Patterico's Pontifications

8/13/2011

The Magical Thinking of Liberals

Filed under: General — Karl @ 9:29 am



[Posted by Karl]

Via James Taranto, a rather startling admission buried in a piece by TNR’s Jonathan Chait.  After listening to NPR’s Diane Rehm, reading news analysis from The New York Times and a column by the NYT’s Tom Friedman, Chait concludes that “our political discourse is consumed by magical thinking” about the Great Recession and the debt bomb:

Conservative pundits, while usually slanting their account in highly partisan and often misleading terms, do a fairly good job of grasping and explaining the fact that the two parties fundamentally disagree on the causes of and solutions to the economic crisis and the long-term deficit. In this sense, a Rush Limbaugh listener may well be better informed about the causes of the impasse than listener of NPR or other mainstream organs. The former will have in his mind a wildly slanted version of the basic political landscape, while the latter’s head will be filled with magical thinking.

That is progress for Chait, who wrote on April 14, 2010:

[I]f you believe the mainstream media is an organ of the progressive movement and the functional liberal equivalent of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, then yes, liberals do have epistemic closure. I think that,whatever you think about the liberal bias charge, the mainstream media is far more receptive to news and viewpoints that challenge liberalism than conservative outlets are to news and viewpoints that challenge conservatism.

Chait was demonstrably wrong then, but I salute Chait on his epiphany and hope he continues to examine the Magical Thinking of Liberals. 

Given that his new piece is currently the most viewed at TNR, and he is more likely to be read by the establishment pundit class, I will suggest he could look at the tendency of his former colleagues in epistemic closure, e.g. Andrew Sullivan, Ezra Klein, James Fallows, etc., to gush over wildly misleading charts about the debt problem that are chock full of magical thinking.  He recently defended one of those charts, but in light of his current enlightenment, I appeal to his better nature.  I ask him to ask himself whether charts about the debt which exclude entitlement spending, aside from the Bush-era Medicare drug benefit, are really helpful in creating the engaged discussion Chait apparently seeks.  Indeed, on the Medicare drug benefit, as Chait concedes Bush probably endorsed it to outflank the Dems, he might also concede that the bill passed was estimated to cost $407 billion, while the plan pushed by House Democratic leadership was estimated to cost $800 billion to $900 billion over 10 years

Similarly, Chait is forced to recognize our current income tax rates (a bane of the left when it comes to the debt) were passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by Pres. Obama.  Chait nevertheless argues that Obama would not have cut tax rates, but once established, they would have required “immense political capital” to overturn.  Perhaps the newly-enlightened Chait will recognize the flaws in this argument. 

First, the Bush-era tax cuts were set to expire in 2010.  The Democrats could have done nothing and they would have disappeared.  No “overturning” was necessary. 

Second, if Chait were to universally recognize his own argument, he would be forced to consider all pre-Bush entitlement policy, e.g.,  Medicare and Social Security, as part of the debt problem historically, not to mention going forward, as their mythical trust funds are depleted.  Indeed, if we judged presidents by their preferred policies, rather than actual policy dictated by the political constraints of the moment, it would be fair to argue that Ronald Reagan would have reduced non-defense discretionary spending greatly, and that entitlement spending might have taken a far different trajectory under both Reagan and G.W. Bush (who would have greatly reformed Social Security). 

Third, one need not stretch Chait’s own concession about the Medicare drug benefit (including the overwhelming margin of its passage) very much to suggest some collective responsibility for that part of the debt. 

At a minimum,  Chait ought to consider that charts which fail to recognize non-Bush entitlement spending as a main source of our medium-term debt bomb and which allocate all responsibility for our current tax rates to the Bush administration do not even recognize  the debate about such things.  Chait was at least willing to engage Megan McArdle on them (however flawed his engagement was).  Many of Chait’s colleagues at establishment organs remain stuck in the magical thinking on the left he now seems to reject.  Perhaps it will not take him 16 months to inform his readership of this.

–Karl

59 Responses to “The Magical Thinking of Liberals”

  1. McArdle’s casual intellectual dishonesties and persistent establishment boot-licking suggest to me that she fashions her viewpoints largely with an eye to what will help her own career. She’s ambitious, this one.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  2. feets first!

    I’ll grant you she’s, er, idiosyncratic… but she’s right about the charts. If I can note when Chait is right, I can note when McArdle is right. It’s about the issues, not the personalities.

    Karl (37b303)

  3. yes it’s just she looks to me like someone straining to appear all super even handed but what can’t help wink winking to her audience about “tax cuts for the rich”

    she’s tedious like that

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  4. She’s a supposed libertarian who voted for Obama, not unlike a number of those at Reason. A curious breed. But I’ll take what people have to say on the merits.

