A friend of mine directs me to this piece by Peter Klein in which he rants against the “sorry state of economic journalism”:
Yglesias is representative of a new generation of blogger-journalists, such as Megan McArdle, Ezra Klein, and Felix Salmon, who express bold, confident opinions on all issues under the sun, without much substantive knowledge or understanding of any. These writers don’t do a lot of reporting, or investigating, but specialize in editorializing, even in what are ostensibly “news” items. Yglesias, in particular, excels in relationship reporting — which group is connected to which, who dislikes whom, what this person said about that person — but can’t take the time to learn the actual arguments under consideration.
There are plenty of technically unqualified bloggers (yours truly, in particular) hurling amateur propaganda into the blogosphere, touching on all mainstream social sciences. But what came to mind while reading Klein’s piece was who we would be left with if these guys were somehow marginalized. For economics, we’d turn to Paul Krugman or Bryan Caplan; Jared Bernstein or Russ Roberts. For law, maybe Jack Balkin or Eugene Volokh. Though qualified, these guys are hardly in total agreement on the things on which they’re qualified to speak. So how is it that so many really smart people disagree on, essentially, how to do their jobs?
It’s worth it to compare constitutional law and macroeconomics in this sense. Constitutional law is, in theory, about what the Constitution does and does not permit. A few vague words provide ample room for scholars and judges to color their meaning with a particular ideology and cherry-picked historical “evidence”. Economics, too, and macroeconomics in particular, is, as I understand it, the attempt to make cause-and-effect sense of large scale exchange of goods and services. Unfortunately for us, there is historical evidence supporting the likes of both Mankiw and Krugman. I suspect, in both law and economics, we use preferred aspects of each social science to argue for or against a particular ideology-based policy preference.
This isn’t so much a response to Klein (himself a Ron Paulian, by the way) as it is an expansion upon his point, I think. Amateur, non-”qualified” bloggers may make mistakes that professionals in the particular field would not. But even if they didn’t, I suspect we wouldn’t have that much more clarity on the issues…at least insofar as appealing to authority goes.
Lose he will, most think, regardless of what happens in Iowa. However:
Paul’s success matters because no matter who wins in 2012 they will find their policy options tightly constrained by the movement he has helped to construct. A potential Republican President will find himself in a particular bind. Just look at what’s happened to John Boehner. And coming in Paul’s wake is Rand Paul, a far more telegenic character who has mastered the Neo-Confederate synergy of Ante-Bellum Dixie economics and old-tyme religion. The organization Ron Paul has built could reach a tipping point under Rand’s influence.
For rationalist Republicans struggling to regain some relevance in the party Ron Paul’s success is particularly instructive. Instead of engaging in the contortions that created John McCain’s 2008 “success” in the nominating campaign, we might be better off repeating the apparent failure of 2000, following such failures with carefully grassroots coalition-building. The White House is a hollow prize for anyone who can’t influence the base.
Politics is not about winning elections, it is about wielding power. Paul offers some valuable lessons in politics that rationalists could put to use.
Most people think that Mitt Romney will eventually walk away with the Republican nomination. But compare Romney to Ron Paul — you couldn’t find a starker contrast in terms of the kind of politicians these two are. Romney, like the vast majority of politicians, cares primarily about winning elections, and his fungibility over the years is all the proof you need. You certainly cannot say the same thing about Ron Paul, at least at the presidential level, regardless of whether you agree with him. I honestly don’t even think the guy wants to be President; he’d seem to be more content being the contemporary father of an old philosophy that gains more and more influence in the coming years.
Libertarians have plenty to be encouraged about these days.
Contrary to what I said yesterday, there is a plethora of ways to sum up Kim Jong Il’s legacy. Here’s another:
None of this, of course, prevents the brainwashed masses from making an unparalleled public display of grief.
I have spoken with staff who migrated from the Ron Paul campaign to Gary Johnson’s camp. One thing I have been told is that they are frustrated that many libertarians in the Ron Paul camp equate being a libertarian with supporting the Paul clan. Many supporters of Ron Paul find that they can only support Ron Paul and Rand Paul, and that all the other candidates are not worthy of their attention. This past week, the FrumForum mailbox has been getting angry emails about how we’ve recently attacked Ron Paul. We’ve critiqued other libertarians before, but when you attack a person’s political savior, they take it a bit more personally.
He goes on to cite Kevin Williamson’s report [blocked by paywall, sorry] on the nature of the Ron Paul supporter:
[This] much they [Ron Paul fans] are certain of: The United States of America is an “empire,” the Federal Reserve is the capitol citadel of wickedness in the modern world, and Ron Paul — Doctor Paul — is “the one man in America who is willing to tell the truth,” “the one man who truly cannot be bought,” “the one man for the people,” and, in the Paul campaign’s own fevered imagination, “the one who will stop the spending, save the dollar, create jobs, bring peace — the one who will restore liberty. Ron Paul: The one who can beat Obama — and restore America now.”
