Monthly Archives: January 2009

Glaeser's Libertarian Progressivism

Posted on by

I have no idea how I missed Ed Glaeser’s blog post on “small-government egalitarianism,” which he also dubs “libertarian progressivism.” By “egalitarianism” I don’t think Glaeser intends a view strictly oriented toward the equalization of economic holdings so much as he intends something like “prioritarianism,” as some political philosophers would call it: the view that the welfare of the least advantaged should be given a certain priority in policymaking. If we’re putting the poor first, we’ll want to note that big government generally redounds especially to the benefit of the rich and connected. As Glaeser puts it:

Libertarian progressivism distrusts big increases in government spending because that spending is likely to favor the privileged. Was the Interstate Highway System such a boon for the urban poor? Has rebuilding New Orleans done much for the displaced and disadvantaged of that city? Small-government egalitarianism suggests that direct transfers of federal money to the less fortunate offer a surer path toward a fairer America.

This is prefectly consonant with the idea I think liberals ought to favor: the growth-maximizing welfare state. Arrange our basic economic institutions to maximize productivity, and then directly transfer resources to those who fall below what we (through due democratic consideration) judge the threshold of sufficiency. You don’t need a big government for that. Glaeser is right that something like this is the missing position in contemporary American politics. But he points out it wasn’t always this way, And it doesn’t have to be now. 

Current American political discourse labels people as either anti-government or pro-equality, but wanting to help the poor should not require the abandonment of sensible skepticism about expanding the size of the state. Many of my favorite causes, like fighting land use regulations that make it hard to build affordable housing, aid the poor by reducing the size of government. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, I also argued that it would be far better to give generous checks to the poor hurt by the storm than to spend billions rebuilding the city, because those rebuilding efforts would inevitably help connected contractors more than ordinary people.  

Glaeser goes on to express skepticism about the both the effectiveness as stimulus and the distributive effects of big infrastructure spending, and argues for a means-tested cut in the payroll tax — not far from what I argued on Marketplace last week. 

I declare Glaeser a liberaltarian in good standing! Anyway, read the whole, stimulating post.

Kevin Murphy is Right

Posted on by

Megan McArdle points us to this fascinating panel at the U of Chicago devoted to evaluating Obama’s stimulus plan. Kevin Murphy’s remarks  (between 17:20 and 31:37 in the video) wonderfully elucidate the terms of the debate, and helps me better grasp exactly why the stimulus is sure to be a bust. If you agree with Murphy, as I do, that the efficiency of government spending is generally low, that the value of activating currently idle resources is low (the “multiplier”), and that the deadweight loss from the future tax increases required to finance the stimulus spending is high, then the whole thing looks like a pretty sure loser.

The Danger of the New Decider

Posted on by

George Will is good:

Obama’s preternatural confidence is intended to be infectious. His presidency begins as an exercise in psychotherapy for a nation suffering a crisis of confidence. But neither the nation nor the government that accurately represents it is constructed for consensus. And he will be unable to fault his office for his frustrations because, more than any predecessor except the first, the 44th president enters office with the scope of its powers barely circumscribed by law, and even less by public opinion.

Obama’s unprecedented power derives from the astonishing events of the past four months that have made indistinct the line between public and private sectors. Neither the public as currently alarmed, nor Congress as currently constituted, nor the Constitution as currently construed is an impediment to hitherto unimagined executive discretion in allocating vast portions of the nation’s wealth.

Perhaps the point of the “cynicism” Obama scorned in his speech is to, um, point this out. And perhaps the point of Obama’s scorning “cynicism” was to keep what should be an alarming fact from actually alarming the public.

The Oprahfication of Obama

Posted on by

This blog post/essay by historian of religion Kathyrn Lofton is pretty amazing. A taste:

First, you need a name.  Not just any name.  A weird name: a Biblical misspelling, maybe, or an invocation of some distant land.  No matter what: the name needs an O.  The O will come in handy when you need to summon a common sphere, encourage chanting, or design a gentle logo.  Never deny the utility of its replication, never avoid its allusion, and never miss a moment for its branding.  An O is a space anyone can fill with anything.

[...]

You will possess a preternatural ability to give people what they want, to know what they need, to sell what they will buy.  Prepare yourself for this.  You have to get over any anxieties about your own assimilation, incorporation, and amalgamation.  Be the commodity.  Put your O everywhere.  Your iconography is how you brace against the disappointments of your humanity.

[...]

You are, as everyone knows, a Protestant.  But you dabble in everything, shying not away from the Koran or kabbalah, Jewish professors or Eastern spiritual advisers.  You will entertain anything that might embolden your O.  You are the ambiguity of your epoch, the middle that makes the mass, the crossroads of a country that excited your youth, raped your ancestral continent, and claps now for your children.  You are a global distribution suffused with spiritual truth.  You are motivated with missionary zeal to convert everyone, unrelentingly, to change.  You make them believe their best lives are yet to come.  You make it impossible to look away, to hate, to dissent, or to change the channel.  You make us feel good, finally.  You are our redemption.  You are our favorite smile. And you are our satisfaction at the possibility of a secular that made it all so.