    Karl (37b303)

  5. The Left is left with sitting in the garden, plucking petals off of a flower,
    chanting “He loves me, he loves me not”;
    that is the depths of intellectualism that they have descended to.

    They are unable to discuss the problem, nor to solve it, as they have no idea how to define it in any meaningful way that others can decipher.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  6. …Oh, did I mention, The Bloom is off the Rose!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  7. I find it curious that it can be claimed that a “Limbaugh listener may well be better informed about the causes of the impasse than listener of NPR or other mainstream organs”, yet having been deluged with “highly partisan and misleading terms”. It would seem to me that to be better informed would do novo require having a better exposure to objective truth.

    Now, if the point is that Limbaugh and others don’t hesitate to say who they think is right and wrong on an issue, then I say let everything be partisan. The day should be won by whoever can explain documented truth, not by pr pros.

    MD in Philly (ff9465)

  8. You do seem to hear more from the opposition on Rush’s show, than you would on one of the shows of the usual suspects in the LSM/NPR.

    It is always amusing how Rush (in particular, though he is probably the most open to opposing viewpoints of many of R-W Talk) is constantly accussed of not talking calls from those on the Left, yet he claims – and listening does seem to buttress those claims – that opposing viewpoints are put to the top of the caller list.
    After all, in his words, the job of a caller is to make the host look good, and defeating an opposing viewpoint on-air is always good for the host’s rep, and ego.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  9. not taking….facepalm!

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  10. The political left have nothing to support their policies anymore besides magical thinking. The following sums it up.

    this largely unspoken assumption: that no matter what you do to one part of a machine, the rest of the machine will continue to function normally.

    A variant of this is the frequently expressed denial of the law of unintended consequences: the belief that, if the effect you intend is good, the actual effect must be similarly happy.

    Very small children, the mad, and certain extinct primitive tribes, have shared in this belief system, but only the fully college-educated liberal has the vocabulary to make it sound plausible.

    This is the reason why their most common response to criticism is ad hominem and epithets like “idiot.”

    Mike K (8f3f19)

  11. If, in order to graduate with a degree in journalism, schools required upper division math and science classes, there would be far fewer journalism majors and far fewer liberal journalists.

    Huey (ddf1a4)

  12. 1) Let Obama raise taxes;

    2) Watch economy continue to sour;

    3) Watch voters put Republicans in charge of executive and legislative branches;

    4) Repeal tax hikes and cut spending;

    5) Watch economy recover.

    Is Romney capable of doing this or is he a liberal?

    AZ Bob (aa856e)

  13. I think Romney is as good as his word… he won’t “raise taxes”.

    ColonelHaiku (d1f5ff)

  14. Huey, I like where you’re going with this, add courses in logic, American History, Geography, Military Science, and Physical Education, and that pretty much puts the weak sisters on the sidelines.

    ropelight (d19b71)

  15. –Comment by Another Drew – Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! — 8/13/2011 @ 11:03 am–

    “talking calls” works, after a fashion. 😉

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  16. Expanding the J-School curicula…

    It constantly amazes me how “journalists” can’t seem to read a map, or figure out North from South, etc.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  17. Not that anyone needs further proof of liberal bias, but a movie review of the Grapes of Wrath?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/shenegotiates/2011/08/01/the-budget-end-game-as-bad-summer-movie/?partner=yahootix

    felipe (2ec14c)

  18. Romney flip-flops on just about everything.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  19. Liberals think?

    Get the hell outta here.

    Dave Surls (dbeb9b)

  20. Actual liberals do think.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  21. So if the GOP will make americas economy worse so you will vote for Obama who will make the economy a lot worse do you liberals have a death wish?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  22. I mean if Obama makes you guys starve will you still vote for him?

    DohBiden (d54602)

  23. Comment by DohBiden — 8/13/2011 @ 3:06 pm

    Yes, it is the Progressive who seems incapable of rational thought.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  24. Classic Liberals are smarter than 2011 liberals.

    2011 liberals don’t care if they are starving they will still vote for Omasterbaiter.

    DohBiden (d54602)

  25. H/T- Instapundit…
    From Mark Steyn:
    “For Americans, the quickest way to understand modern Britain is to look at what LBJ’s Great Society did to the black family and imagine it applied to the general population.”
    and…
    In Britain, everything is policed except crime.”

    He has few favorable words for the country that”…within living memory, the city in flames on our TV screens every night governed a fifth of the Earth’s surface and a quarter of its population…”

    And, if history is any guide, a show coming to your town soon.
    Stock up on popcorn, tinned food, water, ammo!
    The intermission could be tough.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  26. The magical thinking of the likes of Tom Friedman is what he meant, obviously.

