While we are on the subject: I just found out one of my old grad school buddies – no, not the same one as devised the moral sense test – is selling Star Wars-themed Obama t-shirts. Proceeds go to the candidate. (It’s the sort of T-shirt that feeds hand-wringing about how liberals think Obama is ‘the One’. But they were going to do that anyway, so feel free.)
Also, I was going to make a one-line response yesterday to this K-Lo post. Something along the lines of: good idea, now I don’t have to do it. But then it occurred to me: that means I don’t have to do it. But today the results are too rich. OK, here’s the set-up. One of the pieces she links, as the sort of thing that might convert those on the fence, is this thing by Bill Whittle. Executive summary: it turns out that Barrack Obama doesn’t think that the Constitution mandates a certain class of liberal economic/social policies. So if we feel we need those, we should try to get them legislated, rather than wrangling to get them handed down from the Supreme Court. Also, the Supreme Court probably isn’t very good at that sort of thing, even if it had the authority, so that’s another reason to go the legislative rather than judicial route. Whittle believes this radical position “should profoundly shock any American.” I’m willing to put it to the test. Tell someone who is on the fence that this is what Obama believes, and see whether they find it shocking.
Results are starting to trickle in from this outreach effort. David Bernstein, at the Volokh Conspiracy:
“Obama gives a very impressive performance as a constitutional scholar.” …
Moving along to Whittle’s fall-back position – Obama’s a socialist! he’s in favor of ‘restributing wealth’! – here’s Bernstein, ever the socialist:
It’s true that most Americans, when asked by pollsters, think that it’s emphatically not the government’s job to redistribute wealth. But are people so stupid as to not recognize that when politicians talk about a “right to health care,” or “equalizing educational opportunities,” or “making the rich pay a fair share of taxes,” or “ensuring that all Americans have the means to go to college,” and so forth and so on, that they are advocating the redistribution of wealth? Is it okay for a politician to talk about the redistribution of wealth only so long as you don’t actually use phrases such as “redistribution” or “spreading the wealth,” in which case he suddenly becomes “socialist”? If so, then American political discourse, which I never thought to be especially elevated, is in even a worse state than I thought.
Orin Kerr says much the same.
Today at the Corner Mark Levin is spluttering at the lack of interest in Obama’s radical judicial philosophy here and (against the Volokhs) here.
And Andy McCarthy here.
I think it’s great that, in the last days of the campaign, the anti-Obama forces are trying to win over undecideds with nonsense that annoys even David Bernstein. I hope that, every day, they all decide to spread this wealth of information: that Obama doesn’t think the Supreme Court should get too entangled in matters that are properly legislative.
UPDATE: And my wish comes true! The WSJ editorial page is on the case!. Obama’s judgment that, for reasons of principle and prudence, the Supreme Court should probably not legislate liberal social justice from the bench “raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” as he must do if he is to take office.'” (Admitedly, the editorial writer, Steven Calabresi, has the good sense to quote selectively in such a way that Obama at least sounds like he was saying the opposite of what he said and meant. Take notes, Cornerites! This is a smoother vein of hackery.)
{ 49 comments }
Kieran Healy 10.28.08 at 4:53 am
There’s this one, which is kind of the other way around.
John Quiggin 10.28.08 at 5:05 am
This is startlingly stupid, even by the standards of the Corner. But the good thing is that, having committed themselves to the claim that the election is a referendum on socialism, they will look pretty silly denouncing the quasi-socialist measures Obama will be forced to implement in response to the crisis, following the lead of the current Administration. Not that it will stop them, of course.
blah 10.28.08 at 5:28 am
They are truly desperate. When I heard the latest line of attack, I thought it sounded like a pretty standard line of reasoning heard in Con Law I. I thought, “They are getting worked up over that? Really?”
Our next desperate attempt 10.28.08 at 6:07 am
The taxation we have now is like roommates splitting utilities. What BHO said indicates something a bit different: that it’s a good thing to spread the wealth around. That’s a socialistic notion. He didn’t say we should all chip in to pay for roads, he wanted to make things more equal. That doesn’t mean he’s a full-on Marxist, just that he’s well on the socialistic end of the scale.
