I’m reading The Conservatives Have No Clothes [amazon], by Greg Anrig. Pretty good so far, but:

It is difficult to overstate the impact of the Heritage Foundation – along with the much broader network of conservative think tanks, foundations, university-based programs, activist organizations and media affiliates – on U.S. public policy and debates over the role of government in recent years. (p. 2)

Phrases like ‘it would be difficult to overstate’ are a delicate way of saying it would be difficult to state. But it’s a lot. But Anrig’s thesis hinges on how much:

The philosophies of the leading individuals who financed movement conservatism are far outside the mainstream. (David H. Koch ran as a vice presidential candidate on the Libertarian Party ticket in 1980, receiving just over 1 percent of the vote – a typical showing for libertarians running for public office even today.) But the institutions receiving their largesse needed to concoct strategies for simultaneously keeping those founders happy while also building a broad political coalition.

The real wonder of the conservative enterprise has been its ability to transform the rudimendary desire of a handful of wealthy families to gut the government into a set of public policy ideas that would help to accomplish that goal while sounding appetizing enough to attract large numbers of voters. Rather ingeniously, the simple, easy-to-understand ideas they developed are largely consistent with each other and elegantly link to a broader story line that the conservative movement has effectively sold with remarkable sophistication. That’s how the right won the war of ideas. It’s also the underlying reason why those ideas are failing. (p. 11)

One should, of course, read the book before judging; but I expect a lot of skeptics would fire back promptly that this is shaping up to be a too-easy false consciousness thesis. The whole ‘appetizing enough to attract lots of voters’ bit doesn’t sit easily with the ‘far outside the mainstream’. (Why did Ron Paul raise 4 mill. from 40,000 individual contributors in a single day? Obviously he’s still polling at the traditional, libertarian 1%. But there’s something a bit more going on, surely.) I’m actually pretty sympathetic to Anrig’s overall case, but what is precisely difficult is rigorously refraining from overstating the degree to which his basically plausible, coherent narrative is accurate. Just how influential has Heritage been?

Today is 150 days after the Belgian elections, and there is still no government. The crisis is as deep as it was when I last “wrote about it”:https://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/19/the-ingredients-of-the-belgian-cocktail/. There have been partial agreements between the negotiating parties over the last weeks, but for none of the crucial issues there is an agreement yet – the situation of the Francophone population in the Flemish border communes around Brussels, a solution to the crisis in the election district Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde, some aspects of the welfare state reform, and the government budget.

And it is a crucial day: the Commission Internal Affairs of the National Parliament (where the Flemish make up the majority) has a meeting today, and the Flemish parties have threatened that if there is no (for them acceptable) compromise (or at least the beginning of a compromise) on Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde in the coalition negotiations, they will use their majority position to vote for the splitting of this election district. Such a Flemish-Francophone majority-minority decision would be unheard off for Belgian political norms, since it would basically imply that the Flemish majority imposes its will on the Francophone minority. All political commentators argue that this would only deepen the political crisis.

I haven’t been following each and every detail of Belgian politics in the last two months – even for a Belgian it is rather complicated, and the constant political incidents and provocations (from both sides), which have continued even after the negotiations have been resumed, are making me tired and slightly depressed. Readers who had more time and energy to follow the debate are very welcome to expand below. In the meantime we’ll be waiting to see what happens on this crucial day – the Commission Internal Affairs meets in 4 hours and 55 minutes, and so far there is no sight on any solution for Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde in the coalition negotiations.

It’s election time here in Australia, and there are some reasons why readers Down Under (from our perspective)

might be more interested than usual.

George Bush has no more reliable ally than the Liberal (=conservative) government of John Howard. Howard has backed Bush straight down the line on Iraq and climate change, and (unlike Tony Blair) raised no objection when Australians were held in Guantanamo Bay for years on end. The general assumption among political hardheads until about a year ago was that, although these positions might be unpopular, Australians would not vote against an incumbent government when the economy was going well. Labor was ahead in the polls, but no-one really believed it. But after a change of leaders at the end of 2006, Labor moved to a large lead in the polls, which it has kept ever since.