    Slanted, magical or Krugram, you takes your pick.

    Spartacvs (2d9449)

  27. Midget demonic dwarf or Krugman, take your pick. Multiple sock puppet habitual liar, or spurty, take your pick.

    JD (318f81)

  28. FROM CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST, John Tamny for Real Clear Politics:

    Partisan Republicans love to point out that President Obama always blames his predecessor for the limp economic outlook, while never looking inward. They have a point about Obama being hopeless on economic matters, but the reality is far more nuanced.

    If honest they would acknowledge the greater truth that much of what ails us today actually is George W. Bush’s fault. Indeed, it was his administration that instituted a bailout culture that tautologically restrains recovery for failed ideas being propped up at the expense of good ones.

    Secondly, it was the Bush administration’s jawboning of China, along with tariffs on steel, softwood lumber and shrimp that signaled to the markets its preference for a weaker dollar. As is always the case, a falling dollar authored a rush to the real; specifically a recessionary rush into the dead money sector that is housing.

    …but denial rules, of course

    truth! (737d3d)

  29. Yay! Lying sock puppets. Yay! Pimping a BS narrative, no less. SHOCKA

    JD (318f81)

  30. Not really on topic, but probably of interest to many here:

    Federal judge throws out Obama drilling rules

    Chuck Bartowski (e84e27)

  31. …a declining Dollar!

    Something that has gone on for a long time, during both GOP and DEM presidential terms.
    As an Example:
    Yen v. Dollar…
    Feb ’85…260/$;
    Sep ’89…145/$;
    Feb ’02…134/$;
    now……. 80/$!

    I should remark that the decline in value v. the Yen during the mid-80’s was a conscience decission by the Reagen Administration to raise the costs of Japanese imports (cars) into the U.S., and led directly to the development of Japanese luxury brands since there was a concurrant “voluntary” import quota on those imports. Therefore, it make sense that if you could only send X number of cars to the U.S., it made a lot more sense to send X $15,000 cars rather that X $8,000 cars (1985 Dollars). It also led to the establishment of Japanese manufacturing facilities in North America.

    So, No, a cheap Dollar is not a Bush program (as you can see, and I picked the high-points of the last 20+ years) but a U.S. policy. The Dollar highpoints over the last 25-yrs against the Yen have all been during GOP Presidents. That doesn’t mean that everything they did monetarily was good, but they weren’t all bad either. In fact, Reagan, and GWB, were both roundly criticized for their interference in Free Trade in what they did with Japan (RR) and China (GWB).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yen

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  32. Chuck,
    U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal, a stout Republican, and on the payroll for Western Alliance Energy … what would you expect? ???

    truth! (6fafb0)

  33. Best guess for #31? Our persistant little troll imdw. What do you think?

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  34. If this is being read in the UK, would the Judge have grounds to file a libel suit?
    I think so, and I think she would win.
    But then, it’s like wrestling with a pig.
    All you do is get dirty, and the pig enjoys it.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  35. I think you’re right, Simon.

    “truth”: why is it that every time a decision goes against liberals it’s because the judges have been bought off? Don’t you people ever think you’ve lost a fair fight?

    Chuck Bartowski (e84e27)

  36. Oh, one more thing, “truth”: Freudenthal was appointed by Obama.

    That’s going to leave a mark.

    Chuck Bartowski (e84e27)

  37. Just in case truth doesn’t believe me

    And there’s nothing in her bio about any association with Western Alliance Energy. From the White House itself:

    Nancy D. Freudenthal is a litigation partner at Davis & Cannon, LLP, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. From 1980 to 1989, she worked as an attorney in the Wyoming Governor’s office for intergovernmental affairs. In 1989, she was made chairman of the Wyoming Tax Commission, and then served as chairman of the board of the Wyoming Board of Equalization, where she worked until 1995. She joined Davis & Cannon in 1995 as an associate, and became a partner in 1998. Mrs. Freudenthal received a B.A. from the University of Wyoming in 1976 and a J.D. from its College of Law in 1980.

    “truth” is a fucking liar.

    Chuck Bartowski (e84e27)

  38. We know where the debt came from. Every economist not on the dole of the GOP will tell you…

    truth! (4091ec)

  39. It’s projection, again.
    They don’t intend to fight fair, so no-one else can either.
    Since it is Job One to buy off the judiciary in the Progressive Catechism by packing the bench with like believers, and useful idiots, they just assume that on any issue that they lose, the other side must have bought the judge.

    It’s a Hell of a way to go through life; dumb and stupid.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  40. You’re right Chuck. I retract.

    truth! (4091ec)

  41. Calling all liberals; today’s LA Times says (actual headline):

    “Obama left short-handed on economy.”