On the wider topic, public employees accessed JTP’s private records, and one of those who did it is… a max’ed out BHO donor. No one here needs to worry about that, I’m sure. Just don’t let anyone catch you saying anything against The One.
See my name’s link for what I hope will become our next desperate attempt. Maybe your friend can bring in a lot of money selling red scarves.
Zamfir 10.28.08 at 9:41 am
@ Our desperate attempt, from your post I presume that oppose any tax cuts? After all, if the current situation is like splitting bills, then lowering taxes for high incomes would be redistribution?
jholbo 10.28.08 at 12:12 pm
“The taxation we have now is like roommates splitting utilities.”
Do you really have progressive utility splitting in your household, based on roommate income? That’s very progressive of you, desperate attempt.
Maurice Meilleur 10.28.08 at 12:15 pm
Hi, #4. Such a clever way of sneaking Obama’s middle name in the back door. (Isn’t that something else your team has been insinuating about him, by the way?)
Do me a favor, would you please, and define ‘socialism’? Bonus points for contemporary examples of socialists or socialist systems.
I would also like to announce that, because I’ve donated $300 to Obama’s campaign and bought a poster, if I don’t get all my midterms graded today, it will be Obama’s fault.
stostosto 10.28.08 at 12:15 pm
Joe the Plumber said he was going to make between $25ok and $280k. (No ordinary plumber, this Joe). Obama’s proposal will raise taxes in this bracket by 3 percentage points. 3 percent of $30k is $900. That’s the cost of Obama for Joe the Plumber. Just a little perspective.
And please, can American conservatives stop with the “socialist” labelling of such tax proposals. It has even been called “Marxist”. Words do mean something.
Btw, the biggest “spreading the wealth around” that Obama could hope to achieve isn’t so much by tweaking the tax code, but by providing universal public services of high quality to all Americans, especially in health care and education.
It’s ridiculous that America spends fully twice the amount on health care that other advanced countries do while having virtually nothing to show for it in terms of general health – and at the same time leaving tens of millions of people without any cover at all.
Alas, here, as in taxation, Obama’s plan doesn’t go very far. In fact what he is proposing is really very modest, bordering on timidity. The hysteria it is nevertheless inspiring in the right wing echo chamber is indicative of their warped worldview.
Marc 10.28.08 at 12:23 pm
It is an odd, odd position to claim that giving large tax breaks to the wealthy is right and proper, while giving tax breaks instead to middle class folks is socialism. And that is the entire current platform of the McCain campaign – at least until they discover the dangers of flouridated drinking water sapping our precious bodily fluids.
rea 10.28.08 at 12:24 pm
That’s a socialistic notion.
That’s Rooseveltian, for crying out loud, and not Franklin but Theodore. The 20th Century happened, desperate attempt, get over it. There’s nothin radical about progressive taxation.
Maurice Meilleur 10.28.08 at 12:25 pm
My wife was looking over my shoulder as I was writing and remarked that not having my exams graded is nothing like the crime ‘desperate attempt’ mentioned. She’s right, of course. If we had just maxed out our donations, I could put Obama on the hook for invasion of privacy, violating public ethics laws, and abuse of state power.
Ginger Yellow 10.28.08 at 1:17 pm
This latest attack really is the stupidest in a long line of stupid attacks. Conservatives have spent years railing against how undemocratic and unconstitutional it is to “legislate from the bench”, and that social change should come via the legislature or via the community. Obama basically says they’re right, and suggests that if liberals want to effect social change on moral issues, they should do it through community activism and legislation . And they attack him for it. They really are unbelievable.
Mrs Tilton 10.28.08 at 1:57 pm
David Bernstein is talking sense? David Bernstein?! If McCain’s partisans are spewing drivel so stupid that even David Bernstein feels compelled to call them on it, that is… is… is excellent news for John McCain, my friends.
J Thomas 10.28.08 at 1:59 pm
Joe the Plumber said he was going to make between $25ok and $280k. (No ordinary plumber, this Joe).
