Tuesday, October 5, 2010

More on what the NYT called the "intellectual ballast" of the Tea Party

Xenophon kindly shares a Reason.com article where they get as hysterical as Jeff Tucker. It must be very tense to always be in combat mode.

Interestingly enough, Lew Rockwell at Mises.org explicitly makes the argument that Jeff Tucker attributes to the New York Times - namely, that the Tea Party has a weak intellectual foundation and that it's going to betray the "party of liberty" (whoever that is... Lew doesn't say but I'm pretty sure I'm not invited to that party).

So we have the New York Times informing people about the treatises and books motivating the Tea Party and Lew Rockwell suggesting the intellectual underpinnings of the Tea Party are weak, and yet Steve Horwitz and Jeff Tucker and Reason.com are going after the New York Times... why? Because the Times said that Bastiat was outdated for worrying about beggars and vagabonds getting the vote? This is quite strange - these people are itching to fight. It's like the recent Krugman articles on war. Even when people agree with him they still write something up insisting he said something he never said, because disputing Krugman (or the New York Times, or [fill in the blank]) is so ingrained for them.

My feeling on the Tea Party? Look - it's a big diverse group. Many are very well educated. Many are somewhat educated, but reading some pretty good stuff like Bastiat and Hayek. It would of course be nice if they read other stuff too - but five years ago a lot of them probably weren't reading any of this stuff. I agree with Lew that it's largely a populist movement and not a libertarian movement, and I'm shocked at how many libertarians have embraced a populist political force. That might be the most disappointing thing of all. I've had differences with libertarians (obviously), but the one nice thing about libertarians is that they usually don't go off the populist deep end. The embrace of the Tea Party makes me worry a little more about that than I used to. I think the Tea Party will eventually fizzle out - I don't think it's a game changer in any long-term sense. But it will be important in the next several years. And when it does fizzle out, maybe I won't pull out my hair over some of their historical and constitutional revisionism. I think it's a genuine movement, it's a well-intentioned movement. It could only be a dangerous movement if some malign force within it sparks something, but there's nothing about the movement now that's particularly worrisome. And ultimately it's just as political as any other movement we've ever seen (which is another odd thing - to see people argue that it somehow transcends politics... the need to explicitly make that argument is a sure sign that it's not true).

30 comments:

  1. The Reason article wasn't in any way hysterical. Critical of the two NYT pieces yes, hysterical no.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Is paranoid better?

    What adjective would you use for seeing enmity and insult in places completely devoid of enmity and insult?

    I am quite open to retracting "hysterical" if there's a more appropriate word.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No, hysterical was the right word. These people don't know how to shut up and receive a quite complimentary article.

    A question- is Reason magazine aligned with the Tea Party movement to any great extent? I wouldn't have thought, but as Daniel said about the populism/libertarianism at work here...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Daniel,

    Never mind your incredibly loose use of a term which carries all manner of sexist baggage (see Maines' excellent _The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria," the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction_) I already gave you the most appropriate word - critical.

    Evan,

    No, Reason magazine is not remotely aligned with the Tea Party movement. *more eyerolling*

    What I always love is libtards who are completely unversed in the libertarian multiverse making statements such as this one. Why not try reading Reason's blog for a week instead?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Daniel,

    Also, in the future, why not be somewhat specific? What specifically about the article did you find troubling? The third paragraph? Doesn't seem particularly paranoid to me. Most of your argument to me at least has been rather vague that way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Geez. Forget I had any interest in it whatsoever. And you wonder why you guys are seen as marginal, eccentric cranks.

    Also, "the libertarian multiverse" sound SUPER corny.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maines is a fascinating book - read that several years ago in college. It was a Sociology of Technology class... we read another one like that that discussed the sexual significance of technology... forgot what the other was.

    Needless to say, that's a historical curiosity and "hysterical" does not carry that baggage for the modern user.

    Also - no need to roll your eyes at Evan. He said "I wouldn't have thought", after all - and even then, if someone doesn't follow Reason magazine, that post you shared would make it reasonable to guess it might be associated.

    As for specifics, this struck me as hysterical (and paranoid for that matter): "that amounts to an anti-intellectual attack on a group that is usually portrayed as a bunch of dumb yokels" as does this: "So are these weird right-wingers ignoramuses or eggheads? I'm not sure, but Zernike and her editors seem to fall into the former category."

    Actually the third paragraph was the only one that wasn't that hysterical.