Strong. Do read the whole thing. I eagerly await Lofton’s forthcoming book on the gospel of Oprah.

[Via Jason Kuznicki.]

Elizabeth Alexander Is a Terrible Poet

Posted on by

We all have off days. Not every poem is a good one. So was that a terrible poem or is Elizabeth Alexander a terrible poet? Well, I just spend a whole three minutes on her web page and I can say with complete certainty that she is a terrible poet. She is to poetry approximately what Rick Warren is to theology. So… Why?!!! Politics has its reasons.

But don’t take my word for it. Have you read “Neonatology,” by Elizabeth Alexander? Here is the beginning, offered for your personal evaluation.

—
Neonatology 

Is
funky, is
leaky, is
a soggy, bloody crotch, is
sharp jets of breast milk shot straight across the room,
is gaudy, mustard-colored poop, is
postpartum tears that soak the baby’s lovely head.

Then everything dries and disappears
Then everything dries and disappears

Neonatology 

 

—

In my opinion, that’s the best part.

The Speech

Posted on by

Conor Friedersdorf has usefully curated a bunch of interesting, mainly right-wingish reactions to the inaugural speech. I find I concur with Charles Kessler’s general assessment:

President Obama’s speech was interesting, dignified, and unmemorable, like so many inaugural addresses.  That does not mean it was unimportant.  As a speech it had a few clumsy moments when it strained for effect, but it is part of the new president’s oratorical skill to leave you thinking better of the speech because he gave it.  His demeanor and delivery elevated it above the rather ordinary level of its political tropes and themes.  A new era of responsibility?  George W. Bush already called for that in 2001, as did Bill Clinton before him.  Put the stale ideological debates of the past behind us?  Ditto Bush, Clinton (remember the Third Way?), and even Michael Dukakis (“competence, not ideology”), though not, thank goodness, in an actual inaugural speech.

And I share Paul Mirengoff’s annoyance at the incoherence of the overall conceptual frame:

The speech was classic Obama — the kind of fine-sounding, frivolous fare in which the idea that we face specific trade-offs is dismissed as cynicism, even as we’re told in the most general way of the need for sacrifice. The debates in which serious people on both sides of the political spectrum have engaged for decades were dismissed as “childish,” as if there exists some magic but unstated synthesis that everyone up until now has missed. Yet we were told that we face tough choices.

I don’t think this is so much classic Obama as classic politics. Strategically, the speech was a commonplace effort to reduce resistance to a political agenda by generating a vague sense of uplifting cohesion and casting any possible opposition as outmoded, small-spirited, and immature. Politicians take this tack because it works, and Obama’s really good at it. People liked it. Obama worked the perennial rhetoric of transformative politics expertly, but if you were expecting something truly transformative, beyond the transformative fact of a black president, then you’ve got to be a bit disappointed.

If America Was a Rational Technocracy

Posted on by

If we’re gonna throw mountains of taxpayer dough at the recession, in a desperate attempt to do something, it would at least be nice to learn from it. We’re wasting a ton of money, and smart people know it. But some stimulus ideas are better than others. We just don’t know with much certainty which ones those are. That’s why I like Len Burman’s unrealistic idea of running experiments:

The ideal “experiment” would assign different “treatments” to different states. States that begin with A-E: tax credits, F-K: infrastructure, and so on. We could even have a control group that would get nothing. Sorry, Wyoming.

OK, that’s not going to happen. 

Burman goes on to suggest giving grants to the states, letting them do whatever they want with it, but then very carefully gathering data about what happens when they do whatever they decide to do. The reason this is a relatively great idea is that it assumes that a lot of fiscal stimulus will fail, and that we don’t know what we’re doing. But policy that is remarkable for the honesty of its assumptions doesn’t tend to be extremely popular.

Peace and Money

Posted on by

Mild error about Clinton’s record of peace aside, Chris Rock is obviously a better grade of celebrity. Via the bethrothed, who is more incisive than even Chris Rock when she writes:

This would be a better country if the new administrator of our public goods jurisdiction were ushered into office with all the fanfare of a shift change at Target.

That said, I’d like to appoint Chris Rock Official Enumerator of the President’s Responsibilities:

CNN: What are you hoping Barack Obama does for this country? What do you think is his most important task?

Rock: You know, if you’re the president you only have two jobs: peace and money. That’s it. I mean, it’s like, what did Clinton do? We were at peace and we had a budget surplus. That’s it. That’s the gig. The closer you get us to those two goals, you know, that’s pretty much the gig. Is that too much to ask for?

Too much because too little.

Inauguration Liveblog

Posted on by

Starts now!

11:23 am: The legacy of Ronald Reagan: A bunch of old presidents, who should be worried about their health, standing around in the bitter cold without hats.

11:25: The first children. TV says: “Not a life of privilege. They will be making their own beds.” Enjoy Sidwell, kids. And the live-in nanny. TV: “Americans have right on cue starting falling in love with the Obama girls.” Who’s determines the cues?

11:31: Mrs. Biden would like to teach at a community college around DC! I recommend PGCC for keeping it real.

