Ignorance is Strength

What Mark Kleiman said. But to recap, Glenn Reynolds said Barack Obama's economic policy views were socialism. I pointed out that they were not, in fact, socialism. Reynolds, rather than conceded that he was wrong, pointed out that Obama favors tighter fuel efficiency regulations for auto makers which Reynolds thinks is bad policy.

That's a fine opinion to have -- I'm not enthusiastic about efficiency mandates myself -- but that's still no reason to mislead your readers by misdescribing the content of Obama's economic agenda.

Comments

IOKIYAR!

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | May 11, 2008 10:34 AM

*sigh*

Matt, people like Reynolds use words like "socialism" and "socialist" as epithets, not in the dictionary sense of the words. They neither understand nor care about actual, you know, socialism, and with good reason: socialism as a way of organizing society is moribund and to attack it is to join the battle against straw. They just throw around such words to distract from the fact that they have no counter-arguments to offer.

Posted by Joel | May 11, 2008 10:36 AM

This is fun. Put me down as in favor of seeing more dialog, or just jibe trading, between the liberal and conservative blogosphere.

Posted by BST | May 11, 2008 10:36 AM

Glenn Reynolds is a lying of sh!t. T

Tell us something we don't know.

Posted by TomT | May 11, 2008 10:47 AM

I pointed out that they were not, in fact, socialism.

And I pointed out that Matthew doesn't know what he's talking about. Matthew seems to be confused between communism and socialism.

Western European left parties like UK's Labour parties are socialist. And Obama's views, which are similar to Western European left parties, are socialist too.

Really, it is quite embarrassing for Matthew not to understand the difference between socialism and communism.

Posted by Al | May 11, 2008 10:53 AM

Really, it is quite embarrassing for Matthew not to understand the difference between socialism and communism.

FYI--

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Posted by James Gary | May 11, 2008 10:59 AM

Al,
Most countries in the West including the U.S. have mixed economies it's just matter of degrees, i.e. U.S at one end and Sweden at the other end.

Posted by Micheline | May 11, 2008 11:03 AM

Western European left parties like UK's Labour parties are socialist

Al, you know better than this; the whole rise of Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, and New Labour was in opposition to the traditional socialist stance of the Labour Party. Does Obama promote state ownership of the means of production? If not, one might as say that the Labour Party is socialist and supports Iraq intervention, therefore GWB is a socialist.

Posted by Steve | May 11, 2008 11:07 AM

Is Obama, like Reynolds quotes, really going to give us a delicious new fat-free ice cream? I hope so because I could stand to lose some weight. He'd really have my vote then!

Posted by matt (not the famous one) | May 11, 2008 11:10 AM

the whole rise of Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair, and New Labour was in opposition to the traditional socialist stance of the Labour Party

As I pointed out on the last thread, the Labour Party now states that it is a socialist party. While the party changed direction in some respects, it remains socialist.

Obama's no different than the broad swath of socialist left in Europe. I don't know why people are on the left in America are so afraid of this - they are terrified of the term "liberal" and they can't stand the term "socialist", so they resort to the term "progressive" instead.

Posted by Al | May 11, 2008 11:17 AM

The Chinese Communist Party states that it is communist. The CCP made joining the WTO a major goal of Chinese policy, which it succeeded at not too long ago. By Al's logic, all WTO members are commies.

Posted by Reality Man | May 11, 2008 11:34 AM

It's useful to point out that in the expanded definition of Reynolds et al that the Republican Party is likewise socialist. You probably have to go to the war lord/vendetta school of modern government before you find a non-socialist theory of government.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 11, 2008 11:43 AM

Al:
You seem to forget already. A certain central bank head in the US seems to believe in some socialism(Despite his being a Republican).

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 11, 2008 11:45 AM

Why are you "not enthusiastic about efficiency mandates..."?

Posted by scruncher | May 11, 2008 11:49 AM

Put me down for a little more socialism, especially in transportation policy.

Social Security seems super, well, socialist to me. It seems to work pretty well.