Seems unlikely. He is not a plumber but a plumber’s helper. The small private company that employs him was on record as making around $100,000 a year. (Figures in the Thomas registry etc are usually out of date, but it’s unlikely it would be that much more.)
He had had a general discussion with the owner about maybe taking over the business some day, when the owner gets too old to run it. Not like he’s making enough money to buy it out within the next few years.
Steve LaBonne 10.28.08 at 2:20 pm
So apparently Ike was a commie, just like McCarthy said! Because the top tax rate in his time was 91%. Obama only wants to revert to the Clinton rate of 39.6%, lowered by Bush to 35%.
Fucking clueless gits, these wingers.
Donald A. Coffin 10.28.08 at 2:46 pm
But none of you really gets it. If McCain gets elected, the Supreme Court will be solidly right-wing, so the socialist legislators will be unable to spread the wealth and destory the moral fiber of America. But if Obama gets elected and appoints his socialist cronies to the Surpreme Court, the socialists in Congress can move their–and his–agenda forwarded without restraint.
Or something like that.
(BTW–I’m being snarky here.)
michael e sullivan 10.28.08 at 4:18 pm
Seems unlikely. He is not a plumber but a plumber’s helper. The small private company that employs him was on record as making around $100,000 a year. (Figures in the Thomas registry etc are usually out of date, but it’s unlikely it would be that much more.)
Yeah, my guess is that Joe the Plumber was either too stupid or too politically motivated to distinguish between gross revenue and profit. a typical one plumber’s business could easily gross over 250k, but plumber probably takes home 250k in taxable income is as much CEO as plumber, even if s/he still goes out on jobs.
michael e sullivan 10.28.08 at 4:21 pm
Woops, I just lost 1/2 my comment to something the site thought was a markup. danger of greater than/less-than signs. Sorry.
Let’s try: “a typical one plumber’s business could easily gross over 250k, but plumber probably takes home less than 100k after expenses and assistant’s pay. A business that generates over 250k in taxable income is as much CEO as plumber, even if s/he still goes out on jobs.
lemuel pitkin 10.28.08 at 4:29 pm
He is not a plumber but a plumber’s helper. The small private company that employs him was on record as making around $100,000 a year. … He had had a general discussion with the owner about maybe taking over the business some day, when the owner gets too old to run it. Not like he’s making enough money to buy it out within the next few years.
This is very interesting!
Ruy Teixeira used to talk a lot about how economic populism doesn’t get much purchase in the US because people vote based on their aspirations (or fantasies, if you prefer) rather than their reality. Evidently this is a lot less true than it used to be, but it’s nice to see this pehonomenon illustrated so nicely by Joe the Plumber — not a succeful small business owner, but an ordinary working-class guy who *wishes* he were a successful small business owner. I reckon the Rs were smart to highlight him, since this sort of aspirational voting is a big aprt of their appeal; it’s just that economic reality has gotten a bit too insistent lately for fantasy to carry the election.
lemuel pitkin 10.28.08 at 4:38 pm
Joe the Plumber was either too stupid or too politically motivated
Maybe. But my guess is he was neither. More likely, he’s just one more in a long line of American Gatsbys who bought what the country was selling.
David in NY 10.28.08 at 4:47 pm
I once thought that the Federalist Society had some principled constitutional positions. Assuming that Calabresi reflects the views of the Society he founded, I was quite wrong.
MarkUp 10.28.08 at 5:01 pm
Hard to beat this one – he’s obviously seeking a seat at the table after Obama finds need to fill a cabinet….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122506895498170731.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Our next desperate attempt 10.28.08 at 5:12 pm
OK, let me try to simplify this as much as possible:
Let’s say three people split a house.
Roommate1 makes a lot of money.
Roommate2 makes a little less money.
Roommate3 doesn’t make much money.
Plan 1: They split utilities, with Roommate1 paying a little more than Roommate2, and Roommate3 paying least of all. They agree since they’re all friendly it’s an OK situation.