    And now that I think about it, I do think "paranoid" is better than "hysterical". Hysterical implies that you're in a frenzy of some sort. This author is clearly not - he's not enraged by the NY Times article, he's just dismissive about it and paranoid about the intentions of it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Evan,

    For being marginal libertarians sure are the object of all sorts of heat from lib/progs. We get all this attention yet we're also supposed to be very marginal. Indeed, this is the most attention libertarians have gotten in the national press, etc. since, well, about 1980.

    I think that is large part due to the bankrupt nature of lib/prog ideology (which can't even stop two monstrous wars one would think they could cast aside, much less all manner of assaults on civil liberties); since it is so bankrupt it has to latch onto an "other" by which to define itself. Though the way it does so isn't terribly accurate in nature.

    Corny or not it rather accurately describes the state of things.

    ReplyDelete
  9. By way of trying to make something constructive out of this, I found Hayek's view on rule of law (as it was laid out here, at least... I haven't read Hayek) pretty interesting. Obviously he didn't invent the concept, but I find his idiosyncratic take on it pretty fascinating... these days the "rule of law" doesn't (I don't think) imply any especially noteworthy legal system... in fact it could be quite oppressive. The point, however, is that established law rules rather than arbitrary personalities. Hayek, however, seems to have a very specific understanding of what true law is and ain't, and so "rule of law" only refers to this rather than just any positive law.

    At the same time, this doesn't seem to be the natural law referenced concerning the Tea Party, which gets back to the odd association of populist and libertarian values in the movement. The religious aspect of the Tea Party movement is also worth mentioning here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ...sorry, my last paragraph was quite confusing. Hayek doesn't seem especially interested in the natural law that is of interest to the Tea Party when he's talking about what constitutes a true "rule of law".

    ReplyDelete
  11. Xenophon, I'm not sure "attention" tells us much of anything one way or another. Lindsey Lohan gets a lot of attention. On the other hand, Obama's supposed Islamic Socialism gets a lot of attention. So does Franzen's new novel.

    The public square likes to talk about a lot of stuff, from the uninteresting to the interesting to the false to the genuinely inspired. I think it's a closeted inferiority complex that gets marginal ideologies so excited about the limelight... and that reaction is understandable, but again, I doubt that mere public attention necessarily signals much of anything.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Needless to say, that's a historical curiosity and "hysterical" does not carry that baggage for the modern user."

    Sure it does ... use the term hysterical and it is associated most often with the actions of a woman. You see this in the press, etc. as well - the term is most often (indeed, I will argue nearly exclusively) used to describe the actions of women.

    "...that post you shared would make it reasonable to guess it might be associated."

    There is a great diversity of opinions by Reason writers; saying that there is a single Reason opinion (well outside say ending the drug war and a few other issues) is just odd.

    "...that amounts to an anti-intellectual attack on a group that is usually portrayed as a bunch of dumb yokels..."

    Well, it does. I completely agree.

    "So are these weird right-wingers ignoramuses or eggheads? I'm not sure, but Zernike and her editors seem to fall into the former category."

    Nothing wrong with this comment either. It is a fair reading of the article.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Evan,

    You can't both be marginal and gain a lot of public attention. Libs/progs are apparently rather fearful of libertarians; which is rather funny in many ways.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Evan,

    It is well known that Hayek differentiates between "law" and "legislation" - indeed, shocker of shocker, he wrote an entire book on the subject.

    ReplyDelete
  15. BTW, Sullum is famous for his great book "Saying Yes: In Defense Of Drug Use."

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1. But if Evan is not familiar with Reason magazine, how would he know that? It's not "odd" - it was a question, and he suspected your position.

    2. Just because people are marginal doesn't mean they're not interesting. I think this is a little too aggrandized - though. The "other" that progressives juxtapose themselves with? I think you're projecting.

    3. What is so shocking about Hayek writing a book on that subject, and

    4. With respect to your own responses to those quotes... I wouldn't expect someone that's paranoid to be able to dispassionately identify paranoia.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It is well known that Hayek differentiates between "law" and "legislation" - indeed, shocker of shocker, he wrote an entire book on the subject.

    Dude. I said it was interesting, not shocking.

    Again, do you even want people to be interested in libertarianism? You sure seem to be doing your darnedest to discourage people from it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 2. Just because people are marginal doesn't mean they're not interesting. I think this is a little too aggrandized - though. The "other" that progressives juxtapose themselves with? I think you're projecting.


    Bingo.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What's odd, Evan, is that that would be what he would be projecting.

