Lafferites and Teachers Again

I have to say I feel like Megan's being willfully obtuse here. What happened is that Megan wrote a negative review of a book by a liberal for a conservative publication, in which Megan criticized liberals for overstating the influence of Laffer Curve thinking in the conservative movement. The conservative publication spiked her review on the grounds that the only acceptable manner in which to respond to liberal critics of Lafferites is to defend the Lafferites on the merits. Thus was refuted Megan's view that liberals are overstating the Lafferites' influence.

But to recover, Megan drew an equivalence between the influence of Lafferites on the right with that of teacher's unions on the left. I pointed out in response that liberals who deviate from the union line don't, in fact, have our writing spiked by the editors of liberal publications. Similarly, you have dissenters from the union line working at liberal think tanks. You even have groups like Democrats for Education Reform and Education Sector that exist for the sole-purpose of propounding a non-union progressive line on education policy.

So now Megan's just changing the goalposts and arguing that teacher's unions are an important constituency in Democratic Party politics. And, of course, they are since if they weren't influential then you really wouldn't ever see anyone criticizing them since what would be the point. But that's not what we were arguing about! We were arguing about whether or not they exercise the same level of control over the progressive movement as what Megan saw in action when her review got spiked. And they just don't. Megan should either find another analogy or else give me a call when the day comes that there are organized anti-Laffer organizations on the right and when Republican committee chairs start authoring legislation that includes tax increases. Until then, the analogy is preposterous, though connected to Megan's equally preposterous view that I remember from a few months back that the insidious unions were the only reason any liberals anywhere oppose privatizing the school system.

Comments

SMACK!

Looks like someone ate his Wheaties this morning...

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 17, 2007 4:06 PM

Note also that in the comment threads on Megan's blog, the whole argument about the relative influence of teachers' unions on Democrats versus Lafferites on Republicans has vanished in favor of a bunch of right-wingers attacking teachers' unions and...defending the Laffer Curve.

Posted by brooksfoe | October 17, 2007 4:10 PM

Megan is of a generation that grew up hearing repeatedly how the Democratic Party is in the pocket of various special interests (I know this, being a member myself), and she simply doesn't realize the degree to which she's internalized this narrative. I hope she catches herself before she starts ranting about Big Abortion.

Posted by Steve | October 17, 2007 4:11 PM

Right.

I mean, she does stuff like that, sometimes. And yet when people say she is unserious or dishonest, some blogger will inevitably shout "Sancho! My horse!" and launch an aggressive defense of fair maid. But people don't dislike her for no reason, and despite what they're constantly accused of, they aren't just engaging in mysogyny. I like a lot of what she writes, but then she drops something like this and I wonder why.

Posted by Freddie | October 17, 2007 4:12 PM

Do you think that publishing under the same banner as a hack like her damages your own credibility?

Posted by Anonymous | October 17, 2007 4:12 PM

Reminds me of the time she said that if there had been widespread death and destruction in Iraq, we'd be seeing a huge refugee problem.

When confronted with links documenting said refugee problem, she said a huge refugee problem wasn't proof of death and destruction.

She is a dishonest idiot.

Posted by tomboy | October 17, 2007 4:12 PM

You're wrong Matt. She is just always that obtuse.

Posted by Rob | October 17, 2007 4:19 PM

Freddie,

Did you see the Watson link in the Selling Out What thread?

Posted by Juan | October 17, 2007 4:22 PM

Gotta go with Rob here. She's not being "willfully" obtuse. She's really just that stupid.

Posted by MikeJ | October 17, 2007 4:29 PM

Matt, you and your typos again. You have an extra adverb in front of "obtuse."
She doesn't need to try, it comes naturally.
I see others have beat me to this point.

Posted by SP | October 17, 2007 4:41 PM

Megan's insistence on counterbalancing the conservative ideological closemindedness here with a purported lefty example here is positively Broderesque.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | October 17, 2007 4:46 PM

This stuff is just ridiculous; she should just apologize and admit she is wrong.

