Ross Douthat Is A Religious Bigot

There, that's much better!

While it is much more conducive to good mental health to approach Ross Douthat briefly, sidling up, risking a quick glance and then running away as fast as possible, Douthat's latest effort need more attention than a peek, a scream, and a giggle.

There’s an America where it doesn’t matter what language you speak, what god you worship, or how deep your New World roots run. An America where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.

Yeah, it's funny how being persecuted for their religious beliefs made some of our early settlers turn against religious persecution. Our beloved constitution makes us a nation of laws, not mob rule, at least in theory. And our judges make sure the more ignorant among us doesn't get to decide what is constitutional and what isn't, since most people seem to think that their pet peeves and prejudices should be the law.

But there’s another America as well, one that understands itself as a distinctive culture, rather than just a set of political propositions. This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well. It draws its social norms from the mores of the Anglo-Saxon diaspora — and it expects new arrivals to assimilate themselves to these norms, and quickly.

I was born a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. If I were any whiter I'd be transparent. I speak English, not Spanish (okay, a little Spanish) or Chinese. That doesn't make me special, it makes me ignorant, and jealous of those who speak more than one language. My ancestors were Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, Catholic, and Jehovah's Witnesses--and that's just four generations. My ancestors might have owned slaves, although we were probably too poor. We might have been indentured servants. Many were coal miners, one step away from extreme poverty, and their assimilation was, indeed, very quick, since they went from digging coal in Wales to digging coal in Pennsylvania to digging coal in Washington state. No problem assimilating there. They probably barely noticed what country they were in.

These two understandings of America, one constitutional and one cultural, have been in tension throughout our history. And they’re in tension again this summer, in the controversy over the Islamic mosque and cultural center scheduled to go up two blocks from ground zero.

As I have appointed myself the Official WASP spokesperson for the official WASP perspective, I hereby claim for all WASPkind that none of us care about a mosque going up in Manhattan. Manhattan is far away and I very seldom go there, so they can set up a Princess Sparkle Pony Castle of Unicorn Worship for all I care. I drive by a mosque every day in Texas, God's Country, land of all-American beer, football, and bigotry, so if we can suck it up, so can New Yorkers, who Ross Douthat is now telling us all are delicate flowers who must be protected from the dreaded Muslim menace. Maybe Douthat's ancestors hyperventilated about the Irish Catholic menace and Heathen Chinee menace and Nigerian menace, but mine were too busy trying to survive on the Mormon trail and in the Oregon forests and the Pennsylvania coal mines to get their lace panties in a snit about some other poor bastard just trying to survive long enough to raise his kids.

The first America, not surprisingly, views the project as the consummate expression of our nation’s high ideals. “This is America,” President Obama intoned last week, “and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.” The construction of the mosque, Mayor Michael Bloomberg told New Yorkers, is as important a test of the principle of religious freedom “as we may see in our lifetimes.”

Our ancestors died in Europe and the South Pacific so we would have religious freedom. They believed in what they did and were proud to serve. They'd be ashamed of us if we gave away our freedom just because some pink-cheeked piglet of a bigot who refused to fight for his country wants us to betray everything they sacrificed for.

The second America begs to differ. It sees the project as an affront to the memory of 9/11, and a sign of disrespect for the values of a country where Islam has only recently become part of the public consciousness. And beneath these concerns lurks the darker suspicion that Islam in any form may be incompatible with the American way of life.

Bullshit. My position (The Official WASP Position, remember) is that 9/11 was a tragic confluence of bad men, bad governance, and bad foreign policy. And, once again, Muslims already are part of the American way of life without destroying Western Civilization at all. They shop in the same stores I shop in, they go to the movies like me, their kids go to the same schools as mine. We see each other at the zoo, the park, fabric stores, book stores, restaurants. We already live with each other just fine, and I do not appreciate some schmuck telling me I'm too stupid to realize that my fellow Houstonians are secretly plotting to throw a black sheet over my head and make me worship their god. If my parents couldn't get me to worship their god, some stranger sure as hell can't.

This is typical of how these debates usually play out. The first America tends to make the finer-sounding speeches, and the second America often strikes cruder, more xenophobic notes. The first America welcomed the poor, the tired, the huddled masses; the second America demanded that they change their names and drop their native languages, and often threw up hurdles to stop them coming altogether. The first America celebrated religious liberty; the second America persecuted Mormons and discriminated against Catholics.

The first America lives up to its ideals. The second America is bigoted and dangerous, jealous of power and privilege, swollen with self-love and undeserved pride and vanity. None of which are compatible with supposed superior Christian Anglo-Saxon values.

But both understandings of this country have real wisdom to offer, and both have been necessary to the American experiment’s success. During the great waves of 19th-century immigration, the insistence that new arrivals adapt to Anglo-Saxon culture — and the threat of discrimination if they didn’t — was crucial to their swift assimilation. The post-1920s immigration restrictions were draconian in many ways, but they created time for persistent ethnic divisions to melt into a general unhyphenated Americanism.

It's not that Lesser America was racist and xenophobic--it was just helping newcomers assimilate. It's not that they enjoyed petty power plays of social dominance and collective punishment--they were just ensuring that everyone who came to America abandoned their own culture for Northern European Protestant culture, which is superior than any other and therefore the ideal and goal of all immigrants. We're just better, that's all. Look at all that beautiful religious art the Catholic Church paid for. That proves Protestants are superior. And all those inventions by Southern Europeans in the Renaissance? That proves Northern Europeans are superior too. Arabia's mathematical genius? More proof. China's ingenuity? Even more proof. Everything proves that Ross Douthat's personal history is more special and more superior than any other peoples', and that's just the way it is.