I always think of public policy as a martini, where we cut the Hogarthian gin of capitalism with some Continental vermouth of socialism. Most martinis are made too dry these days, and, similarly, there's too much knob-slobbing of capitalism these days.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | May 11, 2008 11:56 AM

The dynamics of this blog appear to be as follows:

1. MY makes a point, of greater or lesser merit
2. "Movement Conservative" or "neo-conservative" (as opposed to traditional, or "Burkeian" Conservative) watchdogs pile on with wild claims about how ridiculous his point was.

3. Information based reality types (whether liberal or traditionally conservative) attempt to point out the 3-10 obvious facts that make such claims absurd.

4. Instead of responding to the facts, the "watchdogs" cast aspersions on the commentors politics, or imply that the commentor made the facts up.
5. The commentors respond with various forms of information showing they didn't make the facts up.
6. The "watchdogs" either once again cast aspersions, or reply that truth is unknowable (like Pontius Pilate in the Gospel of John to Jesus --"What is truth?").
7. Frustrated commentors try to provide the "watchdogs" with further information, which of course is unsuccessful because the "watchdogs" aren't really interested in the facts, or learning anything. They see their job as propagandizing a certain viewpoint at all costs.

Great fun, I suppose, but ultimately futile. It is impossible to educate those who have no desire to change.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 11, 2008 11:58 AM

"I don't know why people are on the left in America are so afraid of this - they are terrified of the term "liberal" and they can't stand the term "socialist", so they resort to the term "progressive" instead."

LOL!

Nah, we on the left are not "afraid" of being called "socialist," we just understand what the word means and know that is not an accurate description of our views. As any high school student knows, socialism is a system in which the government owns the means of production. In the US, there is no form of production in which the US government holds the monopoly--even the US military has private for-profit market competition.

Perhaps you should wait until you graduate high school before posting here again, Al.

Posted by Joel | May 11, 2008 11:59 AM

Al, for heaven's sake, the Labour Prime Minister recently tried to double the income tax rate on the poorest Britons.

I realize people write entire theses about the meaning of 'Socialism', but the two sentences offered by Answers.com's dictionary aren't bad:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

To wit: nationalization of industry and implementation of confiscatory policies aimed at the wealthy, or at least aspiring to move down that path. No major Western political party - and no important American politician - is close to fulfilling that definition.

Why not try to disagree with Matt in better faith?

Posted by Warren Terra | May 11, 2008 12:01 PM

Another Yglesias thread stunk up by Al.

I'm a socialist and wish that Obama were. But he isn't. I'll still support him over McCain, of course, and over Hillary too (though he's not terribly far from Hillary). Beggars can't be choosers.

Posted by John Emerson | May 11, 2008 12:05 PM

the problem is not that the right wingnuts call guys like Mat socialist, but that Mat does not have the indecency to use an appropriate epithet for Reynolds. Pinochetistas would be a good start.

Posted by gregor | May 11, 2008 12:06 PM

Of course, the right could express pretty much the same views more honestly by just shouting "Boogety boogety boogety" over and over while waving their hands and bugging out their eyes.

Posted by El Cid | May 11, 2008 12:12 PM

Jeffrey Davis, upthread, makes what is probably the most important point, that if we define 'Socialism' as laxly as this would require then pretty everyone who's willing to live in an organized society is a Socialist. Including Al.

Why does Al hate capitalism?

Posted by Warren Terra | May 11, 2008 12:14 PM

As I pointed out on the last thread, the Labour Party now states that it is a socialist party. While the party changed direction in some respects, it remains socialist.

Right, and the Labor Party remains theoretically committed -- although obviously not in practice -- to state ownership of the means of production. Can you point to Obama's white papers arguing for federal seizure of the power plants and steel mills of America? Can you tell me which of his Chicago School advisors are arguing in favor of nationalization of the railroads? You might be able to successfully argue that Obama is a social democrat, but you know full well that he's not a socialist.