[click to continue…]

The “Financial Times”:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d758a1e-8af8-11dc-95f7-0000779fd2ac.html, for reasons best known to itself, serves up this “steaming heap of buffalo dung”:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d758a1e-8af8-11dc-95f7-0000779fd2ac.html from Heritage Foundation Vice-President for Governmental Affairs, Michael Franc, on its op-ed page.

A legislative proposal that was once on the fast track is suddenly dead. The Senate will not consider a plan to extract billions in extra taxes from mega-millionaire hedge fund managers. … Far from embarrassing, this episode may reflect a dawning Democratic awareness of whom they really represent. For the demographic reality is that, in America, the Democratic party is the new “party of the rich”. More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households. Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers – single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 – and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them. …Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats. …

Soon this new political demographic may give traditional purveyors of class warfare the yips. To comply with new budget rules, liberal Democrats on Capitol Hill are readying a tax increase of at least $1,000bn over the next decade. Ms Pelosi says she wants to extract all of this from “the wealthy”. When has a party ever championed a policy that would inflict so much pain on its own constituency? At what point will affluent Democrats crack and mount a Blue State tax rebellion?

A hint to the people at the _Financial Times_ (a group whom I usually hold in considerable esteem): when an op-ed’s argument rests on a statistical fallacy so howlingly awful that it’s obvious to someone like me, it’s not a good idea at all to publish it. More generally, when a Heritage Foundation vice-president proposes a piece to you, et numeri ferentes, _especial_ attention to the basis of those figures is not only warranted but necessary. If it is true that Democrats tend to represent richer districts, both basic logic and an elementary grasp of statistics should tell you that this _does not imply_ that they represent richer voters. Indeed, not only does it not imply this, we _know_ that it isn’t true. See further “Andrew Gelman et al.”:http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/published/red_state_blue_state_revised.pdf

Do richer voters still support Republicans? If so, how can we understand the pattern that the Democratic do best in the richer “blue states” of the Northeast and West, while the Republicans dominate in the poorer “red states” in the South and between the coasts? … The Republicans have the support of the richer voters within any given state but have more overall support in the poorer states. Thus, the identification of rich states with rich voters, or more generally, the “personification” of so-called red and blue states, is misleading. For example, in the context of the Brooks quotes above, within an “upscale” area that supports the Democrats, the more “upscale” voters are still likely to vote Republican. … The pattern that richer states support the Democrats is _not_ a simple aggregation of rich voters supporting the Democrats.

And so on. I have a lot of respect for the _Financial Times_ – they do a better job in my estimation than any other newspaper of preserving a high quality of debate and are usually quite scrupulous about factual detail. This makes it all the more odd that a piece like this, which is better suited for publication in an introductory statistical textbook as a particularly egregious cautionary example of the fallacy of aggregation, could have made it in. Better filters please.

“Ezra Klein”:http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/11/the-5-bloggers-.html, responding to this blog and others, lists off the five bloggers whom he misses most. Prominent among them, of course, being the Fafblog, “the only blog that’s ever really mattered.” See also “Dan Nexon”:http://duckofminerva.blogspot.com/2007/11/best-blog-post-every.html on how “the fact of the matter is… and now I’m going to get choked up and grieve for a minute about the gaping hole its lack of updates has left in the blogmarch… almost any random selection from Fafblog would beat out the competition.” Which is so completely and obviously true. But even as the Library of Congress is “cataloguing and preserving”:http://www.discourse.net/archives/2007/10/library_of_congress_collecting_law_blogs.html blogs of “historical importance to the Congress and to the American people,” the Fafblog’s archives, a genuine national treasure if ever there was one, are 404ing (I’m sure that both Brewster Kahle and Google have them stashed away somewhere but what a pain). In order to collate and preserve material of vital historical significance, I ask you, Crooked Timber readers, to link to, quote _in extenso_, and thus preserve your favourite Fafblog posts of all time. As my contribution – this reminder of how, long before there were glibertarians, there were “Gibletarians”:http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/nothing-says-i-care-like-war-on.html.