    Poor Obama has no one left to help him, except Geithner. As I recall, Obama said he is more knowledgable than his advisers so what’s the big deal?

    What was so funny was the LA Times emphasis on the failure of the salesmanship, not failure of the policies.

    “The team is missing a key messenger in selling Obama’s policies,” the LA Times wrote in its third paragraph, lead story.

    Didn’t Bush have the same problem selling the war?

    AZ Bob (aa856e)

  42. If only, imdw. If only.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  43. It’s always for a lack of messenger, never a faulty message.

    But, Hey, I hear Baghdad Bob is available.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  44. You’re right Chuck. I retract.

    So, you posted a deliberate lie about a federal judge without checking the facts. And why should we believe anything you post here now?

    Chuck Bartowski (e84e27)

  45. I love that “truth” linked to the very WH chart McArdle and I dissected. So cute. Also proof that “truth” doesn’t pay attention.

    Karl (37b303)

  46. Yep, truth is imdw. No time to backtrack now, but I’ll get to it. I’m leaving that comment since so many responded. Also, it’s a good example of his nonsense.

    Stashiu3 (601b7d)

  47. I vaguely recall his using of that nick before, to no better result.

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (eeb8e7)

  48. Limbaugh + documented truth, two things that should never appear in the same sentence.

    Spartacvs (2d9449)

  49. Karl @45

    I love that “truth” linked to the very WH chart McArdle and I dissected.

    Where is that post Karl? ought to be a fun read. Any argument McArdle tries to advance with her devastating math skills tends to fall apart rather easily.

    Spartacvs (2d9449)

  50. “They have a point about Obama being hopeless on economic matters…”

    Yeah, but he’s a multi-tasker…also hopeless when it comes to non-economic matters.

    Dave Surls (e7175c)

  51. “Poor Obama has no one left to help him, except Geithner.”

    Hold on, Barry, Tim will be right with you…soon as he figures out how to fill out a tax return.

    Dave Surls (e7175c)

  52. Sparty,

    A little hint for you… Google can be your (liberal) friend. Search for:

    karl national debt +McArdle site:patterico.com

    And you will get Karl’s post here as the 4th entry.

    Using + and – include/exclude tags and the “site:” tag to limit searches to a particular site will save you lots of “egg on face” every time you ask for a “cite” or claim something stupid without doing a few seconds of research.

    BfC (2ebea6)

  53. the image of Spartacus smugly pretending he can out argue Mcardle is pretty hilarious. Unlike Spartacus, even where I don’t agree with her conclusions, she has a command of the facts. Actually, Mcardle has a troll commenter about as stupid as Spartacus called tstev. Shows the same tendency of ignorance and of googling up cut and pastes without comprehension.

    SPQR (4e044e)

  54. But the greater impediment is that we’re roadblocked by political disagreement between different bodies that must agree in order to produce any action.

    That is magical thinking. It only takes one of the bodies to stop spending. Refusing to spend is an action.

    The author went through all that for the purpose of planting a magic thought in your brain. You don’t recognize it as a magic thought because he successfully sold you on the idea that the opposite was the magic thought, and he is right in that the NPR listeners ( spenders ) he was talking about are imagining themselves in the position that the non-spenders are in, that is “holding all the cards”, when in fact spenders need all three branches to agree to spend a nickel and cutters need only hold one branch to refuse any and all spending.

    j curtis (f45ea2)

  55. Refusing to spend is an action.

    Is that similar to not buying insurance is commerce?

    Another Drew - Restore the Republic / Obama Sucks! (8bcded)

  56. Memo for Jonathan “Brains” Chait: the quickest way to “address epistemic closure” is Metamucil.

    MarkJ (5cbdfb)

  57. No. Slashing the budget is an action that requires no cooperation, just one willing branch. Well, the president could be overridden, but both the house and senate have singular power to put an end to spending if either so desires.

    The left has been working desperately to plant the magic thought that cooperation is needed. The continued existence of leftism in America requires that this magic thought be widely assimilated. This guy merely put a name to the strategy and used a false flag example to make you receptive to his magic thought.

    j curtis (f45ea2)

  58. I retract my previous conjectures that Spartacus has been brainwashed. After giving it some thought, I am more inclined to believe that there is so little grey matter up there in his little noggin that periodic light rinses have always sufficed.

    Summit, NJ (75c9eb)

  59. Patterico, Just a heads up that that TRN link to Jonathan Chait’s article has an embedded trojan. My Kaspersky rejected the link and gave this ID:

    object infected HEUR:Trojan.Script.Generic

    Meh (ad80a5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1110 secs.