Posted by Steve | May 11, 2008 12:15 PM

> 7. Frustrated commentors try to provide the
> "watchdogs" with further information, which of
> course is unsuccessful because the "watchdogs"
> aren't really interested in the facts, or learning
> anything. They see their job as propagandizing a
> certain viewpoint at all costs.

I'll disagree with you there: they don't "see" their job as doing that; for at least half of the nyms that _is_ their full-time job as part of a Radical Right counter-blogging project. I estimate that there are 3-5 people working in a Washington DC office somewhere, supported by a web programmer/scripting/AI geek, who are assigned to counter-blog here, at Ezra's, Washington Monthly, and similar sites. The only place they never seemed to get a foothold was at the old TMPCafe and I am not sure why that is; maybe the rating system.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | May 11, 2008 12:15 PM

And Obama's views, which are similar to Western European left parties

Er, no.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | May 11, 2008 12:28 PM

Tim Rules the Clintonoshpere version

1. MY makes a point, of greater or lesser merit

2. Clinton bloggers pile on with wild claims about how ridiculous his point was.

3. Information based reality types (whether liberal or traditionally conservative) attempt to point out the 3-10 obvious facts that make such claims absurd.

4. Instead of responding to the facts, the Clinton Bloggers cast aspersions on the commentors politics or imply that the commentor made the facts up.

5. The commentors respond with various forms of information showing they didn't make the facts up.

6. The Clinton Bloggers either once again cast aspersions, or reply that truth is unknowable...

7. Frustrated commentors try to provide the Clinton Bloggers with further information, which of course is unsuccessful because the "Clinton Bloggers" aren't really interested in the facts, or learning anything. They see their job as coronation of Hillary at all cost .

Posted by Bingo | May 11, 2008 12:28 PM

Al, of course, is a complete fucking hack, and knows that 'democratic socialist' and 'social democratic' are basically historical names for the democratic left tradition in Europe, which is just not that mappable onto US politics.

He's just twatting about while watching the end of the PL season.

Which is only slightly better than Glenn Reynolds, a manchild firmly latched to the state tit and a tenured professor of bullshit.

Cranky Obs: this is the year, I think, for a journalist to see just how far the paid troll phenomenon extends.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 11, 2008 12:35 PM

I sometimes have discussions with this older gentleman on the internet. He complains that his union doesn't have enough power and then starts throwing around nasty slurs like socialist and marxist whenever he doesn't like something. I have yet to point out that unions are not capitalist in nature.

Despite the hopes of the first poster, socialism is not moribund. It is, in fact, alive and well. However, as with all things, it is an economic option that must be selected with care according to the social tendencies of a given cultural group and any obvious population limitations. Some groups can use more, some groups con only use very little or none. It's not the big satan of economic policy everyone wants it to be, and you don't love America or Freedom any less because you support socialist-based policies.

In the mean time, it's just another example of pundits lying to voters who aren't educated enough or attentive enough to know any better.

Posted by brenna | May 11, 2008 12:52 PM

Simply because you are not an absolute socialist does not mean you are not a socialist. Obama could possibly be a pragmatic socialist. Just look at his views on taxation, the supreme court, and health care. Personally I would label him a paternalistic authoritarian who is only concerned with the equality of outcomes. Whether he is a socialist or a social democratic authoritarian doesn't really matter and definitely cannot be determined based on a series of policy compromises.

Posted by Gordon Gekko | May 11, 2008 12:59 PM

When reminded that raising the capital gains tax had consistently resulted in lower revenues from that tax, Obama stated that raising the tax was about fairness. I'm not sure what to call that other than socialism. Stupid might work, too.

Posted by James Robertson | May 11, 2008 1:00 PM

"Obama stated that raising the tax was about fairness. I'm not sure what to call that other than socialism."

Capital gains taxes are socialist? WTF?

Capital gains can't even exist in socialism, let alone be taxed, since the government owns the means of production.

"Stupid might work, too."

It certainly works as a description of your post, Robertson.

Posted by Joel | May 11, 2008 1:17 PM

Al: [not having any idea what he's talking about projects] "And I pointed out that Matthew doesn't know what he's talking about. Matthew seems to be confused between communism and socialism."