    If I were to consciously choose what I would project, it wouldn't be "those people over there define themselves in opposition to me" - it would be "those people over there are terrified of my growing power and collection of persuaded adherents!".

    You're going to be delusional, at least aim high, you know? Less Eddy Said and more Conan the Barbarian (which, by the way, was originally written by a good friend of H.P. Lovecraft).

    ReplyDelete
  20. Daniel,

    But if Evan is not familiar with Reason magazine, how would he know that?"

    Because, I dunno, magazines are a collection of individuals. I have as yet to see a magazine that didn't have a lot of variation to it. Practical experience with the real world in other words.

    No, I think the issue is that lib/progs are projecting. Do a Lexus search - there has been an explosion by the liberal media on libertarians since mid-2008.

    "I wouldn't expect someone that's paranoid to be able to dispassionately identify paranoia."

    Conversely, someone who is wedded inaccurate opinion has a hard time letting that go.

    Evan,

    "I said it was interesting, not shocking."

    I was being snarky. Do I have to define the term snark now?

    ReplyDelete
  21. To be fair to Xenophon, he did say that we were fearful of them, although he hedged a bit by saying that this was a funny posture for us to take.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Because, I dunno, magazines are a collection of individuals. I have as yet to see a magazine that didn't have a lot of variation to it. Practical experience with the real world in other words."

    Jesus, man! Do you think he is asking if every single person at Reason loves the Tea Party and would dedicate their life, liberty, and sacred honor to that cause? He's asking if Reason has published with a positive disposition towards it.

    "No, I think the issue is that lib/progs are projecting. Do a Lexus search - there has been an explosion by the liberal media on libertarians since mid-2008."

    How is discussing an isuse using it as an "other"? To reference an earlier comment by Evan - are they using Lindsay Lohan for this purpose too? A Lindsay Lohan Google News search produces 8,390 results while a libertarian Google News search produces 3,680 results.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Daniel,

    Oh, and Daniel, I am not the one who created a fucking blog half of the articles of which are dedicated to libertarians in some fashion or another.

    If I created a blog which was mostly about liberals (or some other subject) I could see your point; but I haven't.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You know, this is really my whole point about the NY Times article writ large.

    The NY Times wrote about the Tea Party and Hayek and Bastiat because it is an important, growing phenomenon and they wanted to write something about it that a lot of the public might not know.

    The reason why you're getting more news hits is BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE GROWING AS A PHILOSOPHICAL AND POLITICAL OUTLOOK. People are taking note and writing about it. There's no need to assume that you are some "other" for liberals, and there's also no need to assume that the press is negative, and there's also no reason to assume the coverage is necessarily hostile even when it does disagree with you (like here on this blog - I write about libertarianism a lot, I often don't agree, but there's no hostility to speak of).

    ReplyDelete
  25. You guys can't even beat Lohen?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Xenophon -
    What you always seem to miss in my commentary about either libertarianism or what we might call orthodox neoclassical economics is that to a large extent I find a kernel of truth in them. This is why I've said in the past I much prefer Nozick to Rawls or Rousseau. I do think something extremely important is missing - it's too simple and naive on what I think are some important points. But I think libertarians make one of the most coherent arguments on the market. I would take a smart libertarian over a dumb liberal any day of the week, because I can at least work with a smart libertarian's argument and assumptions - whereas all I can do with a dumb liberal is try to parse the various and ill-defined leftism. I don't want to do that.

    Again - this is my whole point. You think I write so much about libertarians because I'm hostile to it. You've got it all wrong. I write about it because I see something of value in it, even if I would have made a lot of the points differently.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Evan - you can't even spell Lohan?

    ReplyDelete
  28. "He's asking if Reason has published with a positive disposition towards it."

    Which is a stupid question to ask based on practical experience.

    Google News isn't Lexus.

    "How is discussing an isuse [sic] using it as an "other"?"

    Because of the way the discussion occurs obviously.

    I'm not fond of the Tea Party myself (particularly the religious aspects of it); but just like Code Pink and other groups that the mainstream likes to paint in marginal colors I'm willing to defend them in large part because the I find the mainstream to be rather monstrous and morally bankrupt in innumerable ways. That is of course the narrative that is rarely told of course.

    Anyway, I have better things to do at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I mean, for God's sake - what an enormous waste of time it would be to seek out and argue with someone who talks about the dehumanization of the market or stuff like that.

    I try it every once in a while: http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2010/05/question-to-philosophers-theologians.html

    Not my cup of tea.

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.