[click to continue…]

Jonathan van Antwerpen at the Social Science Research Council emails to tell me about a “new blog”:http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/immanent_frame/ that they have set up examining questions of “secularism, religion, and the public sphere.” They’re starting off with a discussion of Charles Taylor’s new book, _A Secular Age_, including posts by Taylor himself, Robert Bellah and others. Unsurprisingly given my own interests in academic blogging, I’m happy to see the SSRC doing this – it’s a great way to broaden debate about these issues beyond the usual suspects.

Also worthy of note for pol theory types is “Public Reason”:http://publicreason.net/, a new blog set up to:

create an open forum for political philosophers and theorists to post their own papers, along with conference announcements, ideas about philosophical problems, etc., in a way that is conducive to discussion among and communication between political philosophers/theorists

“Jim Henley”:http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/10/29/7355, “Matthew Yglesias”:http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/blogospheric_classics.php, “Brad DeLong”:http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/10/five-nomination.html, “Dan Drezner”:http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/003564.html, and now “Scott Lemieux”:http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/11/best-posts-ever.html have various nominations for the Best Blogpost or Best 5 Blogposts ever. If (in a blatant act of ballot-box stuffing), we count posts that have been nominated by more than one of the above-gathered experts once for each time they have been nominated, we arrive at the startling conclusion that _50% of the bestest blogposts ever have been written by Crooked Timber contributors! ! !_ Of course, none of those posts was actually published _at_ Crooked Timber, a fact over which we will pass swiftly, and in silence. To even the odds a little, nominations are invited below for the 5 Best Blogposts Ever by Non-CTers. Please be specific – ‘everything by Fafblog’ does not count as a vote, whereas 5 individual links to 5 individual Fafblog posts does .

I’m teaching a course for freshmen this semester called “Childhood and the Family” covering topics such as children’s rights, parents rights, equality of opportunity, and the justifications of marriage. I’m planning to show movies a couple of evenings for them to watch as a kind of community building activity (the administration clearly wants us to use these small courses for this purpose, and I have a budget to provide food). But what movies to show? You can help. Here are the constraints: the suggestions should be about family life in some interesting way, not too slow-moving (I ruled Etre et Avoir on that ground, even though it is otherwise fantastic), readily available on DVD, and should have quite limited amounts of sex and violence (none, ideally; this is partly because I would like to bring my kids, and partly because I don’t want the students to be embarrassed watching the film with me, or vice versa).

“Brad DeLong”:http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/11/the-republican-.html on What to Do With the Republican Party.

I find myself much less optimistic about the future of the Republican Party than Mark Schmitt. … There are, in general, three ways to compete for the majority of the vote … 3. To convince a majority that they are threatened by vicious and deadly enemies–and that the other party is, at some level, in league with those enemies … Starting early in the twentieth century, however the Republican Party has been increasingly pursuing the third: excoriating immigrants, Catholics,” that communist Roosevelt,” Russian spies in the State Department, appeasers and other advocates of “better red than dead,” rootless cosmopolitans, advocates of “peaceful coexistence” and other graduates of Dean Acheson’s Cowardly College of Containment, uppity Negroes, Hollywood, liberal socialists who want to control your life, the nattering nabobs of negativism in the press, Mexicans, muslims, homosexuals, China, atheists. … Four generations of Republican political activists have now been trained in the art of busying giddy minds with foreign (and domestic) enemies. … It’s time to do to the Republican Party what the Republicans did to the whigs: raze the structure and start over.

There are two questions here. First, the pragmatic – might the US be ready in the near future (by which I mean the next 10-15 years or so) for another major realignment in its party system, that might replace a Republican party that is increasingly dominated by torture-porn-loving all-war-all-the-time lunatics with a new (and hopefully sane) right-of-center political party? Second, the speculative – if there were such a realignment, what would the new party look like? A party dominated by moderate north-easterners (perhaps drawing in some conservative Democrats)? Some American variant of Christian Democracy, mixing social conservatism with a commitment to some kind of welfare state (“Michael Gerson”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/30/AR2007103001822.html has been touting internal reforms of the Republican coalition along these lines, but _contra_ “Ross Douthat”:http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/what_compassionate_conservatis.php there are “stark differences”:http://web.archive.org/web/20050413014234/http://bostonreview.net/BR30.2/daly.html between European Christian Democracy and the Republican notion of faith based politics)? A party based on some kind of soft libertarianism? Or some (to me hard to imagine) synthesis between some of these strains? The floor is open (I’ll ask our lefty commenters in particular to try to refrain as much as they can from rude criticisms of the current crew, which we can take as stipulated, and to try to stick to the above questions as much as possible).