11:32: Fashion note: I don’t like Michele Obama’s golden dress coat thing.

11:33: Dick Cheney! I like the way that guy rolls.

11:35: Speculation about whether the red box in Michele’s grasp contains the “Lincoln Bible.” I speculate that Michele and Barack have planned the most elaborate and romantic suicide pact ever, and the box contains cyanide pills. That would be AMAZING.

11:36: GWB looks genuinely relieved. We all are.

11:38: Deputy Sergeant at Armses… Hi!

11:40: Joe Biden loves the Acela! Here’s Barack! ….

11:43: Horns sound like the beginning of an NFL films.

11:44: “Barack H. Obama”? I thought they were going to do the “Hussein”. What happened?

11:45: I am proud that future presidential historians will be reading this liveblog. What’s up presidential historians? Odd career choice you made, isn’t it?

11:45: Feinstein: It’s on. Peaceful transition. Not like the Canadians. We did a good job in getting here. Let’s do more! First “hope”! Drink!

11:48: Rick Warren: Begrudging smattering. Glory, story… He’s rapping. Very emotive. Fake evangelical emotion. I don’t think I’ve ever listened to Rick Warren. A hingepoint of history. Crowd would be more excited if Rick Warren weren’t saying it. MLK is shouting in heaven? Yeah, let’s have some “humility in our approaches.” Kerry says Hit&Run commenter says: “When is he going to whip out a loaf of bread and start feeding all these people?” I think people are suppose to be doing the Lord’s Prayer with him, but didn’t. FAIL.

11:53: Aretha! Giant church hat FTW! Sadly, she doesn’t sound very good. This thing is off the a pretty shaky start, frankly. Ouch.

11:57: JP Stevens and Biden: Will you defend the Constitution, which In my opinion says pretty much whatever I feel like it should? Of course I will! So help me God.

11:59: A unique musical performance! Oh… I wanted Bobby McFerrin, Ghostface Killah, and Kenny Chesney. That would be unique! 

12:01: Is this going to be a narrative piece of music? Are we passing out of an era of melancholy into the hopeful sunrise of a new day? Shouldn’t this have a Martha Graham ballet? 

12:04: Obama is practicing his stare into the distance. God’s he’s so beautiful.

12:05: The big moment! J Rob Jr. and BHO: Ooh he fudged it! A little eager. There we have it! Better than the last guy, I think. Hail to the chief. Cannons. Hundreds of thousands of cheering people. That means he gets to do whatever he wants!

I just realized I’m not sure how one liveblogs this kind of speech! Maybe I should just chant. O-BAH-MAH!

12:08: For the love of God my cable just went out. Seriously.

And our Internet is at a crawl. What the hell Mediacom?

OK. Back. Missed until “long rugged path to prosperity and freedom.”

12:12: Freedom ain’t free.

12:13: The fundamentals of the American economy are sound!

12:14: A new foundation for growth. Restore SCIENCE. Harness the sun and the tides and hamsters. Some question the scale of our ambitions. They simply forget that we can DO ANYTHING. All your objections no longer apply, so don’t try to object cynics.

12:16: I think this sounds like a John McCain speech.

12:17: It’s not size that counts, but reach.

12:18: Basically, all dichotomies are false. Freedom AND security. Free markets AND big government. America is everyone’s friend. Facebook us Kenya!

12:19: Our security has to do with our justice. And the immense amount we spend on battleships. Terrorists suck it!

12:20: A nation of non-believers. Woo!

12:21: Hey Muslims, it’s cool. Bad guys, you’re bad!

12:22: Poor foreigners, we got your back.

12:22: The troops are awesome, because they “find meaning in something larger than themselves.” So we all need to be like troops in the war on badness.

Was that a cellphone?

12:23: Here’s our theme, kids. New Era of Responsibility. Your empty meaningless life can be made whole by your obeisance to collective duty. 

That was a cellphone.

12:25: Washington, Washington, Six foot eight weighs a fucking ton.

Man, that was boring.

I’m already tired of Obama’s calculated uplift speech voice cadence. And otherwise he talks in a soporific drone. The big dissapointing revelation of the first 100 days will be: Barack Obama is really, really boring.  Not that that’s a bad thing!

12:28: Poem! Anything is better than Maya Angelou. Poem voice! We know all about poem voice here at the U of Iowa.

12:30: Not that much better than Maya Angelou. 

12:31: No, not anything is better than Maya Angelou. Poetry demands an apology.

This whole thing has really sucked so far. Not even good political theater. I guess I’m grateful!

12:32: Benediction. What language is this? Why did they ask Muhammed Ali to do this?

12:34: Not anything is better than Rick Warren. Amen.

Is it over yet? This day has been a disastrous setback in the cause of literary originality in political oratory. 

12:38: Why do we have to have the worst national anthem? I like the Sea Chanters, though.

Lame. I was frankly expecting better casting and production. I’m betting it’s all gonna be like this: way way short of the build-up. Meh. I feel like the press, who were wetting themselves this morning, are already grappling with mild disappointment.  

OK. Now let’s debate stimulus policy!