Thursday Pronoun Blogging

It appears that some ambiguous phrasing on my part has sparked some outrage about my ill-informed views from Jonah Goldberg and Yuval Levin and led to a bunch more interesting posts on the subject of farm subsidies. At issue was a post I wrote a couple of days ago, referring to the 2002 Farm Bill where I said "he was all for it" back then. I'd intended "he" to refer to President Bush, but the NRO crew has taken me to have been referring to Levin who, in fact, like most conservative intellectuals and policy types has been consistently and rightly against farm subsidies forever and ever.

What the subject of farm subsidies mostly shows, however, is that at the end of the day nobody in politics really seems to care what intellectuals and policy people think. If some big ideas or serious policy research or principled ideological stance can help advance important priorities of key interest groups, then suddenly ideology and policy analysis begin to appear very important. But when all the interest group pressure is for farm subsidies, it doesn't matter that all the policy analysis is on the other side.

Comments

When I first read the post I actually thought you were talking about President Bush. I guess I must have drawn it from the context or what have you, because I don't have a clue who Yuval Levin is.

Then when you mentioned it again, I went back and looked and realized that the way it was written, it sure did sound like you were talking about this Levin guy instead of Bush. But what can I say, the intended meaning was what I actually got from it in the first place.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 5:26 PM

Bwah ... "Conservative Intellectuals"! Good one, Matt!!

Posted by lyzurgyk | August 30, 2007 5:39 PM

one takeaway message (for ALL bloggers and indeed ALL writers) is to re-read CAREFULLY what you have written BEFORE posting it. then get someone else to read it.

where in the post in question does "Bush" appear as an antecedent? nowhere. "Bush administration" appears but that cannot be the target of "he". that you were talking about Levin is the only reasonable conclusion i can reach from what you posted.

everyday i read posts that do not scan. everyday i find myself guessing what error was made (a typo, a missing "not", etc) in order to make sense of what i am trying to read.

the brilliance of your ideas (and those of others) is dimmed by your (and others) lack of attention to detail. somehow i think the blogosphere can wait the extra ten minutes it takes to proof and re-proof. IMO it shows respect for your readers..why should i need a decoder ring?

Posted by HyperIon | August 30, 2007 6:02 PM

Yep. The flaw of the post is that "President Bush" appears nowhere in the post, and hence could not be the antecedent for any pronoun therein. That said, some of us like the typos and grammatical errors, which are occasionally pretty humorous, even if (as in this case) they might get Matthew into trouble now and again.

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 6:06 PM

The clout of intellectuals in politics. Kind of like that quote (may not be exact): you are not here to tell me what to do, you are here to tell me why I am doing what I have already decided to do.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | August 30, 2007 6:07 PM

At Corrente, we've run into the same problem.

Our solution is to capitalize the pronoun--as one would capitalize the name of the Diety--when referring to Bush.

For example, the sentence that originally reads:

Back when the Republicans were in the majority and the congress passed a bad farm bill, he was all for it.

would become:

Back when the Republicans were in the majority and the congress passed a bad farm bill, He was all for it.

See, no confusion!

This editorial policy also has the great merit of deferring to the sensibilities of your Christianist readers. Since, as is well known, God is in the White House, we find it entirely appropriate to capitalize His name when referring to Him.

P.S. Another policy that may be of interest: We always write "Bush," as opposed to "President Bush," since we prefer to reserve the title of "President" for Constitutional officers.

Posted by lambert strether | August 30, 2007 6:12 PM

I thought it was pretty clear from context that "he" referred to President Bush, not Levin. It followed a quote about the President's position on the bill. Levin let his ego get the better of him if he actually thought you would write an entire paragraph about the position one of the lesser lights at NRO took on the 2002 Farm Bill.

That said, your usage of the pronoun was technically incorrect.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 30, 2007 6:14 PM

I'm really hoping that the irony in writing a post lecturing Matt on proofreading, but not capitalizing the first word of any of the sentences in that post, is intentional.

Posted by greg | August 30, 2007 6:22 PM

Add me to the list of people who, when they originally read the post, thought you were talking about Bush when you said "he".

Posted by Mark Adams | August 30, 2007 6:23 PM

Right-wingers being willfully ignorant? So that they can pick a fight? Nooooooooo! Say it ain't so!

Posted by Shawn | August 30, 2007 6:27 PM

What I take away from it is that even when Jonah has a point (albeit a mistaken one), he can't help but churn out idiocy.

Note that he starts off wondering why Matt thinks that Levin was for a specific bill. But by the end, he's talking about how Matt thinks that conservatives in general are for farm subsidies in general.

Clownery in action.

Posted by strannix | August 30, 2007 6:34 PM

"What the subject of farm subsidies mostly shows, however, is that at the end of the day nobody in politics really seems to care what intellectuals and policy people think. "

You are paid to be a commentator on politics and this comes as news to you! Holy shit--no wonder liberals never get anywhere. It's always about one of two things: money or power. A policy position that doesn't enhance a politician's money or power isn't worth warm spit. Wake up. How does a high school wrestling coach like Denny Hastert go to Congress for 20 years and become a multi-millionaire? ADM doesn't buy advertising on "This Week" and "Meet the Press" because they think anybody who watches is going to buy their products--they're paying off the help.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

Posted by Steven | August 30, 2007 7:06 PM

I'm not sure which event has had more impact on your writing: basketball season being over, your move to The Atlantic, or finally gaining some experience at jotting down your thoughts. Whatever the factor, the writing department at Harvard must be proud of your progress over glaring typos, usually.

Congratulations on that progress, and don't let silly criticisms from commentors, professional writers, various academics, or personal pride keep you from improving beyond your own special pace.

Posted by A different Matt | August 30, 2007 7:11 PM

When I first read it, I knew you meant Bush.

Posted by Grumble | August 30, 2007 8:45 PM

Matthew raises a good point (due to the misunderstanding): some Republicans at the time were furious. I remember that I was furious...

I could not take Republicans seriously after that.. Every single criticism regarding the costs of intervention (health care, etc) that they uttered after they passed that bill was meaningless to me... if they encounter a special-interest group - they would scrap all the economic theory anyway...

I remember when Bill Gates openly criticized himself for not having done enough lobbying compared to all other industries... He thought that picking a State with higher than average taxes for his headquarters will please the Government enough.. Yes - the government - but not parties...

I am actually really curious what libertarians are voting in the US when you do not know what you are getting yourself into at all? At least food items must list their ingredients...

PS: of course Mat referred to the decision maker of the bill and not to ALL Republicans... hello? somebody trying to distract from the fact that we are wasting $20 billion of tax money annually or what?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | August 31, 2007 11:33 AM