I was going to respond at length to commenter sg in the thread to John Quiggin’s post, but decided I would just bump it up to a post. I think I may fairly summarize sg as saying that some drugs are so intrinsically harmful that they must be illegal. Further, that the US wouldn’t be awash in guns and drugs “if the US would actually try and police the drug trade.” This last is just madness, on my view, and anyone who thinks different should just go peruse Radley Balko’s archives. [In fairness, it seems sg is referring to more competent policing rather than more overwhelming force and aggressive raids, but I’m unclear on how this is meant to work.]

I wanted to talk about something that would-be legalizers often hear, namely, “you’re not willing to admit that under your system there would be lots more drug addicts, and being addicted to drugs is, in itself, a bad thing.” In my experience this isn’t right at all, and everyone who advocates decriminalization will admit that more people will use drugs if they are more widely available and there are no legal penalties. This means more people would become addicted to drugs. How could it be otherwise? This doesn’t mean that I think it’s good thing for people to abuse IV drugs–it’s obviously a bad thing. But the costs our own nation incurs in the War on (Some Classes of People Who Use Some) Drugs are crushing: citizens jailed for drug possession and minor sales; the wholesale violation of civil rights that attends aggressive enforcement of anti-drug laws; the fundamental unfairness of denying sick people access to drugs give them relief. With decriminalization we would need fewer police officers, and those we had could focus on violent crimes. We could reverse pernicious trends in which more and more African-American men are shoveled into the maw of the prison system. That’s not even considering the violence and misery spawned around the world by our insatiable appetite for drugs. You’ll pretty much have to convince me that decriminalization will mean free samples of heroin-enriched enfamil before I even bother to reconsider my cost-benefit analysis. [click to continue…]

Commentary hosts a symposium on Podhoretz’ World War IV. Their question: “What Kind of War Are We Fighting, And Can We Win It?” I like this bit from Max Boot:

By publishing World War IV, Norman Podhoretz has performed yet another important public service, showing once again why he was such a worthy recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. At a time when our political leaders are split over whether we are actually at war with terrorists, when opposition to the war effort in Iraq is growing, and when apathy and complacency appear to be settling in among the public, he lucidly and compellingly explains why we are fighting, how we can prevail, and why we must do so.

My major disagreement with him is pretty minor. It concerns what to call this conflict. Labeling it World War IV assumes that the cold war was World War III, but almost nobody calls it that. Maybe they should, but they don’t. As a matter of purely historical accuracy, moreover, the cold war should be called World War V, since the first world war was really the Seven Years’ War, known in North America as the French and Indian War, while the second was the Napoleonic War. If we follow this logic, we would relabel the 1914-18 conflict World War III and the 1939-45 conflict World War IV, in the same way that George Lucas relabeled his first Star Wars film “Episode IV” after producing three “prequels.”

But merely to advance this argument is to reveal its impracticality.

I think the way to deal with this is to renumber W.W. I as 10 and W.W. II as 20. This will allow for the retroactive insertion of new World Wars, before and between the old ones, if necessary.

Please feel free to discuss the various contributions by the participants.

As Andrew Sullivan notes, Glenn Reynolds no longer even claims to be a libertarian[1] and his repudiation of this former position is shared by a number of leading shmibertarians, who are now happy enough to identify as orthodox Republicans. I haven’t yet seen anything similar from some others, such as the Volokhs, but the idea that a relaxed attitude to sex and drugs, and support for economic policies that favour your own social class (note that shmibertarians happily square their anti-tax line with support for higher taxes on the poor), can trump the authoritarian implications of militarism, from Gitmo to collusion in government lies, is now pretty much dead. Insofar as an idea can be tested by experiment, prowar libertarianism has been tried and failed (a bit more on this from Jim Henley).