The same was true in religion. The steady pressure to conform to American norms, exerted through fair means and foul, eventually persuaded the Mormons to abandon polygamy, smoothing their assimilation into the American mainstream.

Mormonism was created during this supposed Time Of Assimilation. Does Douthat not know that?

Nativist concerns about Catholicism’s illiberal tendencies inspired American Catholics to prod their church toward a recognition of the virtues of democracy, making it possible for generations of immigrants to feel unambiguously Catholic and American.

What was Catholicism's illiberal tendencies? Obedience to the pope? How does Catholicism go against democracy? What is he even talking about? Spit it out, man! Don't be coy. We couldn't possibly think worse of you then we already do.

So it is today with Islam. The first America is correct to insist on Muslims’ absolute right to build and worship where they wish. But the second America is right to press for something more from Muslim Americans — particularly from figures like Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the mosque — than simple protestations of good faith.

We can accept other religions or we can be bigots; harass them and make them prove they are not planning to murder us in our beds to allay our illogical fears. Douthat chooses Door #2.

Too often, American Muslim institutions have turned out to be entangled with ideas and groups that most Americans rightly consider beyond the pale. Too often, American Muslim leaders strike ambiguous notes when asked to disassociate themselves completely from illiberal causes.

So do Christians. Does that mean we can get rid of them too?

By global standards, Rauf may be the model of a “moderate Muslim.” But global standards and American standards are different. For Muslim Americans to integrate fully into our national life, they’ll need leaders who don’t describe America as “an accessory to the crime” of 9/11 (as Rauf did shortly after the 2001 attacks), or duck questions about whether groups like Hamas count as terrorist organizations (as Rauf did in a radio interview in June). And they’ll need leaders whose antennas are sensitive enough to recognize that the quest for inter-religious dialogue is ill served by throwing up a high-profile mosque two blocks from the site of a mass murder committed in the name of Islam.

So as long as they don't insist on actually practicing their religion or dare to criticize their Christian betters, we'll tolerate their existence.

They’ll need leaders, in other words, who understand that while the ideals of the first America protect the e pluribus, it’s the demands the second America makes of new arrivals that help create the unum.

We must do what the bigots who betray the principles of our nation and their religion want, because they say so. And we must ignore the people who fight to preserve the values Douthat claims to uphold. Because Douthat is a white Christian male, the epitome of civilization, the embodiment of virtue, the protector of virginity and the defender of his faith. All cultures but his must be assimilated, all religions but his must be abandoned, all people must hail the superiority of the white race, the Christian God, and Western Imperialism.

Amen!

Loyalties

James Fallows responds to the criticism of his support of Jeffrey Goldberg without addressing the central issue: do we continue to listen to, trust and respect people who have lied to us and have ignored their errors? Instead he discusses the feasibility of attacking Iran. As he did with Megan McArdle, Fallows disagrees with his fellow Atlantic bloggers without acknowledging their bad faith. He is using his authority to cover up their dishonest actions, and it will only hurt him in the end. It does not matter at all what he is defending--his friends, his co-workers, or his job. He looked the other way and that's not something that a decent man can easily live with--although repetition might be making it easier.

Less Fiduciary Megan:

Shorter Megan McArdle: Your 401(k) and IRA are toast.

Shorter Megan McArdle: I am maxing out my 401(k) and IRA.

Ross Douthat Is A Mendacious Hack

Shorter Ross Douthat: Because conservative programs are a failure, we should not implement liberal programs. Just to be fair.

[(found indirectly via Roger Ailes (the one who is not going to languish in the red-hot, searing flame of eternal damnation)]

Get Your War On

Our work here is done. On to Iran!

Glenn Greenwald takes apart Jeffrey Goldberg, and the zombie press who are always wrong and never in doubt. The biggest mistake Iraq war boosters made was ignoring any evidence they did not want to see. They examined any argument that would support their already set goals, arguing them in exhaustive detail, but ignored facts that might invalidate their arguments.

[James] Fallows also ignores the fact that in the very first sentence of the article, Goldberg asserts a highly controversial and vital proposition as though it's indisputable fact: that of Iran's "pursuit of nuclear weapons." Someone who begins his article by slyly assuming as fact a central proposition which is actually very much in doubt -- and does so by simply ignoring the substantial evidence which negates it, as in: pretends that contrary evidence does not exist -- is most assuredly not someone writing from "a strictly reportorial perspective." It may well be that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons -- there's also evidence suggesting it might be -- but to depict that proposition as a given, by steadfastly ignoring the substantial evidence to the contrary, is quite redolent of those who did the same thing seven years ago with regard to The Grave Iraqi Threat. Someone writing from "a strictly reportorial perspective" would have acknowledged -- rather than concealed from his readers -- the substantial cause for doubt about that claim, one that shapes the entire article (and the entire debate over attacking Iran). All of these deficiencies stand separate and apart from Goldberg's past conduct.

Look at how Megan McArdle made her decision to support Bush in 2004; her work is an especially transparent and emotional example of argument by ignorance, and deeply influenced by a desire to assert superiority over others:

Let me outline what I think about the way the administration approached Iraq.