It's funny, the obvious example to choose would have been pro-choice but for the inconvenient fact that the most powerful Democrat in the Senate is pro-life; that's some exclusionary politics, there. I guess give her credit for not falling into that particular trap.

Posted by Martin | October 17, 2007 4:58 PM

I can't believe I forgot link to the perfect summary of the McArdle-Yglesias dynamic:

Megan McArdle: What I mean is, why do you drive on the parkway and park in the driveway? Isn’t that a contradiction? It seems to me that it’s immoral to fund social programs because black people smell, and also paradoxes, like why is a carpet neither a car nor a pet?

Matt Yglesias: I think Megan misses the point with her post on the morality of social spending.

Ezra Klein: Studies clearly show that black people do not, in fact, have a distinctive odor.

McArdle: When I said that it’s immoral to fund social programs, I was not referring to black people.

It's really amazing how well they've captured her style of "argument". Looks like MY has gotten tired of kicking that particular football, tho...

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 17, 2007 5:14 PM

She is like all other conservatives in that one is less informed about the world after reading them than before.

Posted by ken | October 17, 2007 5:15 PM

Based on the VBlogging visuals, McArdle has the face of a pretty stupid-looking person. And her gobble-gobbling about "teachers unions" this and that confirms that she's indeed a pretty stupid person.

Basically, the dimmer rightwingers tend to endlessly denounce "the unions"---especially "the teachers unions"---for no real reason other than monkey-see-monkey-do copying of all the other rightwingers.

Now the big teachers unions are hardly a major positive force in American society. But they're hardly a major negative force either. I'd put their positives and negatives somewhere in the vicinity of the local public utility companies, which certainly have annoying habits but are hardly the greatest threat facing American society. Imagine if liberals spent all their time ferociously denouncing the local water company for its horrible meter-reading practices.

As near as I can tell, the ultimate reason conservatives have it in for the teachers unions is because the unions oppose privatization of the public schools (i.e. vouchers), which would be a gigantic disaster. Score one for the unions.

I've been reading the London Economist for almost thirty years, and the quality of their staff over the last decade or so has gone straight down the toilet. Things have never been the same after Norman McCrae and his generation left the scene...

Posted by RKU | October 17, 2007 5:21 PM

See Brad DeLong, http://delong.typepad.com/

"McMegan won't name names. She regards herself as still under some form of right-wing message discipline. So we are left in ignorance as to which conservative publications (a) want to serve as platforms to present the views of smart (albeit conservative) people, and which (b) regard their primary mission as telling lies to advance the power interests of Republican politicians."

Matt, why do you link to someone who by her own admission is part of the VRWC?

Posted by Bloix | October 17, 2007 5:28 PM

I just read it, Juan. I remain unconvinced. But I think thats a discussion for another space.

Posted by Freddie | October 17, 2007 5:38 PM

Okay, I am by no means a fan of Megan and agree with much of the substantive criticism being shared, but a lot of the vitriol here seems a little cheap. Can't we leave the ad-hominem shots about somebody's appearance and name calling to the other side? It only reinforces their ability to say "look, they do it too."

Posted by Doug-E-Fresh | October 17, 2007 5:54 PM

Inasmuch as Megan is a conservative journalist, I think it's asking a little much to expect that she would bite one of the hands that feed her by identifying the publication in question. Somewhat analogously, I might disagree with public positions taken by my employer, but I don't go publicizing those disagreements.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | October 17, 2007 6:00 PM

WHat is ironic is that based on the comments in Megan's thread it looks like the right is as absolute in their belief that teachers unions are the root cause of underperforming schools and if we could just get rid of them it would solve everyting as they are in their slavish belief in the Laffer Curve.

I'd say teh right is more slavishly devoted to opposing the teachers union than the left is in support it:-)

Posted by Eric K | October 17, 2007 6:05 PM

She is not being "willfully obtuse." She is trying to crawl back into the good graces of her masters, without entirely alienating the portion of her readership that is not composed of zombies and orcs. She is willfully lying.

