Musing on Amusing

The left's problem is that the 20th century provided a global-scale refutation of their two most cherished ideas:

Socialism, where it was practiced consistently, did not enrich the masses and eliminate poverty as was promised -- rather, it impoverished the masses and starved millions of them to death.

And pacifism didn't bring about world peace as was promised -- instead, it invited the horrific agressions of two world wars that resluted in the murder of millions of innocent people.

With their two core ideologies thus thoroughly discredited, the left has no credible arguments left and today seeks, instead, to avoid rational discussion by resorting to cheap smears, ad hominem, historical misrepresentations and lies, unsupported and unsupportable assertions and the parrot-like regurgitation -- on cue -- of memorized, but intellectually undigested, leftist talking points.

So I am not the least bit surprised by the antics of people like Chait and Yglesias. What do they have left besides something as lame as attempting to discredit an opponent's ideas on the basis of their nationality?

Very well said, but I must take issue with your insult to parrots. Unlike leftists, parrots are very intelligent creatures. :o)

My apologies to the 372 species of psittacines that bring so much color -- and colorful language -- to the world!

I conveyed your apology to a number of parrots and they all appreciated it. Some object to any parrot reference as mindless repetition, but to a bird they were all deeply offended to be associated with leftist ideology.

All kidding aside, thanks for the great posts - keep them coming...

Michael, when will you learn? Cheap smears are criticisms of Paul Krugman's drivel. Below the belt stupid stuff is anything leftists say that even Danny's strained efforts can't defend. Also, please remember that "over-complicating" things (usually in the context of a strenuous and dubious effort to defend the very same diseased socialists policies that you talk about in your post and the disingenuous jackholes who advance them) is the sole domain of our resident young psuedo intellectual. You should in no way ever "over complicate" anything in that pretty little head of yours unless DK over-complicates it first. Then, it's okay.

Nice post, BTW.

Thanks for the kind words, Methinks.

Daniel's comments generally consists of straw men and unsupported assertions -- and when those are challenged, he simply switches to other straw men and other unsupported assertions -- a process that continues until one runs out of patience in dealing with his obfuscations or runs out of space on the ever-narrowing Disqus comment format.

His technique is on display in his response to my comment above. Let‘s analyze it for a moment.

He begins by erecting and then bravely striking down a pitiful little man-of-straw argument -- he does this by responding as if I had claimed that cheap smears are exclusively a "leftist phenomena" that can only be explained by invoking the "deep history" of socialism and pacifism. I made no such claims, but slicing and dicing them nonetheless makes one look clever!

(The claim that socialism/pacifism’s failures have left their advocates without any valid arguments, leaving them with nothing but invalid arguments, such as cheap smears, is not at all the same as claiming that “only leftists use smears” and “the only reason they do so” is because of socialism and pacifism’s “deep history”)

Having deftly dispatched the straw monster, DK then switches to the smokescreen of claiming that Yglesias is "neither a socialist or a pacifist" -- an assertion for which he offers no support.

Well, it's true that few of today's "liberals" or "leftists" or "progressives" will admit to being a socialist -- no, they merely want socialized medicine to go along with their socialized retirement and socialized education -- and when they get it, they will begin agitating for socializing something else.

Likewise, most won't admit to being a pacifist -- they merely want negotiations with those who've pledged to kill us or unilateral American nuclear disarmament or withdrawal of American support for Israel, etc. In other words, today’s "liberals", "leftists" and "progressives" are simply advocates of socialist and pacifist policies hiding behind less discredited terms -- which makes DK’s claim irrelevant to my point.

DK then switches to his final unsupported assertion: that the behavior of Yglesias and Chait is just a result of making dumb choices on a regular basis, just a consequence of "being human" -- the obvious implication being that these guys have plenty of good, rational arguments with which to support their positions and refute their opponents, they are just too stupid to use them.

Somehow, I suspect that if there were good, rational arguments in favor of socialist and pacifist policies, we’d hear those arguments from time to time. From someone like, say, President Obama. But Obama made over 400 speeches to the public last year -- and I heard no such arguments. So I’m not holding my breath.

At any rate, DK’s hope is that by the time the reader reaches the end of this collection of straw men, unsupported accusations, spins, twists and smoke screens, he will have been so distracted by these diversions that he’ll fail to see that DK has not, in fact, addressed the substance of my comment at all.

This is a long response -- but this is the sort of response that is required if one wishes to address all the red herrings Daniel manages to get into one of his comments. Frankly, it’s generally just not worth it -- he’ll never change his mind.

