The usually-sharp Alex Tabarrok fails to make a necessary and important decision between pretending to be a Democrat and actually being a Democrat. Ezra Klein's point--that I agree with--is that Republicans don't dare say what they think when they run in national elections, but pretend to be Democrats. Bernstein's point--which was simply stupid--was that George Bush's actual policies were such that Democrats should approve of them.
There is a difference between image and reality.
Posted by DeLong at May 19, 2004 08:09 AM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postI think you need to correct the link - it's just to your own weblog.
Posted by: Brendan Lynch on May 19, 2004 08:50 AMThe link: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/05/who_is_a_troll.html
Posted by: ogged on May 19, 2004 09:11 AMIsn’t it obvious? It more obvious in the quotes Berstein used, which means that he has even less excuse.
Bernstein: “George Bush, in theory, would be a dream president for many liberals."
Klein: “They are getting elected by pretending to be Democrats...”
Hello? Anyone home? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the difference between the two.
The other comparison is just as bad.
Yglesias: "...the Republican Party has essentially abandoned the small-government agenda...”
The only way that says anything like the same as Bernstein’s comment is if you assume that “Republican=small government” and “Democrat=big government.” That’s just sheer ignorance of plain facts: both Republicans and Democrats want small government for some things and big government for other things. The difference lies in *which* things they want small or big.
I can’t see where either Tabarrok or Bernstein have any excuse for missing such things. Sure, they might feel that these aren’t relevant differences - but the possibility of a difference is so obvious that any honest person would have at least addressed them and explained why they are “differences that don’t make a difference.”
Posted by: none on May 19, 2004 09:24 AMBernstein's statement that Bush "would be a dream president for liberals" is empty of content -- it's just a swipe at liberals. The implied syllogism is: Bush is dragging America down the toilet. I have heretofore posited that liberals want to drag America down the toilet. Ergo, liberals should love Bush! Q.E.D.
Posted by: Jeremy Osner on May 19, 2004 10:40 AMI don't think that Bush is radical-right. He's basically, with the exception of foreign policy, centrist-authoritarian-corrupt. He isn't corrupt in a classically right or left wing way. I think that a good analogy for the Republicans today is the Mexican PRI pre-1996. When it suited them, they were statists, while in other cases they were free-market (in the sense of not very regulating, allowing their friends to do what they wanted to workers, etc). Of course, the Republicans haven't (yet) achieved PRI-like political domination, but in basic "governing philosophy," I think they're fairly analogous.
Posted by: Julian Elson on May 19, 2004 12:51 PMBush is not a small-government balanced budget consevative. Therefore he must a liberal.
That's the logic, right?
Posted by: Oberon on May 20, 2004 06:56 AMLet me see if I understand your argument correctly. When Democrats try to position themselves toward the center, they're in the mainstream, and when Republicans do it they're liars.
Did I miss anything deep, professor?
Posted by: Jack Blick on May 20, 2004 07:00 AMWhen Republicans try to position their positions toward the center, they're moving toward the mainstream.
When Republicans try to position their image toward the center while keeping their positions to the right, they're liars.
Democrats, mutatis mutandis.
Was that so hard?
use into a can.
Posted by: real incest pictures denton on May 30, 2004 08:33 PMExcellent Post. If you have a chance, visit my site - Cheap Cigarettes
Posted by: Discount Cigarettes on June 17, 2004 12:43 PMyeehh - BRUSSELS, Belgium -- European Union leaders have overcome their differences to agree to the bloc's first constitution and are pushing ahead with their search for a compromise candidate to be the next European Commission president.
Posted by: govard on June 20, 2004 12:52 PMHey, nice blog. Come see me if you can - Dental Insurance
Posted by: Dental Insurance on July 8, 2004 12:25 PMHey, nice blog. Come see me if you can - Dental Insurance
Posted by: Dental Insurance on July 9, 2004 04:29 AMLiberum arbitrium - Free will
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est - The check is in the mail
Pueri pueri, pueri puerilia tractant - Children are children, (therefore) children do childish things
Mihi cura futuri - My concern is the future
heh, A fast-spreading mutant strain of syphilis has proved resistant to the antibiotic pills that are offered to some patients. The increase in the mutant strain was largely among gay or bisexual men with multiple partners.
Interfice errorem, diligere errantem - Kill the sin, love the sinner. (St. Augustine)
Interfice errorem, diligere errantem - Kill the sin, love the sinner. (St. Augustine)
Interfice errorem, diligere errantem - Kill the sin, love the sinner. (St. Augustine)
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas - Although the power is lacking, the will is commendable. (Ovid)
Nil agit exemplum, litem quod lite resolvit - Not much worth is an example that solves one quarrel with another. (Horace)
Difficile est saturam non scribere - It is hard not to write satire. (Juvenalis)
Poli, poli, di umbuendo - Slowly, Slowly we will get there
Uti, non abuti - To use, not abuse
The Statue of Liberty, recently reopened after a two-year closure, stashing a package offers a glimpse into the future. To rent, close and reopen lockers, visitors touch an electronic reader that scans fingerprints.
http://casino.xthehun.com
http://gambling.xthehun.com
http://online.xthehun.com