She is a bad person behaving badly. If you want to shoot guns with her, go ahead, but stop linking to her.

Posted by Bloix | October 17, 2007 6:12 PM

Fortunately, the Left is composed solely of freethinkers not wedded to any unrealistic orthodoxies ... as Larry Summers and, today, James D. Watson have discovered.

Posted by Steve Sailer | October 17, 2007 6:54 PM

Martin: Whatever his official position may still be, it's been a long time since Harry Reid was pro-life in any meaningful way.

Lemuel (and Gavin, should you be reading this): Considering how toxic accusations of racism are in the present day, it's pretty irresponsible and inflammatory to put the words "black people smell" in someone's mouth, even in a parody, when I am not aware of anything that McArdle (or Cowan, although I am not as familiar with his work) has ever written that would justify charges of racism.

Posted by James Kabala | October 17, 2007 7:41 PM

"Fortunately, the Left is composed solely of freethinkers not wedded to any unrealistic orthodoxies ... as Larry Summers and, today, James D. Watson have discovered."

Pot, kettle, black...

Posted by Rihilism | October 17, 2007 7:46 PM

Sailer, you do realize that you're also in the grip of a totalizing orthodoxy, right?

Seriously, what happened to you as a child?

Posted by Freddie | October 17, 2007 7:57 PM

One of your intellectual opponents sees incontravertible evidence that you are correct about a point of disagreement. She admits this, apologizes, and issues a retraction. Do you:

A) Use this as further evidence to bolster your case?

B) Try to use this moment of clarity to shift her position on accompanying issues? (Given slavish devotion to Laffer's nonsense, doesn't the institution in question's authority on other economic issues merit some skepticism as well?)

C) Throw a temper tantrum because she also suggested that teachers' unions have a similar hold on liberal orthodoxy, uncork some truly deranged personal invective, and pat yourselves on the back for being so enlightened and wonderful and good?

Two of these options might suggest a glimmer of good judgment. The other one is what is actually occurring.

This is especially rich coming from this blog, which a few months back launched a vendetta against Mickey Kaus for being a very bad liberal. Matt's main piece of evidence was Mickey's desire to break the power of teachers unions as part of school reform. To his credit, Matt mostly argued the merits, but he (along with Ezra Klein et al.) also objected that Mickey was being disloyal to the cause. Opposition to the teachers unions was beyond the bounds of acceptable liberal discourse.

To me, that sort of devotion seems a bit slavish, kind of like conservatives to the Laffer curve.

Posted by heedless | October 17, 2007 8:06 PM

Freddie,

Glad you saw the Watson link.

As for Sailer, by his own admission, his thinking has evolved over the years: from neocon-like pro-Israel views on foreign policy to his current paleo-isolationist stance, and from a Randian/Reaganite free market capitalist position to a slightly more paleo-populist one.

You can disagree with some of Sailer's current positions, as I do, but given the evolution in his thinking, it's hard to claim he is "in the grip of a totalizing orthodoxy".

Posted by Juan | October 17, 2007 8:13 PM

Six months or six years from now, maybe people will remain concerned as to the degree of mindless support for teachers unions among liberals. Maybe. But even if they do, it will be far down their list of concerns.

Whether taxes can be cut without revenue loss is another question. The answer (sometimes yes, usually no) is well known, virtually demonstrable. So of course McArdle, who's obviously smart and honest, acknowledges this reality. It's so obvious a truth that at first she credited her allies on the right with also being smart and honest. Even now, she of course wants to insist they often are. But as to this particular piece of dogma, overwhelming evidence has obliged her--she being smart and honest--to acknowledge that her allies are on this particular point, loony, and obdurately so.

It's hard for any of us to back down from an erroneous statement, so to save a little face in doing so, she threw out the bit about liberals and teachers unions. To which there may be some substance somewhere, but --- who cares?