I think we chose to go to Iraq, we didn't have to. But I'm okay with that, unlike a lot of libertarians.

Since McArdle would not have to suffer any personal consequences and cannot empathize with people she doesn't know, she does not consider any potential loss of life and suffering, either for Americans or Iraqis. Therefore McArdle did not examine the arguments of members of the military, government, or public who discussed the consequences of invasion. The same thing is going on now; the truly terrible and completely avoidable consequences of attacking Iran are hand-waved away. What do the dissenters know? They're just soft-hearted and soft-headed liberals.

I think that the decision to invade Iraq had a lot of reasons behind it, of which only a few were discussed with America. And I'm also okay with that, unlike a lot of libertarians.

McArdle trusts her elite implicitly, and believes they know better than she, just like she believes she knows economics better than the hoi polloi who would be harmed by her favorite policies.

[yip yip]

I think that Iraq was not necessary to the war on terror, but I still think it's possible that it could be a successful battle in it. A democratic Iraq would be a major victory in the region. Even an Iraq run by a Mubarrak would help, by making the region more stable, and denying terrorists a base; and it would be much better for the people of Iraq. It gets US troops off Saudi soil, which can only help.

Here McArdle demonstrates magical thinking and the fallacy of sunk costs, something she's railed against repeatedly. She ignores any warning flags that would force her to question her desires and basic assumptions. And the hope of a nationalist ego-boost is seen as a reason to go to war, instead of a warning that she is being emotional, not rational.

I'm unconvinced by anti-war people screaming about screw-ups in the early weeks of the war, including the latest explosives flap. As a project manager, I know too well that when you operate in a tight time frame, no matter how much you plan, nothing goes according to plan. Something comes out of left field and makes half your planning obsolete, and the other half irrelevant.

Yes, we certainly believe that the projects she managed were often screwed up beyond belief, due to lack of foresight, procrastination and neglect of details. And we also note that McArdle flatly refused to listen to anyone whose ideology was different from her own, demonizing them so she could justify her actions. Hence the famous 2x4 post, which she tried to stuff down the memory hole, followed by running away and hiding from the consequences of her actions.

I think that the administration drastically underestimated the popular resistance to our invasion. ...I'm pretty sure we're making terrorist recruiting easier.

McArdle acknowledges that there will be consequences, which only makes it worse when she again justifies ignoring them.

But I'm not as sure as anti-war types that this makes us less secure. The biggest threat we face is nuclear or biological terrorism, and that's the kind of terrorism that requires cooperation from state actors. Moreover, right now at least, all the new recruits are fighting soldiers in Iraq and not civilians in America. That could change, of course, but the only existential threat we face is nuclear terrorism. And nuclear terrorism is constrained not by the supply of recruits, but the supply of nukes, which terrorists wanted long before 9/11. The administration's actions certainly haven't increased the supply of nukes, and they may have decreased them. But I would like to see the administration pay more attention to non-state actors.

In her ignorance, McArdle utterly ignores the realities of the fight against terrorism, depending on second-hand talking points to justify her erroneous decision. McArdle said she believed that Saddam Hussein had nukes because she would have had nukes if she were Saddam. It's that simple--her arrogance is so complete that she thinks she understands someone she could not possibly understand, as she is neither an Iraqi nor a ruthless dictator and knows absolutely nothing about either.

[yap yap]

I think that retreating from Iraq would be a disaster. Even if it turns into a quagmire, I would far rather see us stay too long than bug out before we have to.

Tell that to the dead, whom McArdle did her best to diminish.

I think that George Bush has cost us a lot of goodwill in Europe. I am less convinced that Europe's governments left us much choice.

Knee-jerk nationalism rears its ugly head again; if Europe does something it is wrong, if America does something it is right. It's a easy and sloppy ego-boost, just like her ego-gratifying belief in the superiority of her "fellow" elite and vituperative swipes at liberals. It's tribalism, Mean Girl-style.

In the end, it comes down to how much risk the candidates will take. The Democratic policy on foreign policy risk has been pretty much the same since McGovern: they won't take any. They bug out at the first sign of casualties, and go in only when the foe is so tiny that we can smash them without committing ground troops.

The Republicans take risk. Bush took on a lot of it -- and with it, the possibility that something could go wrong.

What does the country need now? Someone risk averse, to shepherd us through, or someone who will take bold action and possibly land us in a disaster? I think a lot of people have concluded, from the fact that Bush's risky move has gone wrong, that risk aversion is therefore the superior strategy. But that doesn't follow. Jimmy Carter running right now would to my mind be unarguably worse than George Bush for all his screw ups. On the other hand, Bush I would certainly be preferable to Bush II.

More ego-gratification; liberals are weak and vacillating, conservatives are strong and decisive. War as emotional porn, to soothe the deep insecurities, vain-glorious wishes for action, importance, strength, and unity, without actually having to do or sacrifice anything to earn it.

The rewards for supporting authority are enormous, and the drawbacks of fighting it are innumerable. The same lies told to justify invasion of Iraq are being told to justify invasion of Iran; they have nukes and we must bomb them or they will kill us. But there is something greater than monetary reward, and much, much harder to combat: a need to find an external source of self esteem, through the meaningless exertion of power over perceived enemies.

Visual Aids

I'm taking the day off. The stupid is too much to endure today.

Woof! Woof! Whatever I do is the correct, moral thing to do, and Western Civilization depends on you obeying me!

Meow! Watch me shed a tear for humanity and then go shopping.