He goes on: "Western European left parties like UK's Labour parties are socialist. And Obama's views, which are similar to Western European left parties, are socialist too."

the last time this argument raged, al linked to some european party's platform. it was preety cool stuff, sadly much more advanced than anything any politician in america would be brave enough to campaign for.

i'm pretty socialist and i don't see much of that in obama.

for pure socialism, the NFL is probably the best working model i can think of. they pretty much share everything, starting with the tv money.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 11, 2008 1:20 PM

Western European left parties like UK's Labour parties are socialist.

Right, which is why until Blair's time, the Labour party constitution read:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

Go on, tell me again that Matt doesn't know what "socialist" means.

Posted by Raghav | May 11, 2008 1:21 PM

I'm not enthusiastic about efficiency mandates myself

Are you high??? Fuel efficiency is, like, one of the LEAST controversial aspects of a responsible energy policy.

the capital gains tax ha[s] consistently resulted in lower revenues from that tax

Data, please.

Posted by scythia | May 11, 2008 1:22 PM

Glenn Reynolds is a tool for the GOP at this point.

I think he used to be more independent, but as time has gone by he is more beholden to the Republicans.

Keep in mind that he makes a lot of money off of his blog, and has used that exposure to get gigs from Popular Mechanics, etc. He also has been invited to Republican conventions, etc...

So Reynolds is very heavily invested in the GOP at this point.

If he dared stray from the party line, he'd lose money and popularity in his circle.

Posted by cm | May 11, 2008 1:27 PM

Obama's policy proposals certainly seem in line with modern European-style social democracy. I don't see any resemblance to the practically dead late-19th Century socialism, which did demand the state take over the means of production. That's the way of the modern German SED/PDS/DIE LINKE, but not many large-bloc parties.

Social democracy, "Salonsozialismus" and latte liberalism are pretty much alike in demanding more power for politicians (and their bureaucratic underlings) over the economy and society. Their policies are rhetorically based on refocusing egalitarianism: Equality of social and economic outcomes, rather than equality before the law.

Achieving equality of outcomes relies on taking away from the unpopular, deemed to be greedy, illegitimate profiteers, to give to the government. Since latte liberals believe the government will work for "the people" if told to do so -- like some sort of leviathan Robin Hood -- they equate this with giving to the poor, which may or may not actually be the result.

Posted by MarkG | May 11, 2008 1:32 PM

Mark G,

No 'deeming' about it, they _are_ greedy illegitimate profiteers. Property income is inherently illegitimate, at least when it exceeds some minimal level.

I'm a socialist inasmuch as I believe that capitalist ownership needs to be done away with and replaced by a combination of public, cooperative, and smallholder ownership, all coordinated and regulated by the state.

neither Obama nor Hillary stands for much of anything of the sort.

Posted by Hector | May 11, 2008 1:41 PM

Which part of an endlessly funded government occupation of a foreign country is conservative, again?

Matt, I had no idea why you take frauds like Glenn Reynolds seriously. Their entire job is to sneer and rage and throw words around until they're devoid of meaning.

Calling people "Commie" goes right back to the low point of the republican party under McCarthy in the early 1950s.

It's all they have because they lose on all the issues.

Posted by WinSmith | May 11, 2008 1:41 PM

When reminded that raising the capital gains tax had consistently resulted in lower revenues from that tax

Data, please.

Roberston has the wingnut argument a little mixed up. Charlie Gibson at the debate stated that capital gains tax cuts resulted in higher revenue, which it does in the months following the cut; the smart investor will hold off a sale until the lower rate kicks in. But, over time revenue is lower. Time magazine makes this point and has a chart:

http://time-blog.com/curious_capitalist/2008/01/do_capital_gains_tax_cuts_incr.html

Posted by Another Mike | May 11, 2008 1:44 PM

I'm a socialist inasmuch as I believe that capitalist ownership needs to be done away with and replaced by a combination of public, cooperative, and smallholder ownership, all coordinated and regulated by the state.