Plan 2: In addition to the above, Roommate1 turns over part of his paycheck to Roommate3 not for utilities, but for whatever loony things Roommate3 wants to buy at the same time as Roommate3 isn’t trying to earn more money to buy stuff with his own money. There’s no reason for that “spreading around” other than just to be fair and to be “better for everyone”.
Is that more understandable?
Michael Turner 10.28.08 at 5:19 pm
K-Lo says what if we, of the Mighty NRO Faithful, decide to talk up this thing, and what if we talk up that thing, and what if we talk up the other thing, too? You game? You got game for this? Any of you?
Ms Lopez, listen to me: what if … nobody cares?
That would be bad, you say? But there’s worse.
What if … being Identified, Certifiable NRO Faithful only causes certain people in your potential audience to glance at their watches and say oh sorry but I totally forgot that I gotta get the dog to the vet? You know, their dog named Lucifer? The one that used to be named Irene, but then they found out that Saul Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals to somebody named Irene, when so many people are saying recently he dedicated it to Lucifer, even this guy Pinkerton is saying it, you must know the Pinkerton I mean, so they decided to change their dog’s name to be more reality-based, because the only explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that Irene is just another name for Lucifer anyway, and if so, why confuse people, why not just come out with it and call the damned dog Lucifer even though she’s a girl and they always thought Lucifer was a guy, sort of, but then again, are archangels, even the fallen ones, possessed of gender in any sense?
What if … certain quietly sadistic types, having picked up on your NRO FaithfulTalk, just nod and smile, going “uh-huh … uh-huh … oh, yeah? … uh-huh”, all the way through, causing you to waste your breath and your time, and at the end smack their foreheads and say, “Oh shit, there’s this stuff I’ve gotta return to Neiman-Marcus for a six-figure refund, boxes and boxes of it, never opened, still on a plane somewhere near here, and Neiman-Marcus closes in 20 minutes, and these people really need that money for a TV spot of some kind, some regional market in Pennsylvania or Ohio, I forget which, so I gotta go, but listen it’s been great seeing you again, stay in touch, don’t be a stranger, lunch sometime maybe ….”
What if they start listening to you, but then suddenly break in and say, “You know, I just realized something: if you scored an M in your cheek in the mirror, say with a nail file, it would look just like an M to other people, wouldn’t it? But if you tried to do that with a J, people might get confused …. S is similarly problematic, and P, well, don’t get me started, some people might tease you saying it looks like an upside down 6 and that maybe the other two are hidden back of your hairline somewhere …..”
What if, K-Lo? I’m game if you are.
Adam Kotsko 10.28.08 at 5:25 pm
I don’t think Obama is proposing taxing the rich to give the poor walking around money.
Ginger Yellow 10.28.08 at 5:38 pm
“Roommate1 turns over part of his paycheck to Roommate3 not for utilities, but for whatever loony things Roommate3 wants to buy at the same time as Roommate3 isn’t trying to earn more money to buy stuff with his own money. ”
Isn’t part of the conservative argument against progressive taxation that high marginal tax rates disincentivise productivity? Shouldn’t, in that argumentative framework, Obama’s tax credit incentivise productivity?
John Holbo 10.28.08 at 5:41 pm
“There’s no reason for that “spreading around†other than just to be fair and to be “better for everyoneâ€.
Is that more understandable?”
Yes, but then what is your problem with Obama?
Steve LaBonne 10.28.08 at 5:45 pm
Well, not unless they’re black ACORN voter-registration workers. ;)
(For the wingnuts- please Google “emoticons” before getting excited.)
engels 10.28.08 at 6:07 pm
I assume what ONDA is saying that it is okay (in a friendly situation) to distribute the burden of taxation for essential government services unequally but it is illegitimate to tax anyone for the purpose of transferring wealth to others for his/her private use.
Talking about a “right to health care,†(and the other items on Bernstein’s list) could be consistent with this principle, if the notion of ‘essential government services’ was expanded to include things like adequate health care, etc. “Spreading the wealth,” could be interpreted as a departure from it.
engels 10.28.08 at 6:10 pm
(Then again I haven’t been following this whole brouhaha so perhaps the above is just annoyingly naive.)