Doing Unto Others

Forbes published an op-ed that tries to do a McArdle on Elizabeth Warren. The commenters sneer at the "lame picking" on Warren and say they want her anyway. One says:

Figures, some bank lackies are coming out of the woodwork to attempt to smear Warren's flawless reputation.

Nice try.

I wonder if this has anything to do with the 'Sponsored by Northwestern Mutual' ad that's in the top right hand corner.

Heh. Suspicion of banking motives, critique of the post on its (weak) merits, and demands for leaders who will help the middle class, not try to screw them over. It's a mighty nice change after reading far, far too many McArdle comments.

Speaking of which, McArdle tells us that your pension, stocks and oh-by-the-way-Social-Security-and-Medicare are all gone. Better save instead. The post is full of omissions and carefully shaded truths, as usual, and has deeply dishonest and hurtful aims, as usual. And McArdle will fail, as usual. There is a very, very big difference from peddling bullshit that will save people money and peddling bullshit that will cost people money. Every one of us over 40 has listened to our parents describe their medical procedures, and felt the flicker of fear that comes from knowing that we could never afford to keep our ill parents alive without government help. That's why the fake Terry Schiavo hysteria failed and that's why ending Social Security will fail, barring some new disaster heaped on us by our superior elites, like invading Iran.

Of course, McArdle tells us to save and leave the poor, put-upon rich people's money alone after buying a house, an extravagant wedding, various and assorted consumer goods, and flying down to Florida to buy a cute little hipster car. What does she care--she has wingnut welfare, an endless fountain of beneficence. So what if the younger generations go broke trying to pay for their old parents' medical care? Sleazy half-true articles on eliminating Social Security puts money in her pocket and it won't affect her or her parents anyway. Everybody else doesn't count--this is Megan McArdle's world and we just live in it. Anybody else is a nameless bit player or extra who exists only to support the real star of the show.

The funny thing is that McArdle is an easily replaceable cog, of no importance to the people who pay her so much money. She is financially secure and is seeing all her little consumerist dreams come true because she writes what they want her to write. Otherwise she'd be tossed out on on her behind like all the other conservative who supported conservative principles over the elite's desires. But if you fill the nation with hate and fear and lies you'll get rich.

What would happen if we all did that?

What if McArdle's beloved credit union lied to her about her mortgage? What will happen if Megan McArdle's mechanic lies and substitutes a refurbished, sub-standard part on her car? What if the contractor who replaces her wiring lies, and her house catches on fire? What if her employer lies and tells that he can't afford to provide health care coverage anymore? What if her favorite restaurant lies about sanitation practices and she is poisoned? What if her doctor lies about which medical procedures she needs to milk her for more fees? What if we all treated Megan McArdle the way she treats us?

Our well-paid elite take a lot for granted in this world. That might not be a good idea in our bright and shiny, winner-take-all future.

You're Always A Winner When You Debate Strawmen

Let's put on our bright yellow plastic gloves, face mask and leather apron and take a look at the inner workings of a glibertarian mind. Megan (of course) McArdle, discussing Greg Gutfeld's desire to open a gay bar near a mosque because "the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality":

Gay Bar at Ground Zero
This is kind of a jerk move.

Yes it is. Trying to deliberately insult and hurt Muslims because you're a religious bigot is most definitely a jerk move.

But it's a brilliant jerk move.

In other words, McArdle acknowledges that only jerks would want to be deliberately insulting and provocative to someone because of his religion, and she is one of those jerks.

I am hoping that at least one person will attempt to explain why we should support the mosque near Ground Zero, but not the gay bar next to the mosque near Ground Zero.

Why? Only jerks would support the idea of a club created solely to insult those of a different religion. And who are these imaginary people that believe in free speech for some (Muslims) but not others (anti-Muslim bigots)? Besides Gutfeld, of course, who doesn't like freedom of speech and religion when it applies to people he personally dislikes.

I would find that very entertaining.

Why do you think defending religious persecution is entertaining? It's almost like you've set up an imaginary strawman liberal in your mind who will obediently support free speech for Muslims but not for bigots. And you can't wait to hear his argument because you love to laugh at imaginary liberal hypocrisy. It's either that or the amusing-bigotry defense.

(I support both, with the caveat that I'm not really sure that there's a shortage of deliberate provocations in today's America. And I'm pretty sure that there's not a shortage of deliberate provocations from political broadcast personalities. But he's certainly got a right to do it.)

So you support both in the name of free speech. That still doesn't explain why you find the defense of religious persecution so amusing. Or imaginary strawmen, to be fair.

I'll be surprised, however, if he manages to get a liquor license from Bloomberg's government.

Not a word about the pawns in this little mental morality play--the gay Islamic men and women who would supposedly visit this club despite its provenance, so that Gutfeld can pretend he's fighting the Muslim Caliphate using the mighty weapons of spite and a disco ball. But if Gutfeld's investors want to lose millions running a club with no customers, at least they'll be providing some jobs to unemployed New Yorkers.

ADDED: Roger Ailes also notes the emptiness of McArdle's head argument.

Crystal Ball

Shorter Today In Megan McArdle's Blog: The economics of long grocery lines, which annoys me.

Shorter Tomorrow: The economics of dry cleaning for a woman half of a married couple, which annoys me.

Shorter Even Further From Now: The economics of putting up with the noise from the bar that I was eager to live next to, which now annoys me.