Whereas cutting taxes has long been (now joined by starting really dumb wars) what conservatism in America is really all about. That those who favor cutting taxes really do, many or even most of them, believe that the Laffer curve applies so that taxes can be cut without losing revenue, is a rather remarkable sociological discovery, akin to finding a tribe that believes manufactured western goods ("cargo") have been created by divine spirits and are intended for the local indigenous people, but that Westerners have unfairly gained control of these objects. What's really important is that political sociologists in early 21st century America find that a majority of activist Republicans adhere to a manifestly false and very consequential belief about elementary macroeconomics. It's not important, but still to her credit, that McArdle has acknowledged the validity of this remarkable finding.

Posted by Weber | October 17, 2007 8:22 PM

Well, it looks all parties (including Matt and Ezra) can agree on this:

teacher unions are awful. they stifle any type of meaningful reform.

deep inside, teacher unions, just like the UAW, know that they represent overcompensated workers whom they try to protect.

There is very little doubt in my mind that as the baby boomers age, tax payers in many states, in a fit of outrage at state government's financial woes, will refuse to pay ridiculous pensions.

Posted by thehova | October 17, 2007 9:09 PM

To his credit, Matt mostly argued the merits, but he (along with Ezra Klein et al.) also objected that Mickey was being disloyal to the cause. Opposition to the teachers unions was beyond the bounds of acceptable liberal discourse.

Help me out here, heedless, I'm kinda confused. Was the fact that the argument took place on the merits a dead give away for its taboo status? Or does contradicting yourself confer a higher logic to your argument in a way that I'm just not quick enough to grasp?

But, hey, thanks for the concern trolling! You're right. We should be grateful McArdle deigned to throw us a bone at all. This has earned her the right to mis-characterize unions with nary a peep from the left for at least six months. C'mon all you lefties! Show your gratitude and good judgment!

Posted by DMonteith | October 17, 2007 9:17 PM

Don't you feel like Megan was all "Gotcha" after writing that Teachers Union thing?

I mean, she didn't even have the good grace to simply apologize without taking a shot at us dam lubruls, after as clearly as possible being shown she was incorrect. I think she is still in step one, denial, cause she doesn't seem angry at all.

But I do agree, this isn't about how someone might look, that is just bullshit. I didn't watch the video yet, but that doesn't matter at all. It's bullshit and not welcome here.

heedless, I think you win for most clueless. Congrats! I do love it when the McArdle fans wander over. You can really tell the difference. Many just can't read, or don't know any history, or think logic is best practiced by arguing like a lawyer.

Posted by mickslam | October 17, 2007 9:27 PM

It's hard for any of us to back down from an erroneous statement

You know, this is true, and one would think that our habit of constantly shooting our mouths off, day in and day out, would put us at an enhanced risk of having to make humbling corrections.

Somehow though -- and I say 'somehow' for effect, but I mean through ordinary fact-checking and basic respect for the rules of intellectual inquiry -- we're almost never factually wrong about anything of substance.

Megan doesn't do any of that.

Posted by Sadly, No! Customer Services | October 17, 2007 9:59 PM

I would like to fully endorse this post.
And Gavin's comment.

Posted by firemeganmcardle.blogspot.com | October 17, 2007 10:21 PM

Well, it looks all parties (including Matt and Ezra) can agree on this:

teacher unions are awful. they stifle any type of meaningful reform.

deep inside, teacher unions, just like the UAW, know that they represent overcompensated workers whom they try to protect.

Obviously you have some reading comprehension problems. Did you attend a charter school?

Posted by Col Bat Guano | October 17, 2007 10:34 PM

deep inside, teacher unions, just like the UAW, know that they represent overcompensated workers whom they try to protect.

Wow. I always thought conservatives objected to teachers unions because they thought they were obstacle to education reform. I didn't realzie that people on the right just like the idea of teachers being poor. Very clarifying.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 17, 2007 10:57 PM

Dmonteith,

It's not that liberals are unwilling to argue about the benefits and problems with teachers unions. Rather, Kaus's open opposition to the unions was taken by Matt as evidence that he was not a real liberal. This is a reasonable position to take (Mickey is more that a little unorthodox on this subject), but it is still saying "If you believe that, you are not one of us."