Keith 10.28.08 at 7:08 pm
The amount of extra money Roommate 1 is “redistributing” to Roommate 3 in your example ONDA, is equivalent to 1 buying 3 a ham sandwich (which under McCain’s plan counts as preventative care). That’s the level of wealth redistribution Obama’s plan entails: buying your buddy a ham sandwich when he can’t afford one.
engels 10.28.08 at 7:27 pm
Okay, on reflection that doesn’t make much sense. I’ll try again.
You might think of the task of government as protecting basic rights and guaranteeing equality of opportunity to all. Differential taxation is acceptable for these purposes but it is not acceptable for the purpose of making the market’s distribution of rewards more equitable, in particular as regards the differences between those in and out-of work. Isn’t this fairly close to what Ronald Dworkin calls ‘starting-gate equality’?
engels 10.28.08 at 7:28 pm
(Btw I’m not defending any of this of course.)
Our next desperate attempt 10.28.08 at 7:50 pm
John Holbo, #27: writes Yes, but then what is your problem with Obama?
Is everyone trained well enough to be able to provide the “answer”?
Meanwhile, I have a handy search feature on every page of my site, right in the upper right corner. Typing Obama there will return what looks to be a couple hundred pages. Some only mention him in passing, but I’m sure the readers of this site can figure out which deal directly with him. That includes things you haven’t heard from the MSM or even bloggers, like these:
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007920.html
http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/007603.html
Those are just examples of things the MSM and even bloggers won’t discuss, not examples of the worst things.
Note that I’m currently getting 900+ hits per hour, with presumably most of those reading about the BHO plan at my name’s link, and those are from people who took the time to copy a URL and put it in their address bar. Good luck when the BHO plan gets even wider scrutiny.
engels 10.28.08 at 7:59 pm
(Sorry, not close to starting-gate equality at all really, but perhaps bearing some comparison with it.)
Maurice Meilleur 10.28.08 at 8:06 pm
In addition to the above, Roommate1 turns over part of his paycheck to Roommate3 not for utilities, but for whatever loony things Roommate3 wants to buy at the same time as Roommate3 isn’t trying to earn more money to buy stuff with his own money.
Wait–socialism is where the poor, the sick, and the foreclosed quit their jobs and take their taxpayer money and head to Surf-n-Slide and the Dollar Store?
That is so cool. I wish I lived in socialism.
engels 10.28.08 at 8:09 pm
(Maybe Rawls’ ‘liberal equality’ would be a better point of reference…)
Keith 10.28.08 at 11:56 pm
things the MSM and even bloggers won’t discuss
Ah, now where onto the heart of the matter! This is about Michelle Obama and the African News Agency thing, right? Or is it Obama’s imaginary girlfriend? Or is there some new Right Wing fantasy involving Obama being in the theater the night Lincoln was shot? Between this and the Marxist/Muslim nonsense, I can’t keep track of which idiotic conspiracy theory you’re spinning, ONDA.
Western Dave 10.29.08 at 1:22 am
Nah, it’s a rehash of the immigration xenophobia that failed to sink McCain’s candidacy.
Michael Turner 10.29.08 at 1:35 am
“Or is there some new Right Wing fantasy involving Obama being in the theater the night Lincoln was shot?”
No way. The imagination on you! Haven’t you heard? He has an alibi. He was somewhere else that night, cheating on John Wilkes Booth with another man. There’s a sworn deposition.
John Holbo 10.29.08 at 2:21 am
“Is everyone trained well enough to be able to provide the “answerâ€?”
Ah, unintended irony. The spice of life.
Our next desperate attempt 10.29.08 at 4:21 am
No, irony would be if an MSM reporter ends up being sent to Anchorage after one of the BHO-indoctrinated pre-teens (see my name’s link) ends up ratting the reporter out after he shouts, “I hate Obama!” in his sleep.
I also note that neither Keith nor Western Dave were able to discuss any of the points I raised at the links above.