Hey, it beats blogging about things she doesn't understand and invariably gets wrong.

Slipping On Appeal To Authority

We at the Snark are awed by Megan McArdle's ability to multi-task. She is still* plugging away at her magnum opus on Elizabeth Warren, which is surely book-sized by now.(Slow down there, ma'am! You might strain something!) Yet McArdle also finds time to wag her finger at Paul Krugman, who deeply disappoints McArdle with his partisan pontifications. We will examine the series of posts a bit later; right now let's just look at one aspect of the debate. Megan McArdle starts out by accusing Krugman of ignoring the beam in Obama's health care reform economic projections for the mote in Paul Ryan's economic projections.

Paul Krugman has an interesting post up on how to read a CBO document. He highlights the fact that the CBO reports using the assumptions it is required to make, not any estimate of what is particularly likely to happen in the real world:

[snipped quote explaining the CBO process]

Since this is what folks like me were screaming from the proverbial rooftops during the battle over healthcare reform, when the supporters were highlighting the CBO's score to argue that it was going to reduce the deficit, I find this congenial. I wish that Krugman had walked his readers through this quite a bit earlier, of course, but better late than never.

But I could wish that he had gone over this topic just a wee bit earlier--like yesterday, when he argued that the Medicare Trustees report shows that we've done a whole bunch of deficit reduction:

[snipped quote saying reform will help health care costs go down in the long run]

As the Official Asymmetrical Information Husband noted yesterday, the Medicare Trustees are forced to assume that all these cuts will happen . . . even though the Medicare Trustees do not appear to believe any such thing: [snipped quote]

Well, if Mr. "Astro-turf" McArdle said something, it must be true. But if we are going to get a lot of Mr. McArdle quotes, and it seems we are, we should know his credentials. Here's an old bio from a post he wrote for Townhall:

Peter Suderman is a policy analyst, videographer, and blogger for FreedomWorks. He also serves as associate editor of Doublethink.

Awww, he posted at Townhall, the home of Ann Coulter and Chuck Norris! That's so cute.

Peter Suderman served as CEI's Assistant Editorial Director and Technology Analyst until March 2007, during which time he grew the position to incorporate his talent for multimedia editing and production. He is now living in New York City, writing film reviews for National Review Online, and continues to write regularly on technology, media, and culture.

Peter also serves as Associate Editor of Doublethink, the quarterly print magazine of the America's Future Foundation. He received a degree in English with a minor in Film Studies from the University of North Florida, where he worked as an editor and columnist at The UNF Spinnaker. His writing has appeared in The Washington Times, The Washington Examiner, National Review Online, Reason, The American Spectator, AFF Brainwash, and other publications.

I had no idea an English degree was so versatile. What the hell am I thinking, looking for a job teaching literature to schoolchildren when I could have gotten a job with the Treasury or a hedge fund instead?

Peter Suderman is an associate editor of Reason magazine, where he writes regularly on health-care, tech policy, and pop culture.

Before joining Reason, Suderman worked as a writer and editor at National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, Doublethink, and Culture11. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, Newsweek.com, the Atlantic.com, the Washington Examiner, the Washington Times, The New Atlantis, The American Conservative, the Orange County Register, and numerous other publications. He lives in Washington, D.C.

I know that when I need economic advice I always turn to the entertainment section, to read what the movie reviewers think of national health care. And I'm sure the fact that Reason is supported by biomedical and pharmaceutical companies has absolutely nothing to do with P. Suderman's ardent distaste for national health care. But let's get back to the missus:

The head of CMS already made it very clear that he didn't think many of the cuts in PPACA would be made--not the physician cuts, but the other cuts to providers. And if this is true, of course, then PPACA will not reduce the deficit.

I wish Paul Krugman would do some explaining--about the source of his differential skepticism. For all that I admire Paul Ryan's courage in arguing that there ought to be some relationship between inflow and outgo, I'll believe the cuts when I actually see them. Which is the same way I feel about health care reform.

And lo, Megan McArdle's wish was Paul Krugman's command, for look at this:

August 7, 2010, 10:46 am CBO On Health Reform
I keep being asked whether a careful look at the CBO analysis of health reform would reveal whoppers comparable to the analysis of the Ryan roadmap. The answer is no.

Menzie Chinn had a good piece on this. A lot of the complaining involves the “doc fix”, the routine increases in Medicare payments required because the law consistently sets those payments too low. But that’s a fundamental logical fallacy. It’s true that the cost of the doc fix isn’t in the CBO score; that’s because it would have happened whether or not health reform passed. It’s not an incremental cost.

What complaints might you make about the scoring? Most of it is completely reasonable — for example, saying that we can save money by eliminating overpayments to Medicare Advantage, and that aid to hospitals that treat a lot of uninsured patients can be reduced once almost everyone is insured. The one thing you might worry about is the projected reduction in fee-for-service payments relative to baseline; achieving that would require that efficiency improvements thanks to evaluation of medical procedures for effectiveness actually materialize.

I think they will, and there’s a good chance that cost savings will be substantially larger than projected. But even if they aren’t, Menzie has it right: even if you discount the entire projected savings from lower payments, you still end up with an almost deficit-neutral bill.

The point is that while you can quarrel with some of the estimates — in both directions! — there’s nothing remotely comparable to counting only the deficit-reducing measures while taking the deficit-increasing measures off the table, or assuming drastic cuts in real per capita spending without a hint of how these are to be accomplished.

