-class Thais rioting against the rural poor, & she's off to the races.

But before we follow her out of the gate, let's examine part of the excerpt provided by Ms. McArdle about what's claimed to be up in Thailand.

One former U.S. ambassador to Thailand puts it bluntly: The middle class "disdain[s] the rural masses and see[s] them as willing pawns to the corrupt vote buyers." Instead of fighting for democratic rights, in other words, the People's Alliance is protesting against them.

Megan's reaction to this is a vaguely historical  recap of the "progressive era" which stops somewhat less than a hundred yrs. ago, though not by much.  No mention of more recent anti-democratic attitudes & initiatives, from her side of the aisle. Or that Sammy-Joe the Ex-Plumber is espousing this very line:

But, you also have to take into consideration that the Democrats say they are for people in poverty.

[...]

People in poverty keep them in power—that's what people have to understand.

The same sentiment, better-expressed than Sammy-Joe, from the comments, as well:

After reading the whole article, it seems like the middle class is weary/leery of a democracy with voters that don't respect property rights.

You know you're in for it when "property rights" are invoked. Watch:

Now that the population seems to be less committed to the idea that anybody has a right to keep what they own, and that everybody has some sort of implied right to the property of anybody that is well off, I'm not sure you won't see more of a backlash against democracy here.

All of the above, of course, a direct result of the election of Barack Obama. What else has happened to bring about this sudden sea-change in public opinion? Maybe the discovery that we're not anywhere near Egypt, 2000 BCE. But that's far enough in the past for historian McArdle to start (Hell, we're surprised she she got as far as the early 20th century, except to explain how FDR made it all worse.) reminding us how capitalism has made the world a better place in the last 4009 yrs.

The poor benefit from the capitalist system, probably more than the rich--compare Pharoah [sic] to Bill Gates, then compare a standard Egyptian peasant around 2000 BC to, say, a minimum wage worker in America.  But if you don't have the social capital to make it to the top, at any given time, it may look like it pays off to undermine or overthrow the system.  Naturally, the middle class, which preserves the system, will be averse to any system that gives them the power to do so.

Ai yi yi, Ms. McArdle, it wouldn't be quite as bad if you could write clearly. Then we could deal w/ your silly ideas straight on. Please explain the last sentence. Diagram it, even. Who is "them" in that sentence? The middle-class? In which case the sentence makes little sense. Or (I'm really trying to help you be comprehensible here, Megan, stop fidgeting) to make sense, "them" would have to be the poor people you mentioned. At the beginning of the paragraph, two sentences ago. Now do you see the problem, dear?

As to the ideas, isn't it the principle of the thing? Whether the peasant of Egypt had to support his betters & earn his grain carrying Pharaoh around in a sedan chair, or has to slave on her feet eight hrs. a day behind a cash register while repeating "Have a nice day" to assholes to keep her betters from the necessity of work, what fucking difference does it really make?

And this "social" capital you speak of? Being white & well-off? Really, it's just capital that gets you to the top. Why not say it out right?

And if you're sitting there, feeling all superior to those benighted bourgeois, consider all the things you want to take out of the hands of ordinary Americans because otherwise those amoral toads will do the wrong thing.  Gay marriage. Or prayer in school. Immigration. Trade. I've no doubt that you have some very compelling reason that these things are entirely different from support for the rule of law or a standard liberal economic order. The point is, no one's really comfortable with letting the majority set all the standards.

There is a point. I recognized it because Megan pointed me to it. And now that I get it, I could send her an e-mail explaining the Constitution, civil rights, tyranny of the majority, that sort of thing, but as her actual point seems to be anti-democratic (&, we could say, anti-free market) why bother? Ms. McArdle either can't type clearly enough to get her point across, doesn't want to reveal her thoughts on democracy, or is just floundering, nothing at all occurring between her elf-like ears.

And we enjoyed her defamation of "progressives" (granted, a collection of Mid-Western Protestant dickwads)

Think of some of the signal accomplishments of the Progressives:  Planned Parenthood.  Immigration restrictions.  Civil service reform.  Massive campaigns against the corruption of the urban machines.  "Mental hygeine[sic]".  Spot a trend?

and the insertion of the phrases "classical liberal" & "standard liberal economic order" in opposition to Progressives & their shameful ideas. My gawd, Planned Parenthood & Civil Service reform. What's she mean there, huh? Who determines that this is the "standard" (or "liberal") economic order? Of course, we know what these people mean when they say "classical" liberalism, & that the capital "P" Progressives are not today's America-hating so-called progressives. But clam up w/ the "classical liberal" crap. Try to get your philosophy from at least the twentieth century, not a collection of weasels in powdered wigs & breeches.

Megastats:
Blockquote: 16 lines
McArdle: 26 lines

Almost a two to one ratio. Much better, but we're still not there yet.

Elements of Style©:
Ever read anything by even a semi-pro that was any sludgier, clunkier, or incomprehensible than this?

This is pretty much exactly the story of the Progressive movement in the United States, which was a backlash against the corrupt hoi polloi. Rent-seeking populists, backroom-dealing political machines--these were both inimical to classical liberalism, and also the voice of minority-majorities, who used favorable local demographics against members of the national elite.

Fantasies of the Dying Right

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.