Nice work.

Another excellent analysis, Michael Smith. Your specialty.

Particularly worrying to me is the colossal effort to rebrand the same diseased ideas that have wrought unimaginable misery on millions throughout the last century.

he’ll never change his mind.

Au contraire!! He is both for and against everything all at once. He both says and doesn't say the same thing. It's all part of the show.

It is both a little nauseating and entertaining to watch him nunchuck his way through his army of strawmen while hopping from one side of the fence to the other.

I fear you underestimate the effectiveness of such a strategy on some confused, nearly retired pseudo-intellectuals sitting on various admissions boards and sundry committees in academia. And academia, where Danny's variety of sloppy kabuki theatre is often mistaken for insight and intelligence, is what Danny aspires to.

Any poster's imposition of logic and any amount of linear thinking inspires ever more elaborate performances from DK. He is honing his skills here - and in Yglesias' comment section. I don't read other blogs often, but recently I caught a post Yglesias disagreeing with one of DK's comments on his blog. In the comment section of that post, DK complained that Yglesias ignored the next paragraph in his blog comment where DK basically agreed with Yglesias' criticism of his own comment. Hilarious.

Haha - you saw that! Nice. I think I've commented on Yglesias's blog like twice before that. Had some time off this week and... ya... pretty sad that's were much of it was spent.

As far as what I said - I agreed with some of his post and disagreed with other parts. I'm really amazed that that phenomenon is always so novel to you.

I had to stop reading the comments. The whole thing was a lot of frothing over nothing.

"Somehow, I suspect that if there were good, rational arguments in favor of socialist and pacifist policies, we’d hear those arguments from time to time. "

And since we don't hear good, rational arguments in favor of socialism and pacifism, the obvious conclusion (to me) is that both are bunk.

RE: "Cheap smears are criticisms of Paul Krugman's drivel."

I can't accept this definition. You seem to be implying that Krugman never engages in cheap smears himself, which is clearly absurd.

I was hoping for at least 16 paragraphs with plenty of microscopic hair splitting and fence hopping.

You disappoint.

Cheap smears are a human phenomenon, not a leftist phenomenon. I don't think you need to delve into the deep history of socialism and pacifism to explain cheap smears. Particularly since Yglesias is neither a socialist or a pacifist to begin with (I don't really know Chait but I'm guessing the same is true of him). Yglesias and Chait engaged in below the belt, inappropriate bashing of de Rugy because they're human and make dumb choices on a regular basis. Don't over-complicate it.

I'm just amazed this whole thing has dragged out for so long. I guess I shouldn't be.

Spot on Daniel.

I do agree with the overall valuation Tom Palmer puts on the humor of Ygelsias.

That he's not as funny as he thinks he is? Ya - he's been pissing me off a lot lately too. Yglesias is odd - he's a really sharp guy but there's some issues he gets wild-eyed and crazy about. Usually liberal (or conservative, for that matter) bloggers are either very obvious hacks or they're thoughtful and reasonable (if partisan). Yglesias always strikes me as a strange combination of both. Brilliant guy, but then some days it's as if he's turned over management of his blog to the Daily Kos or something.

Would you mind pointing me to work of his that you considered brilliant?

I said he was brilliant. "Brilliant" isn't an adjective I'd necessarily apply to a blog post, but these were all very good, if you're sincerely interested:

This was good: http://tinyurl.com/ydf8roh

This one was much more insightful than the copy-and-paste-a-big-long-list from the Federal Code that you get on here from commenters during any discussion of regulation: http://tinyurl.com/ydvdb9r

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this but I found it interesting: http://tinyurl.com/ycfgtyv

Generally I thought his coverage of Bernanke has been very bad, but this was good - he addresses the interest on reserves issue more thoroughly than a lot of bloggers: http://tinyurl.com/ybdmwm4

http://tinyurl.com/ye2j8dg
http://tinyurl.com/yjqzbf4
http://tinyurl.com/y9s9pp8

Thanks for the links. I haven't been impressed with him in the past. It's been a depressing for me to see the likes of Krugman and Yglesias garner so much attention, both accolades and criticism. I don't think they deserve the attention. That's just my dumb opinion.

They have what Thomas Sowell calls the vision of the anointed.

I was thinking of his humor in this particular instance. I've been highly amused by some of Yglesias stuff. I think you are right; it is often the case that otherwise brilliant people engage in erratic behavior bordering the bi-polar