We will look at the assessments in our next post or posts, to judge for ourselves who understood what he or she read and who didn't. Most people are far too busy to break down multiple posts over multiple sites and must use a snap judgement regarding whom to believe. Unfortunately, authoritarians on the right will be more swayed by McArdle's appeal to authority than by Krugman's proven track record, which might not be infallible but is usually logical and fact-based.

Just because someone says something it doesn't mean it's true. We all know that and yet continue to trust people with bad track records if they say what we want to hear--that We are right and They are wrong.

*(It is Day 17 in the Countdown To Doom.)

Some Praise, And A Suggestion

Megan McArdle has shown and presently shows a humane support for extending unemployment insurance (while simultaneously showing a belief that such largess will discourage people from wanting to earn enough to support their family). It must be rather unpleasant to read one's comments and find them full of rather dim people repeating callous Libertarian mantras. Authoritarians must learn everything as if for the first time, for learning from others' experience requires empathy. McArdle was unemployed, therefore she realizes that unemployment is scary and painful, and the loss of your only income changes your life in every way.

Therefore it is our duty to fire the Republican middle class, put them in the hospital with huge medical bills, and foreclose on their homes.


ADDED: McArdle frets about aid organizations in Africa. A commenter dismisses her concern for Africans:

Aid is desperately evil. It salves the conscience of the White Liberal at the expense of those "in need". See The War On Poverty, giving money to homeless people, immortal charities for diseases that have already been cured...

The best aid for a developing country is to buy products from a sweatshop or unsustainable farm in that country. That is what drives development, not some hippy commune focused on keeping villagers authentically poor and famished so that they have someplace to go and visit the "real" country.

NGOs are also responsible for discouraging DDT use, killing Africans to save their aesthetic preferences and ensure that they have a luxe, high status job distributing ineffective malaria remedies.

At some point we have to let ourselves take a good look at our fellow tribe members. If they can't support civil rights for Muslims or gays, if they steal every dime they can get their hands on, if they support starvation in the name of ideology, then it's time to start a new tribe.

Less Consistent Megan

Shorter Megan McArdle: It's terrible how lenders no longer take individual circumstances into account after the post-housing bubble rule changes.

Shorter Megan McArdle: It's terrible how lenders take individual circumstances into account after the post-housing bubble rule changes.

Save Traditional Marriage!

In these dire times, when traditional marriage is under attack by those who would try to change its meaning, we all need to do everything we can think of to save our cultural heritage. However, some people might be unaware of what constitutes traditional marriage, so let's go to Wikipedia for some background.

[Marriage] In the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

Rembrandt's depiction of Samson's marriage feast. The Hebrew Bible (Christian Old Testament) describes a number of marriages, including those of Isaac,[Gen 24:49-67] Jacob,[Gen 29:27] and Samson.[Judg 14:7-12] Polygyny, or men having multiple wives at once, is one of the most common marital arrangements represented in the Hebrew Bible,[67] yet scholars doubt that it was commom among average Israelites because of the wealth needed to practice it.[68]

Betrothal (erusin), which is merely a binding promise to get married, is distinct from marriage itself (nissu'in), with the time between these events varying substantially.[67][69] Since a wife was regarded as property in those days, the betrothal (erusin) was effected simply by purchasing her from her father (or guardian)[67][69]; the girl’s consent is not explicitly required by any biblical law.[69] Like the adjacent Arabic culture (in the pre-Islamic period),[70] the act of marriage appears mainly to have consisted of the groom fetching the bride, although among the Israelites (unlike the Arabs) the procession was a festive occasion, accompanied by music, dancing, and lights.[67][69] To celebrate the marriage, week-long feasts were sometimes held.[67][69]

In biblical times, a wife was regarded as chattel, belonging to her husband[67][69]; the descriptions of the bible suggest that she would be expected to perform tasks such as spinning, sewing, weaving, manufacture of clothing, fetching of water, baking of bread, and animal husbandry.[71] However, wives were usually looked after with care, and bigamous men were expected to ensure that they give their first wife food, clothing, and sexual activity.[Ex 21:10]

Since a wife was regarded as property, her husband was originally free to divorce her for any reason, at any time.[69] A divorced couple were permitted to get back together, unless the wife had married someone else after her divorce.[Deut 24:2-4

Kathryn Jean Lopez, one of traditional marriage's most ardent defenders, knows all too well the threat hanging over marriage, and wants to do anything she can to help. In an interview with the director of the National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, she asks about their prospective bus tour to support marriage. He says:

Gay-marriage advocates have a well-organized grassroots movement they’ve built over the years. Conservatives tend to rely on spontaneous mass uprising. I think HRC’s model is more effective — after all, it’s allowed a tiny fraction of Americans to have an outsize influence all disproportionate to their actual numbers. Social conservatives need to learn (as I think the pro-life movement has learned) that we need to organize politically to make a difference. We wanted to make sure that the majority of Americans who support marriage as the union of husband and wife are not drowned out by a loud minority, or by a biased media. Even the conservative media (with certain key exceptions — thank you, NRO!) does not cover this issue well. This bus tour is our first step in bypassing the media, becoming culture creators ourselves, and getting our message out to our supporters.

We have a helpful suggestion for Miss Lopez that might just turn the tide for supporters of marriage, for who among us cannot help but be influenced by the example set by others? Therefore we suggest that Miss Lopez auction herself off to the highest bidder on the steps of the Capital Building during the pro-marriage rally. By selling her body to any man with a few goats or sheep, she will do more to preserve the Biblical definition of marriage than any number of posts or protests.