Also, I thought concern trolls had to pretend to be sympathetic. I had hoped that by the time you reached the bit about "deranged invective" it was clear that I wasn't even pretending to offer constructive criticism. There's a bit of a looney tunes infestation here, and I couldn't resist snarking at them. If my sarcasm came across as more broadly aimed, I apologize for being unclear.

mickslam,

I like Megan's writing. I like Matt's too. Been reading both of them since before Matt was with TAPPED. They are often infuriatingly wrongheaded (i.e. they disagree with me) but never boring.

Now I'm pretty sure I can read (books, even), and I know enough history to tell you when the War of 1812 happened. I'm not sure exactly what you meant by the bit about the lawyer, but it sounds like a compliment, so thank you.

Posted by heedless | October 17, 2007 11:03 PM

maybe I came across as bitter. There are some great public school teachers out there who deserve every penny they make.

but make no mistake about it, a lot (maybe most) of public school teachers game the system. They use the public's goodwill towards them and a powerful union to secure a protected sphere to slack off for the rest of their lives.

Posted by thehova | October 17, 2007 11:11 PM

Sorry, I had to dash before I finished the thought before...

What I was trying to say was that, granted, we're a bunch of goofballs who make fun of people on the Internet, and so forth, but there's a certain method behind it that privileges cites and checkable sources over opinions. It's not something we really think about; it's just comme il faut.

Whereas, with McArdle -- and this is the reason we make fun of her, beyond the propertarianism and the decline of standards at the new Atlantic -- she seems to regard cites and evidence as a nuisance. She'll make some top-of-the-head claim about torture being effective, or health insurance fostering bad lifestyle choices, or whatever, and when someone presents clear evidence to the contrary, she's like, "Oh fine, well, I was really saying something else the whole time," as though people are out to ruin her fun.

Posted by Sadly, No! Customer Services | October 17, 2007 11:36 PM

just to reinforce SN Customer Services:

what has happened in the internet polemic world is the opposite of what i thought would happen. instead of the ease of fact-checking causing people to have to make claims that at least are built on the arguments and facts of others (e.g. the old style of footnoted writing in academia) leading to a world of New Yorker level writing, we have found that the speed of posting is what matters.

i make a claim (or series of claims) and then flit on to the next, not having to think much about the last. the experience (writing, reading comments, maybe commenting myself, maybe reposting or updating) is over in about 3 hours. and that's it. people like megan use this to do things: one, make sweeping claims without worrying about linkage, and two, make directly disingenuous claims about their own writing. oh, sorry, and third: they straight up lie if it supports their broader point. "heroes in error" and all that.

that megan's mistakes always redound to the benefit of her greater point PROVE beyond reasonable doubt that she is liar, and a terrible person to boot. she truly is the atlantic's shame, and frankly, matt, she's yours as well.

Posted by Robert Green | October 18, 2007 12:11 AM

"t make no mistake about it, a lot (maybe most) of public school teachers game the system. They use the public's goodwill towards them and a powerful union to secure a protected sphere to slack off for the rest of their lives."

Thehova, after graduating from high school, have you ever spent any length of time in a public school in any (non-parental) capacity, from volunteering to actually teaching to administration, etc?

Posted by Dan S. | October 18, 2007 1:05 AM

I have to say I feel like Megan's being willfully obtuse here.

If you'd like Auguste to comment "Stop the frigging presses!", text aynrandsucks1.

If you'd like Auguste to comment "In other news, water is wet", text aynrandsucks2.

If you'd like Auguste to stop stealing Family Guy bits, don't do anything at all, because he's already decided that even this comment is one too many.

Posted by Auguste | October 18, 2007 1:51 AM

Don't box her into a corner Matt...leave her an opening.

Finite and Infinite Games

Posted by Jimm | October 18, 2007 5:15 AM

I like a lot of what she writes, but then she drops something like this and I wonder why.

It's because she's not really as smart as she seems to think she is.

You're welcome.

Posted by Fishbone McGonigle | October 18, 2007 9:18 AM