Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Most people operate on the Sam Goldwyn principle:- "I've made up my mind; don't confuse me with facts".

Brad DeLong quotes Judd Legum and company, "The blog is an effort to give people – or at least those who agree with us – the arguments they need to convince others that they're right. If you disagree with the opinions expressed here, make your case in the comments section."

As most people who read my comments know, I'm a Libertarian, and I frequently disagree with Brad DeLong. In fact, his foaming-at-the-mouth abandon-all-rationality criticisms of G.W. Bush cause me to visit this site less than I used to. (Even though I also disagree probably with most things G.W. Bush does.)

Anyway, my comments frequently reflect my sharp disagreements with Dr. DeLong. Despite this fact, to my knowledge, Dr. DeLong has only once removed any comment of mine. (That was a truly weird situation, because I have no idea how what I wrote that time was in any way insulting; at least, I written much sharper stuff about Dr. DeLong that hasn't been removed!)

ANYWAY, my point (if I had one) is that it would be fairly easy for Brad DeLong to simply not accept comments on his site, or to edit away any comments that were critical of his own posts. But, other than that one occasion, he has never done that with me. In this manner, he has fully supported political discourse, including providing support (i.e., paying for the bandwidth) for comments with which I know he completely disagrees.

Hope you had a nice July 4th, Dr. DeLong.

Best wishes,
Mark Bahner

P.S. Libertarian Party...accept no substitutes! ;-)

P.P.S. Things will look a lot better with Michael Badnarik in the White House! ;-)

latibulum, George Lakoff explains why this is so and how to get around it.

> Most of the political debate in this country does not occur behind podiums but in backyards, bus stops and ball parks.

Nice sentiment, but is it true? In Europe, yes. But in my ten years at the University of Illinois, I remember engaging in political conversation only two or three times - and always with the same guy. I don't remember ever overhearing somebody else talking about politics.

This year seems to be a little different - I've overheard many conversations at restaurants - but GWB seems to be the exception. What are your experiences?

"his foaming-at-the-mouth abandon-all-rationality criticisms of G.W. Bush "

Never saw any of those. However, I have seen a number of carefully reasoned criticisms of GWB.

Bush supporters view ANY criticism of their boy as "foaming-at-the-mouth, abandon-all-rationality".

Do you wish to be classified as a Bush supporter?

People are largely segregated by race and by class, often leaving large enclaves of "liberals" in a few places, and large enclaves of "conservatives" in others. Everyone at my grandmother's birthday party (she was born on the 4th) hates Bush. Workplaces aren't designed for political conversation and often times establish implicit rules for outlawing it.

But with all that said, Winning Argument is a good idea. If it does nothing else it helps to innoculate individuals from Fox.

My 2 cents:
I live in a policitally liberal community, Palo Alto, and belong to a men's riding club in Woodside (old farts on horses I call it). I meet and talk to a broad range of the economic classes in this area. My friends range from the unemployed, just got a job after a year of looking, small business men, cops, firemen, just plane joes working for a living, very successful owners of auto dealerships, venture capital guys and the ambasador to Australia in the Nixon administration. All nice people by the way, but we very seldom talk politics and those who do are mostly republican. These are people I have fun with and am not interested in thowing a fish in their faces so I ususually don't even try to counter the RNC, Rush and O'Liely stuff when it comes out. If I do offer a disenting point of view I try to frame my point in a way other than a R vis D perspective.
I bet most of us fall in the same catagory.
One thing I have noticed is that now that the blogs are available I don't spend much time with national news TV or subscribe the the local paper.
We use the local throwaway, free, paper and read the news on the major papers internet pages.
Keep up the good work

The main problem with blogs is that you have to read them, and this cuts out about 50% of the population, because aside from dyslexics, among whom I count some of my most brilliant friends, there are many, many others who do not care to input information by the printed word (is this right-hemispheric?)--and many who would not trust it, even if they were inclined to intake via this medium.

Next up: video blogs! As little trustworthy, and in less time!

Video blogs?! Hellz no. One of the great features of blog format is the ability to skim. Plus, I'd have to get dressed every morning before I post.

As one of the Republican readers of this blog I do appreciate Brad's patience with the comments. Political debate in this country seems to turn into an echo chamber, be it Rush's show or someone at the NY Times quoting the EPI. A word of advice if you want to debate: Be prepared to change your own mind, and be nice. Honey attracts more flies than vinegar. And don't quote from people who are grinding axes.

P.P.S. Things will look a lot better with Michael Badnarik in the White House! ;-)

Mark I am curious how you can offer Badnarik up as a contender for the White House?

As a party, the Libertarian party is irrelevant. Harry Browne, on his THIRD consecutive run for the White House had about 75,000 less votes than Pat Buchanan, and about 10% of the vote that Nader got. The Libertarian candidate is no more credible than Phillips or Hagelin was.

Without the "name recognition" of having run 3 times, Badnarik will be lucky to receive a quarter of a million votes this time.