Just as God led by example, becoming man and sacrificing himself for mankind, Kathryn Jean Lopez can lead by example, changing hearts and minds and helping women return to their former, happy state of utter dependence. Anyone can tell women to take their rightful place in society--behind a man, supporting him and caring for him and bearing his children and living through him. Lord knows Miss Lopez has been doing it for years. But marriage has been getting worse for millennia all the same. First women demanded ownership of their bodies, then the ownership of their children and monetary assets. Now they demand the ability to marry someone they love, instead of someone they are told that they are allowed to love! How can traditional marriage survive if women are not sold to the highest bidder like cattle? Sadly, it cannot.

There is one small flaw in traditional marriage, we regret to say. It is possible that under traditional marriage laws a man might buy another man for a spouse, or a woman for a woman. But that need not stop us from preserving traditional marriage--that is what traditional forms of punishment like stoning are for.

Megan McArdle On Elizabeth Warren: The Takedown To End All Takedowns

Elizabeth Warren after Megan McArdle was done with her. Elizabeth Warren is portrayed by an actor, not the real Elizabeth Warren, but that's okay because the role of economics blogger is being played by Megan McArdle, not a real economics blogger.


At last, Megan McArdle has unleashed her Chicago Boyz mojo on Elizabeth Warren, offering what must be* Part II of her slapdown of the woman who would do the unforgivable--protect consumers from the bad faith of the financial industry. Let's look at her argument, for not since Jonah Goldberg wrote his Pulitzer-winning book Liberal Fascism has an argument been made in such detail or with such care.

You could simplify offerings--outlaw [any mortgages that are] faintly exotic. Negative amortization loans, of course, and anything with a balloon payment--but many people got caught out by more ordinary ARMs, so maybe those should go too. The less martial version of this thought is embodied in the "plain vanilla" default option that Elizabeth Warren, among others, has been pushing.

Damn! That's gotta hurt! It seems Warren doesn't like mortgage innovations like ARMs, for no reason whatsoever. And after McArdle told us all that fixed rate mortgages helped create the housing bubble!

The second part of McArdle's exhaustive takedown:

Everything that ever disadvantaged someone is automatically assumed to be a terrible product feature that ought to be eliminated. That instinct is what most worries me about the new CFPA.

Doesn't Warren know that if banks aren't allowed to create ARMs, financial innovation will be destroyed and millions of mortgages will die horrible deaths? Doesn't the woman realize that the US mortgage market depends on the money made from balloon payments to finance more innovation?

McArdle saved her best for the comments, however, delivering the decisive blow to Warren's reputation.

Commenter:

#1 The "Plain Vanilla" option was voted down by the House. It wasn't in any of the bills.

#2 The "Plain Vanilla" option referenced CREDIT CARDS not mortgages.

#3 It wasn't even invented by Warren. It was invented by the other CFPB choice, Michael Barr.

I understand there is opposition to Warren on behalf of some folks here, but just as I am attacking those who are obsessed with her (mostly on the left), those who try to take her down should look at facts too.

McArdle:

It wasn't a "takedown", it was a statement--she likes the plain vanilla option--and where idd I say it was law?

Commenter:

Liking something and applying it, are two different things. She's not going to be nigh unstoppable. There are clearly going to be bureaucratic and regulatory restraints on anything she'd do. This would be one of them.

McArdle:

You are reading hostile intent into a declaration of fact; this is an idea that she supports. My later concerns about the CFPA aren't particularly related.

Ouch! How could Warren ever look the world in the face again after such a devastating attack?

McArdle promised to explain Warren's paternalism as well, but perhaps she is saving that for Christmas. We can hardly wait.


*It's been two weeks, after all.

There's Always Iran

Shorter Michael Gerson: If only Obama could stand on a pile of burning rubble and corpses with a bullhorn and lead us into economic ruin and an endless parade of wars, destruction and death while weeping crocodile tears, he'd finally be a leader.

Bedtime Story

Ian Welsh says:

Let me state the obvious, which we all know, one more time.

Obama intends to gut social security. Republicans failed, it requires Democrats. If Obama did not intend to gut social security he would not have set up the SS comission with the members it has.

Nancy Pelosi is onside with this (or she wouldn’t have forcefully scheduled a vote for the lame duck session.)

The Democrats most of us supported in 08 intend to gut Social Security.

Betrayal: the most bitter sauce.

But why shouldn’t they betray us? No matter what they do, most folks say “well, the Republicans are worse”. All it requires is that Democrats beat ordinary people with canes instead of chains.

They’re not the suckers.

It's what the ruling class does; hire a member of the group they're trying to destroy to betray that group. We are so easily led that anyone who claims to belong to our tribe can walk right up to us and stab us in the gut.

But to make this perfectly clear, let's think of this as a Little Golden Book.



This is a sheep. His name is, oh, Sam. He is posing for this picture with his Congressman, Sen. Dog. Sam is very happy and proud to have his picture taken with Sen. Dog. Sen. Dog is very happy to listen to Sam and help him in his hour of need. They are good friends.



This is Sen. Dog with his owner, Mr. Farmer. Sam the Sheep doesn't think much about Mr. Farmer because Sen. Dog is the one that Sam always sees, protecting the flock of sheep from predators. Mr. Farmer doesn't give orders to Sam. He's too busy running the farm. That's what Sen. Dog is for. Sam and the rest of the sheep are very happy with the arrangement. They spend all their time trying to please Sen. Dog so he protects them and give them what they need.