The implications go further I think. Given that the Republicans are now definitively the war party (not that the Democrats have yet become the peace party, but that’s another story), it’s hard to see how libertarian Republicans can survive, any more than Dixiecrats survived Nixon’s Southern strategy. The recent decision by RedState to ban Ron Paul supporters is a pretty clear indication of how real Republicans think about this. This has big implications for a thinktank like Cato, which has opposed the war (but very sotto voce – a visitor to their website would be hard pressed to tell that there even was a war) while remaining within the Republican tent. They had a good discussion of the issues a while back, but it doesn’t seem to have had any effect.

This process cuts both ways. It’s hard to witness the catastrophic government failure that has characterized every aspect of this war without becoming more sympathetic to certain kinds of libertarian (and also classically conservative) arguments, particularly those focusing on the fallibility of planning. As our recent discussions about freedom of speech have shown, there are still plenty of disagreements between libertarians and the kinds of views represented at CT (what kinds of speech need protection, and from whom), though I suspect some of these differences are sharper in theory than in practice.

fn1. Apparently my ignorance of the further reaches of US party politics may have led me to overstate Reynolds’ candor. What’s being announced is, apparently, a break with the Libertarian Party, leaving him free to label himself a (small-l) libertarian. Thanks to Kevin Drum for pointing this out. Jim Henley, linked above, also commented on this distinction, concluding “I doubt it matters. In a corrupt political discourse, no label is much use.” and that’s about where I stand.

We’ll be doing a seminar on Dani Rodrik’s new book _One Economics, Many Recipes_ in the nearish future. Originally, the seminar was going to go upshortly after the book’s launch, but the book got out into the stores earlier than originally planned. Those who have an interest in buying the book so as better to follow the discussion can do so at “Powells”:http://www.powells.com/partner/29956/s?kw=dani%20rodrik%20one%20economics%20many%20recipes or “Amazon”:http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FOne-Economics-Many-Recipes-Globalization%2Fdp%2F0691129517%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1193945280%26sr%3D8-1&tag=henryfarrell-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325.

“This FT article”:http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3cb466a0-87de-11dc-9464-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1 from Eoin Callan on private equity and hedge fund managers’ efforts to fight off taxes on deferred interests has a weird undertone to it. First of all, this:

House Democrats are determined to move ahead with new taxes, so the industry has concentrated its efforts on blocking threatened legislation in the Senate, courting influential figures such as Harry Reid, majority leader. Mr Reid was toasted by industry lobbyists recently at a party held at the luxurious Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas. The event was billed as a moneyraiser for his special fund to get more Democrats elected – with generous donations suggested – and ended with a serenade by singer Barry Manilow. After the event, Mr Reid’s office indicated that the Senate leader continued to think it unlikely a bill to increase tax on carried interest would be passed before the end of this session. Lobbyists were anxious not to appear too gleeful.

So far, so run of the mill Democrats-showing-that-they-too-can-ramp-up-the-sleaze-to-11. But this is where it gets strange:

But while winning new friends, the industry is also gaining a reputation for making enemies that might haunt them as the political fight drags on. “These guys are not playing it well. They have hired too many people too quickly,” a senior Democratic tax staffer said. An industry lobbyist said: “A lot of good people are being hired, but some bozos too. They are trying to throw too much weight around but it is going to backfire.

“It is getting nasty: below the belt stuff; delving into people’s personal lives; crossing lines,” added the lobbyist, who was critical of colleagues but reluctant to repeat publicly allegations being made privately about lawmakers and congressional staff. People close to industry lobby groups such as the Private Equity Council and the Managed Funds Association are adamant they are not to blame for any sharp elbows thrown on Capitol Hill. Privately they tend to blame each other for black eyes to the industry’s reputation.

I may be wrong here, but it seems to me that Callan (who is an excellent and careful journalist, as best as I can tell from his previous articles) is suggesting that hedge fund lobbyists are blackmailing politicians and their aides over their personal lives, or doing the next best thing to it. Is there another plausible explanation that I’m missing here?