When you say Libertarian, do you mean the true Libertarian view of no foreign interventions like the stupid war in Iraq, or do you mean the limousine libertarian view like Neal Boortz that thinks that Iraq had WMD and the Iraq war is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

At some point you have to realize that the Libertarian point of view "sounds nice" on sound bite issues. For example, let's have open borders but no minimum wage or education for immigrants. Not going to happen.

To have a truly libertarian state, you may as well do like the baptists are choosing South Carolina and chose New Hampshire and secede.

Ideas like me not paying for education because I have no children and other libertarian ideals sound nice but in reality are impractical in a civilized society.

Different strokes, etc. It seems to me that Brad could do a bit more foaming at the mouth and raging, but I come by anyway. Can't please everyone.

Brad -- Save the foam for the second week in November, just in case, and in the meantime keep on with the great posts!

"As most people who read my comments know, I'm a Libertarian, and I frequently disagree with Brad DeLong. In fact, his foaming-at-the-mouth abandon-all-rationality criticisms of G.W. Bush cause me to visit this site less than I used to."

You really think the good Professor's nuanced anger is "foaming-at-the-mouth"? You must live a very sheltered life. He's full of Anger and Contempt - towards both the Bush administration and journalists. Deservably so, in my opinion - but he never goes overboard towards outright hatred. If you want a real dose of electronic rabies, check out the Idiot Rottweiler (or whatever he's called.)

"The blog is an effort to give people – or at least those who agree with us – the arguments they need to convince others that they're right."

Well, maybe, but the people in the Howard Dean web ring seem to have been pretty confident they were accomplishing that as they reshaped the party system, until it all turned out to be just a big festival of confirmation bias.

Which most political blogs on all sides are, in their own smaller ways. Which doesn't mean they aren't fun and occassionally illuminating too (albeit not always as intended).

>"The blog is an effort to give people – or at least those who agree with us – the arguments they need to convince others that they're right."

This is, by now, conventional wisdom.

But does the blogsphere provide an arena to discuss (bloody near anything but certainly politics) that was not provided in the past? I agree [sorta] with Jim that
" most political blogs on all sides are a big festival of confirmation bias."
but also think that they provide a certain isolation and insulation that may be attracting more participants than before. [BB: before Blogland]
I wish I could articulate something here about responses to alienation but I am no Marxist scholar.
If particpation rates are higher in the coming election, it won't be because of campaign spending but because blogs have generated more interest. [OK and the sentiment for getting rid of Bush helps too]

In bus stops? Advice on winning arguments from people who can't use prepositions idiomatically?

Is anybody else having trouble getting to winningargument.blogspot.com?

I've been able to browse one June 16th page googled from the hyperworld, but all other related URLs (including Brad's) are giving me errors. This happened a week or so ago too when I attempted to follow another link to Winning Argument (Kevin Drum's I believe).

Wondering if I'm alone on this...

Nevermind on my link query. I had tried only nine times. Tenth time was the charm.

Regarding winning arguments with my Republican friends and neighbors it kind of reminds me of the US winning the Viet Nam war militarily. Winning the debates have not brought me satisfaction. There's some kind of truth the facts don't reveal, apparently, based on their reaction. Emotional arguments (f911 eg.) have their place.

Facts? Logic? Argument? Who needs facts, logic and argument? Just use the principle "It's better the terrorists than us". QED That'll clinch any argument. From welfare to warfare.

"Mark I am curious how you can offer Badnarik up as a contender for the White House?"

I can do that because he's without question the best man for the job. He is the ONLY presidential candidate who will actually try to follow his Oath of Office to, "...preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States...".

"As a party, the Libertarian party is irrelevant."

You mean, like the Green Party?

"Harry Browne, on his THIRD consecutive run for the White House..."

It was only his second.

"...had about 75,000 less votes than Pat Buchanan, and about 10% of the vote that Nader got."

Yes, and look at the fact that Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader have "name recognition" in the 80%+ range, where Harry Browne has "name recogition" of below 20%.

The U.S. Presidential race in 2000 was decided by ~500 votes in Florida. Harry Browne got 16,400 votes in Florida.

"When you say Libertarian, do you mean the true Libertarian..."

Libertarian means Libertarian, by the reflexive property of equality.

"At some point you have to realize that the Libertarian point of view "sounds nice" on sound bite issues. For example, let's have open borders but no minimum wage or education for immigrants."

I don't agree at all that those "sound nice on sound bite issues." It's very hard to persuade conservatives (social conservatives like Pat Buchanan, and protectionist/populist conservatives like...Pat Buchanan) that open borders are good. And it's hard to persuade "limosine liberals" (like Ted Kennedy) that no minimum wage is good.

"Ideas like me not paying for education because I have no children and other libertarian ideals sound nice but in reality are impractical in a civilized society."

Michael Badnarik is running for President of the United States, not "King."

There is absolutely NO good reason why *federal* spending on education can't be completely eliminated. In fact, that was the situation through the first ~150 years of U.S. history.

2835 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

857 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

2035 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

2140 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

7675 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

6858 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com