Wednesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Bicycle thief gets his.
  2. As we keep giving more and more power to government … hmmmm.
  3. A Liberal wakes up (HT: Mr Leiter)
  4. That notion as a trend noted here.
  5. Two voices now being heard.
  6. Mr Bernanke’s influences.
  7. Count me as interested.
  8. More DS-9 discussion and alas it still hasn’t gotten to the dollar theatre so I haven’t seen it yet … but I will.
  9. Old Testament ethics.
  10. On healthcare, Ms McArdle notes, ” Health care reform has not survived the worst Republicans can throw at it.  It’s survived–barely–the opening volley.”
  11. On that same topic, this will be discussed ad infinitum (or ad nasueam).
  12. On Anathem a short discussion, which book launguishes on my floor waiting for me to get ’round toit.
  13. Upping the ante.
  14. A cup of cold water.
  15. In the “ask not what” theme.
  16. For myself, I don’t think he gets it. I suggest that Mr Obama being himself a radical progressive is just playing to type.
  17. Smoke, mirrors, and the gospel.
  18. Ms Parks and the Christian life, a hint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

10 comments

  1. How can you say that a liberal “wakes up” to the idea that Obama’s term is just like Bush’s third term would have been AND that Obama is a “radical progressive” in the same post? Was Bush a “radical progressive?”

  2. Boonton says:

    The post-modern conservative returns. Obama’s radical. Not radical enough. He’s a floor wax and a desert topping!

  3. Mark says:

    JA,
    Hmm, it seems to me it was a liberal waking up to Obama’s abuses of power (just “like” Bush’s third term) and another liberal complains that his pandering to the far left is problematic. I’m unclear on why you find that problematic.

    Why my liberal/progressive interlocutors need everything spelled out for them remains a mystery. Yet, I’ll endeavour to remain patient. Gathering and abusing power is not something that directly conflicts with a liberal/conservative divide.

    I guess that’s the danger for a conservative who links to liberal blogs, especially if he links things that are critical of Mr Obama. It’s apparently very confusing for reader’s preconceptions.

  4. Mark,

    The liberal in question is complaining about very non-progressive things: only the signing statements and violating the law could be considered non-partisan. All the other things — the wiretapping, the wars, Bernanke — are right-wing, not left-wing evils, at least as right and left are traditionally understood in America.

  5. Mark says:

    JA,
    Of the “things” you mention, wiretapping, wars and Bernanke. On the last, that would be in fact quite the bold move, tossing your fed chair at the beginning of the crises.

    On the first two, I think I made it clear. Wiretapping and much of that are neither liberal nor conservative in principle. Power and other such abuses are found in “left wing” and “right wing” movements. These are features orthogonal to the left/right divide.

    Bernanke, it is observed above, is a monetarist following Friedman (not a neo-Keynsian). It is clear to me that Keynsians exist on both sides of the aisle. Are you asserting that monetarism is an anathema to progressivism. Where is the conflict?

    So if FDR or Kennedy or Clinton abuse the power of the state … that’s ignored. Abuse of power exists only (for you) apparently on the right. It seems to me that your a priori definition of right vs left is that the former consists of anything you don’t like. Well, as far as that goes I think the “reality based party” moniker y’all clearly is meant ironically.

  6. Mark,

    Wiretapping and much of that are neither liberal nor conservative in principle.

    Quibbling over definitions. In America, “conservative” has meant opposing rights for suspected criminals/terrorists/enemies for more than a generation. It’s true that it’s theoretically orthogonal to right/left, but then so is almost everything.

    Bernanke, it is observed above, is a monetarist following Friedman (not a neo-Keynsian).

    Right, he’s a right-of-center economist. Hardly a “radical progressive.”

    So if FDR or Kennedy or Clinton abuse the power of the state … that’s ignored.

    WTF? Since when? The left always criticizes the left when it deserves it. That’s why the right is as successful as it is even when the majority of Americans agree with the left on virtually all the issues. They stick together whether their guy acts like a conservative or like the complete opposite.

    I’ve spent more time criticizing Obama than I have praising him since he took office. Can you say you did the same for Bush, who was (so far) a much worse president?

    t seems to me that your a priori definition of right vs left is that the former consists of anything you don’t like.

    No. Hawkishness is right-wing to me, dovishness left. That goes along with polling of both sides (although prominent Dem politicians tend to be center-right on war.) Deregulation is right-wing to me (Clinton was right-of-center economically.) Standing up for the bill of rights (minus the second, admittedly) is left-wing. Standing up for only the second is right-wing.

  7. Mark says:

    JA,

    The left always criticizes the left when it deserves it.

    Not true and you know it.

    I’ve spent more time criticizing Obama than I have praising him since he took office.

    That’s because Obama is an unusually poor President. But seriously, criticism and disillusionment with Obama was the point of this discussion.

    No. Hawkishness is right-wing to me, dovishness left. That goes along with polling of both sides (although prominent Dem politicians tend to be center-right on war.) Deregulation is right-wing to me (Clinton was right-of-center economically.) Standing up for the bill of rights (minus the second, admittedly) is left-wing. Standing up for only the second is right-wing.

    Hmm, well, I stand by my claim. “It seems to me that your a priori definition of right vs left is that the former consists of anything you don’t like.”

  8. Boonton says:

    Actually I think the disconnect here is:

    Obama – > Does stuff that’s wrong

    Bush – > Did stuff that was wrong

    Therefore Obama is ‘just like’ a 3rd Bush term. Perhaps this explains Mark’s position that Obama’s an exceptionally poor President.

    To make this work logically, though, you have to establish not that Obama does stuff that’s wrong but that his wrong stuff is equal or greater than Bush’s wrong stuff. I’m not really seeing it.

  9. Mark says:

    Boonton,
    Look at the first link in #3. This is a liberal who says Obama “does stuff that’s wrong” and furthermore too much of it is exactly the same “wrong stuff” that Bush was doing. He sees it as “just like a Bush 3rd term” because the policies are the same.

  10. Boonton says:

    And yet Obama is also putting us all in grave danger by gutting the CIA, threatening our ‘heros’ with criminal charges for torture, revealing our methods and prohibiting the gov’t from doing what works etc. The post-modern conservative has no problem citing both stances with approval because the post-modern conservative has long ago rebranded truth as a marketing gimmick.

    I think the liberal in #3 takes those things very seriously but is exagerrating how much ‘Bush stuff’ Obama is still doing. I would not consider the two equal.