Higher, men, higher! Sen. Dog rewards clever sheep!

Now it is fall, and the sheep are heavy with wool and meat. Mr. Farmer makes his money from selling wool and meat. Mr. Farmer gives his order to Sen. Dog: Do your job and get me my meat and wool. Oh, no! The poor sheep thought Sen. Dog was their friend, but they were wrong!



Save us, Sen. Dog! We voted for you! You promised to protect us!



Poor, poor sheep. They thought Sen. Dog worked for them, when all the time he worked for the farmer. Oh, well. There are always more sheep.

The ruling class rules, as Arthur Silber says. They aren't our ruling class. They aren't our Democrats or Republicans. They are the farmers and their servants, and we are the sheep. The sheep don't own the farmer, they are shorn and slaughtered by him.

The End.

Appeals To Authority

Having suffered a major hit to her credibility, Megan McArdle decides to borrow some authority to boost her public image.

Kevin Drum basically agrees with me that the filibuster exists because people in both parties want it to exist. "They mostly don't want to admit it," he writes, "but both Democrats and Republicans have always had an essentially defensive view of the power of government: They're more interested in stopping the other guys when they're in power than they are in getting their own things done when they're in power."

No, we did not leave out any links. There are none, probably because Drum does not say he agrees with McArdle on the filibuster. McArdle agrees with Drum that both parties want the filibuster, but saying that doesn't bolster McArdle's credibility. McArdle has done this before, but should realize that it's not at all necessary. The only people who respect her don't need corroboration, they just need someone to say what they want to hear. An Ivy League grad, a moose-huntin' crackpot--it doesn't matter in the slightest, to the conservative "intellectuals'" chagrin.

And He's Not The Only One

Anonymous dolphin flips off Megan McArdle.


Shorter Megan McArdle: Eh, the British Petroleum spill in the Gulf isn't so bad after all.

A Fine Christian Man

Shorter Ross Douthat: I am so concerned about the welfare of poor white people that I want to take away their legal protections and benefits if they are disabled.

A Brief Discussion About Climate Change

If this keeps up, The Atlantic is going to have to put McArdle behind a pay wall. She's too much fun to be given away for free.

Daniel Shore:2. All the carbon we're burning used to be in the atmosphere. Yet the planet supported life. Indeed, the oil we're burning comes from the compressed, decayed bodies of . . . phytoplankton. This suggests that some number of phytoplankton should be able to survive high concentrations of the stuff.

Isn't this a silly piece of reasoning? It's true that all that carbon used to be in the atmosphere - but not ALL AT ONCE. It was absorbed at low levels of concentration over millions of years and compressed by phytoplankton. Your argument is sort of like saying that drinking 12 liters of vodka shouldn't kill you, because you've had that much to drink over the last 5 years of your life.

As for the rest of the post, meh.

McMegan: Carbon concentrations in the jurassic were what, 4-5 times higher than they are today? To a first approximation, it was all in the atmosphere.

tinisoli: No, it wasn't.

McMegan: Sorry? Is this incorrect? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6835...

tinisoli: Relevance of that paper?

anirprof: It's not incorrect but it doesn't say what you are claiming.

That CO2 concentrations were 5x higher in the past isn't the same as saying that all the carbon currently contained in hydrocarbons in the crust were in the air then.

McMegan: Given that the 100 year projections involve carbon concentrations below 1,000 ppm, the statement that "all the stuff we're burning was in the atmosphere" is correct. Was every hydrocarbon in the ground in the atmosphere? Probably not. But every hydrocarbon in the ground is not recoverable, so that's not a very interesting question.

tinisoli: Why don't you just clarify what you meant and then we'll see if it actually meant what you're nor pretending it did?

McMegan: I wasn't unclear. You and Anirprof decided that I must have meant something else, and proceeded to argue furiously against something I didn't say.

The estimated reserve life of the major oil reserves clocks in at under 150 years. By then, we'll have figured out something else, or the economy will collapse anyway, and we won't need to worry about greenhouse gasses.

anirprof: Plus about four other commenters above and below this point who read it the same way, so I wouldn't be so quick to assert there was nothing wrong with the phrasing. Given what you say you were trying to communicate, TakuanSoho's comment below suggests a phrasing that makes a lot more sense than the original.

McMegan: In my experience, there are a number of issues where people stop reading about halfway through, and start arguing with the opponent in their head. This is one of them.

Brian Despain: That's one of the best quotes you have ever had Megan. This thread is great evidence for that. [Teacher's pet.]

downpuppy: And like all Megan quotes, makes more sense when you realize it's about Megan. Nobody is claiming that global warming is a threat to all life on earth, so Megan writes a post to say that everybody who claims that global warming will end life on earth is a doodyhead.

By writing it really badly & throwing in some rubbish about CO2, she gets 3 more posts to respond to people who haven't noticed that she really hasn't said anything worth reading.

double win!

Norman Rogers: Does the opponent in your head make you set fires and laugh at inappropriate moments?

Syz: Shorter Megan: After my arguments have been thoroughly debunked, I like to switch to ad hominem attacks. Also too, Zosima is a snot-nosed know-nothing brat and I really should get around to banning him cause he keeps embarrassing me with his mastery of 9th grade math.