He concludes:
One project that libertarians may want to consider is how to give the libertarians in the Republican party prominent voices that are not called Ron Paul. These voices would not have to make evasions on issues such as whether the Confederacy was a bad idea. Then the debate over whether we need a night-watchmen state can be done without Paul’s considerable baggage.
My take is this. Ron Paul supporters think they actually have a chance to make some real libertarian noise this year, which is understandable given that Paul really might win Iowa in a few weeks. But Libertarianism cannot afford a rift right now. For the movement to eventually gain support of enough of a percentage of American voters to be taken seriously, it has to stand united behind one candidate that can a) promote and sell the philosophy, and b) garner the support that demonstrates this is a viable political alternative to what we have today. Ron Paul, as a candidate, has some serious flaws — electability being the most prominent, in my view. But the better Ron Paul does this time around, the better for Libertarianism as a whole down the road, whoever the standard-bearer may then be.
For other takes on this, see Andrew Sullivan’s endorsement, David Frum’s response, and Connor Friedersdorf’s response to Frum.
Here’s what’s been in the news in the aftermath of the former Speaker’s interview on Face the Nation over the weekend:
Citing what he describes as “extreme behavior” on the party of the judicial system, Gingrich proposes a system wherein “it’s always two out of three.”
“If the Congress and the court say the president is wrong, in the end the president would lose. And if the president and the court agreed, the Congress loses,” said Gingrich. “The founding fathers designed the Constitution very specifically in a Montesquieu spirit of the laws to have a balance of power — not to have a dictatorship by any one of the three branches.” . . .
Gingrich conceded today that a number of legal experts would not necessarily be comfortable with his take on the separation of power within the American government. But, he says, that’s the point.
“I think many lawyers will find this a very frightening idea,” he said. “They’ve had this run of 50 years of pretending judges are supreme, that they can’t be challenged. The lawyer class defines America. We’ve had rulings that outlawed school prayer, we’ve had rulings that outlawed the cross, we’ve had rulings the outlawed the 10 Commandments, we’ve had a steady secular drive to radicalize this country away from all of its core beliefs.”
Here’s a bit of a rant by Les Francis over at FrumForum:
Because of Marbury, the federal judiciary is the recognized and essential referee when something has to be called in or out of constitutional bounds. As a democratic society we’ve gone along with that system for a very good reason: Someone has to have a whistle and a yellow flag, and the accompanying authority and respect to make the calls stick. Presidents must accept the Courts’ decisions, as must Congress, as must we all. We don’t give the loudest or most shrill people in the stadium the power to reverse the ref’s verdict. Nor do we turn to Gallup, Roper, or Harris to make the call.
We can disagree with the Court’s decisions, and have, from Marbury, to Dred Scott, to Roe vs. Wade and Bush v. Gore—and thousands in between and since. But we obey and respect them because the alternative is chaos and, for some, grievous injustice.
So when Mr. Gingrich rails against “activist” or “elitist” judges, or when he accuses the judiciary of being dominated by “un-American” values, we might reasonably conclude that the former Speaker is a somewhat unhinged and dangerous demagogue, rather than merely an objective (non-lobbying but high priced) historian. On the other hand, if his statements are an accurate reflection of Mr. Gingrich’s knowledge and understanding of American history, maybe Freddie Mac should seek a refund.
I’m not going to defend his comments, but I kind of find the outside-of-the-box thinking to be healthy, even if only to reaffirm the merits of our current system of judicial review. Gingrich is hardly the first to use the “activist” or “elitist” labels; these are among the favorite jabs used by conservative thinkers, often by those sitting on the federal bench itself. And there are legal scholars out there who support abolishing judicial review on the theory that a nine-person Supreme Court is no better at protecting rights than democratic legislatures, and that the process itself is antithetical to democracy (which, of course, America technically is not).
Abolishing judicial review would seemingly create a de facto two out of three system, though it would not involve the Supreme Court: bicameralism and presentment would be the only option in such a scenario. But an actual two out of three system? There are a million questions I could ask, but one that comes to mind is what would a two out of three situation with the Supreme Court and the President look like? Who would write the law? In reality, judicial review of federal laws, like we have today, inherently involves a two out of three situation — laws challenged in the courts have already been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. The only thing is that the Supreme Court can effectively veto it.
This could all be debated and discussed forever. But I like the fact that something as nerdy as judicial review is in the news.