For instance, why was an “honest conversation” from Obama so full of lies? I’m going to guess that 90% of those who heard what he said didn’t realize how misleading he was being. No doubt his statements on other topics are full of lies, since those aren’t the only lies I’ve caught him in. For instance, he’s repeatedly lied about Census Bureau and other statistics.
Change you can believe in, just as long as you’re easily fooled.
Michael Turner 10.29.08 at 4:42 am
That Calabresi thing in the WSJ ends with this:
The poor guy is gonna strain his vocal cords if he’s not careful.
Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society. Quite a few Bush appointees have testified that, yes, they are members of this group, thank you for asking, but also that they don’t really know what the organization represents. Or they say it’s really just a kind of discussion group. About law and the Constitution. And stuff.
OK, right, so I go to the Federalist Society website, and I read their “About” page. Which I suppose some of these Bush appointees never bothered to check before (or, for that matter, after) joining the society. Even though one would think that they, as esteemed and ambitious professionals in the judicial branch of government, would tend to jealously guard their sterling reputations from any possible guilt-by-association smear, and thus carefully vet any organization that would have them as a member.
The Federalist Society “About” page starts off like this:
“… and indeed as if they were ….” Yes, it really says that. Go look.
These people are gonna strain their vocal cords if they aren’t careful.
Pete 10.29.08 at 11:34 am
The trouble with the roommate analogy is that people usually choose their roommates.
Where they don’t, or they don’t get on, then you see people labelling their milk and having stand-up rows over a piece of bread. Not so much because of the value of the thing, but because it’s theirs.
I don’t think you’ll find very many situations in real life where nonfamily members are sharing accomodation with explicit redistribution.
inigo 10.29.08 at 1:16 pm
That analogy, more accurately:
Roommate 1 makes a shedload of money, is pals with the local Ultimate Fighting club, has dirt on the landlord and is the only one with his name on the lease. He sublets to the other two at half the rent each, but whenever the utility bills fall due, he’s either broke, nowhere to be seen, or says he’ll deal with it and then doesn’t, leaving Roommates 2 & 3 to pick up his share plus the reconnection charges.
Roommate 2 has a reasonable job, can therefore cope with the expense and puts up with the hassle because she’s too busy working to look for another apartment, but when she is home spends most of her energy berating Rommate 3 for not keeping the place neat and tidy enough.
Roommate 3 is a day labourer and usually ends up blowing his wages for a good week on catching up with the rent and bills for the previous month, then cadging $20 from Roommate 1 to keep himself afloat till his next shift.
Roommate 1 is never done bitching about these loans, and keeps threatening to demand sexual favours in return. This makes Roommate 2 jealous.
tps12 10.29.08 at 3:11 pm
Congrats to comment 4 for a textbook thread-derailing. Bonus points for spamming links to the commenter’s own blog. That’s how it’s done, folks.
lemuel pitkin 10.29.08 at 9:07 pm
Folks may not realize that ONDA is the same person who used to comment here as Lone Wacko (lonewacko.com now forwards to 24ahead.com). He doesn’t really care about taxation — it’s all about the immigrants with him. Note his very low opinion of Bush, who was certainly no wealth-spreader but showed an altogether insufficient hatred of Mexicans. So, caveat lector.
M. Gordon 10.29.08 at 9:47 pm
Gordon’s corollary to Godwin’s Law: Any person who refers to Barack Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama” is automatically disqualified from making any further rational contributions to the discourse.
Michael Turner 10.30.08 at 4:13 am
I’ve noticed “B. Hussein O.” a lot recently. Google it — you get a Children’s Garden of Especially Special Wingnuttery. Clever as hell, isn’t it? It’s like you get to allude spookily to Saddam but also pinch your nose shut and giggle, intoning, nasally “B … O …”. At the same time!
It gets old after about the 20th rep, though, and then we just want our milk and graham crackers, followed by a nap, and then doing something really creative with Elmer’s glue and colored construction paper, teasing Shelley the whole time about how the glue looks like that booger that shot out her nose and onto her blouse earlier that day, out on the playground, when she laughed too hard after Tommy yelled, “Red Rover Red Rover, let Benito Mussolini — I mean Joe Biden — come over!”
Comments on this entry are closed.