Well, there's a surefire formula for attaining equality: Making the populace equally poor and wanting. If socialists ruled over a desert, there would soon be a shortage of sand...

Posted by MarkG | May 11, 2008 2:50 PM

I love the guy upthread who is insistent that even if Obama isn't socialist, he's an authoritarian, and only you trustfund scumbags would care about the distinction. Again, as if a government that essentially abdicates its role to serve the public good in order to benefit defense contractors, oil companies, and telecoms, start disastrous and unnecessary wars, illegally propagandize its own citizens about said war, hold US citizens indefinitely without charges, not to mention torture, compares on the authoritarianism scale with the guy who wants you to have health insurance if you don't already. (At least he said "authoritarian" instead of "fascist", he must not have gotten that memo yet.)

Posted by thompsaj | May 11, 2008 2:56 PM

James Robinson: "When reminded that raising the capital gains tax had consistently resulted in lower revenues from that tax, Obama stated that raising the tax was about fairness. I'm not sure what to call that other than socialism. Stupid might work, too."

as someone upthread has noted the question about capital gains revenues was based on faulty math [or bad faith.]

now i don't claim to know what obama meant by "fairness," but personally i don't see anything inherently unfair about taxing personal income and investment income at the same rate.
[which i what i think he was suggesting]
i also don't see anything "socialist" about suggesting that tax charts should be "fair."

it wasn't like he was suggesting that he was about to seize their assests or claim that we should all get paid the same or something.

"i'm not sure what to call that, but it isn't socialism."

carefull with those "stupid" comments, james.
just a suggestion.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 11, 2008 3:09 PM

Obviously Reynolds was making a disingenuous point. But I dont see how it's useful to come back at him with a snarky college-kid definition of 'socialism.' You're both playing the same game.

Posted by cyates | May 11, 2008 3:14 PM

thompsaj,

How come every time a democrat is attacked for wanting to grossly enlarge the state's power Bush's misrule is used as a counter argument?
Is it not possible to object to both Bush's war on terror and Obama's war on liberty? Income redistribution aside, do you honestly believe forcing the poor to spend X dollars on health care really makes anyone better off? If paternalistic liberals were really concerned with America's welfare, rather than their abstract vision of how people should live their lives, they would give Y dollars to the poor an let them spend it as they please.

Posted by Gordon Gekko | May 11, 2008 3:58 PM

"do you honestly believe forcing the poor to spend X dollars on health care really makes anyone better off?"

Actually, I do. If they're poor enough they'll get
Y dollars worth of medical insurance, where Y > X, and they won't go bust the next time anybody in their family gets seriously ill. And frankly, when
did the Gordon Gekko's of this world ever give a shit about the poor?

Posted by Stan | May 11, 2008 4:19 PM

do you honestly believe forcing the poor to spend X dollars on health care really makes anyone better off?

How does one respond to such an argument? Do you honestly believe what you say, either?

Obama's healthcare plan has called for mandates on children's healthcare, which would indeed seem to make children's lives better off and result in better healthcare outcomes later in life. How about an actual argument against this, rather than a vague strawman about an "abstract vision of how people should live their lives"?

BTW, you're in favor of government handouts to the poor, so you're a socialist, right?

Posted by blahblah | May 11, 2008 4:20 PM

Calling people leftie, liberal, blah blah is offensive for two reasons:

1. It is mostly used by the poster as an excuse not to respond to a particular reality based point. When I was growing up, children, when REAL leftists were quite common, the comparable ignorant term used by THEM was "fascist".

2. The second reason is that the person using it rarely knows anything about the person they are using it on besides the fact that they disagree with them. It is frequently used on me. I am a 55 yesr old senior middle manager who handles global business for a Fortune 500 company, selling to other Fortune 500 companies. I admit ruefully to having voted for Reagan the first time (he promised to balance the budget --hah!) and Dole (I thought Bill was out of control, even though quite talented.)

So calling me a lefty, or anything similar, is about as dumb as it gets. What I have learned over the years is that reality is a harsh taskmaster. The problem with this movement conservative, neo-con crowd is that they believe their fantasies are more important than the actual world.

So, if that makes me a "lefty", I plead guilty as charged.

As my hero Bugs Bunny used to say: "What a bunch of mo-roons!"

Posted by Tim Connor | May 11, 2008 4:21 PM

I admit ruefully to having voted for Reagan the first time (he promised to balance the budget --hah!) and Dole (I thought Bill was out of control, even though quite talented.)

Totally off-topic, but what exactly was Bill Clinton doing in 1996 that seemed so "out of control" to you? I'm incredibly curious.

Posted by James Gary | May 11, 2008 4:31 PM

The narrow, the hysterical, and the untrue: the hallmarks of Instapundit/Ziocon scholarship. This is the new 1937 Soviet apparat.

Posted by Trevor | May 11, 2008 5:22 PM

Because we all know that the so-called principled libertarians like Reynolds aren't going to weigh the various threats to liberty and make a rational decision. They'll line up behind McCain automatically, who believes that service in the socialized military is the highest fulfillment of one's obligation to the state. The point is to change the conversation away from Republican-Good, Democrat-Bad, or vice-versa, and to discuss real policy as it relates to the real world. I am somewhat sympathetic to libertarian arguments when made in good faith, but to shill for Bush (as Reynolds does, it appears you are better on this score) while decrying Obama as a socialist/fascist reveals either a lack of reason or of honesty.

Posted by thompsaj | May 11, 2008 6:44 PM

sorry, that was in response to this quote from Gekko:

"thompsaj,
How come every time a democrat is attacked for wanting to grossly enlarge the state's power Bush's misrule is used as a counter argument?"

Posted by thompsaj | May 11, 2008 6:47 PM

James Gary,

Your question about why I thought Clinton might be getting out of control in 1996 is reasonable. I can only plead intutitive confusion. I knew then (and know now) that he was by far the most able president of my lifetime, but felt that he had what Herman Hesse used to call "Inner Demons", combined with a tendency towards excess.

I felt that Bob Dole was a reasonable guy then (I would question that judgement now), and that Clinton would be less likely to waste his second term if his margin of victory was chastening.

As I said, I am somewhat rueful about the whole business, given how horrible W. has been.

Posted by Tim Connor | May 11, 2008 8:37 PM

I'm not enthusiastic about efficiency mandates myself

Why not?

You're not still upset over that miles-per-gallon/gallons-per-mile nonsense are you?

Posted by Jinchi | May 11, 2008 11:01 PM

That's a fine opinion to have -- I'm not enthusiastic about efficiency mandates myself -- but that's still no reason to mislead your readers by misdescribing the content of Obama's economic agenda.

But Matt, if he doesn't mislead his readers his beliefs will crumble in the in the rays of the sun. Such is the brittle natrue of libertarianism and conservatism; it can't withstand scientific inquiry, it's a 'faith based' political belief system.

Posted by Northern Observer | May 12, 2008 9:43 AM

Tim Connor @ May 11, 2008 11:58 AM nails it:

"It is impossible to educate those who have no desire to change."

Rubes like Instapundit and Al either don't understand basic lessons of civics and economics that the rest of us learned in high school or they did learn it and are lying. I don't know which is worse.

And the irony of alleged libertarian Reynolds teaching at a state-funded school is just too rich. The answer to this irony is obvious, of course--no one else offered him a job.

Posted by Charles Giacometti | May 12, 2008 11:38 AM

"Right, and the Labor Party remains theoretically committed -- although obviously not in practice -- to state ownership of the means of production."

Actually, no, not even theoretically. One of Blair's first examples of 'pick a fight with your own Party to appease the rightwing British Press' once he became leader was to have Clause 4, which called for (re)nationalisation, struck from the Labour Party manifesto.

Al's just being an ill-informed ass, as usual. The Labour Party has been officially NOT socialist for over a decade, and very clear about it.

Posted by Tony J | May 12, 2008 1:55 PM