Carefully not using the i-word

Henry Farrell’s impassionate attack on Matty Yglesias’ bloodless technocracy sure does read like, erm, bloodless technocracy:

But equally obviously, they are not the whole of politics nor anywhere near it. Policy is not made, in the US or anywhere else, through value-neutral debate among technocrats about the relative efficiency of different proposed schemes. Hence, the need for a theory of politics – that is, a theory of how policy proposals can be guided through the political process, and implemented without being completely undermined. And this is all the more important, because (on most plausible theories of politics) there are interaction effects between policy choices at time a and politics at time a+1. The policy choices you make now may have broad political consequences in the future. Obvious examples include policies on campaign spending, or union organization, which directly affect the ability of political actors to mobilize in the future.

This remains a debate on policy implementation taking place within a narrow band of acceptable political opinion, with the difference between Yglesias and Farrell being that the first is a policy wonk, the latter more of a politics wonk, but neither seems comfortable contronting the more fundamental question of ideology, nor are the commenters.

QotD: centrist cat fight!

Over at Crooked Timber, Henry Farrell wrote a post about the limits of left neoliberalism, to which Brad DeLong left a snotty comment, to which Chris Bertram in turn responded with the blog equivalent of a napalm strike:

Well as usual, Brad is busy constructing boxes to put people in. Those who read his blog will know that when he isn’t sneering at those to his left, he is sighing and groaning at all those policymakers who fail to grasp that reason dictates the adoption of his preferred solution which is in the best interest of everyone. I wonder why they don’t adopt his policies then? What could the explanation be? Oh … Henry may be right and the fact is that he doesn’t have any grasp of political power and mobilization.

[…]

(Actually, I’m being unfair to Brad. He does have a theory of politics. It is that people would see the pure light of wisdom radiating from people like him, if only those pesky people to his left would shut up and stop frightening the horses.)

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Rich Boomer turns rightwing, feels need to write book about it

David Mamet interviewed for the New York Times:

Years ago, you described “American Buffalo” as being about “how we excuse all sorts of great and small betrayals and ethical compromises called business.” In this book, you defend enormous payouts to C.E.O.’s working for failing corporations. You seem to have changed radically.
I have. Here’s the question: Is it absurd for a company to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to a C.E.O. if the company is failing? The answer is that it may or may not be absurd, but it’s none of our goddamned business. Because as Milton Friedman said, the question is not what are the decisions but who makes the decisions. Because when the government starts deciding what’s absurd, you’re on the road to serfdom.

Don’t you have to denounce your early, anticapitalistic work then?
Of course not. At that time in my life I didn’t have a penny, and I was glad to be working at entry-level jobs. Having lived for quite a while longer, I see life from a different perspective. What am I going to do, go on denouncing capitalism all my life?

Mamet first came out three years ago, in a screed for the Village Voice in which he explained that all you liberals are doodyheads and he never liked you anyway. Judging from the interview above he has swallowed the whole range of wingnut beliefs whole and as uncritically as he himself said he had believed his old liberal assumptions Which is a sad commentary on (arguably) America’s greatest living playwright but typical for a lot of those road to Damascus stories. All those people who move to the right when they’re middleaged and rich always have to make up a fairytale about how their eyes were suddenly opened to the evils of liberalism, yet their conversion stories never betray more than a superficial understanding of either their old or their new politics. Their vanity doesn’t allow people like Mamet to admit they switched for purely selfish reasons, hence that urge to write books about their completely unprecendented journey from unthinking liberal to still unthinking conservative.

Hans van Mierlo (18 augustus 1931 – 11 maart 2010)

Hans van Mierlo

I just heard the news that Hans van Mierlo has died. Though most of y’all outside the Netherlands won’t know who he is, he was one of the most important figures in Dutch postwar politics, a towering giant admired both inside and outside of his own party. He was also a somewhat tragic figure, the founder of a party that was supposed to transform the Dutch political system, who saw his party make an end to the Christian Democratic domination of postwar governments, but also saw his party become part of the very same system it was founded to destroy. He was a decent man, a honest man, a politician you could respect though you disagreed with his politics, unlike most of his succesors in his party.

It all started back in 1966 when van Mierlo, together with some forty-odd other people concerned about the state of the Dutch democracy founded Democraten ’66, or D’66, later D66. The postwar consensus between the Liberal, Christian-Democrat and Social Democratic parties meant that voters had little or no influence on politics, with important decisions being made in smoky backrooms and paternalistic, elistist governments out of touch with the citizens. D66 was an attempt to break this system by providing a new kind of politics, outside the old traditions and wanting a complete remodeling of the Dutch political system. It was immediately succesful, winning seven seats in parliament in the elections the next year, at a time when such broad shifts were largely unknown. D66 paved the way for a whole wave of new parties in the sixties and seventies, forcing the older parties to respond or lose seats.

But the succes did not last. By the mid-seventies the party had almost died out, before revamping itself as a more properly liberal party, less orientated towards political transformation. Its fortunes waxed and waned over the decades, usually rising in opposition and falling again in government, with its zenith in 1994, when it won twentyfour seats and — for the first time since World War I– a government was formed without the Christian Democrats, the deadlock it had on Dutch politics finally broken. It meant that finally there was a political consensus for such liberal measures as gay marriage, long after the public consensus had reached this point.

And yet, this success didn’t last either. Since 1994 D66’s electoral fortunes have kept waning, with last elections being their worst ever, with only three seats in parliament, though polls have since then seen its fortunes rising again. What’s worse however is how little has remained of its ideals. From grand ideas to change the political system they degraded to a checklist of demands, to be traded in during coalition negotiations, finally to be discarded entirely for another shot at power. Perhaps the worst moment for D66 and van Mierlo may have been when Thom de Graaf, just resigned as minister in the then government because his plans to introduce elected mayors were torpedoed by parliament, buggered off to become an unelected mayor himself… It was symbolic for the shambles the party was in at the time and must’ve hurt van Mierlo somewhat.

Since then the party has once again resurrected itself as the voice of reasonable anti-Wilders voters, but any respect I used to have for them –I voted for van Mierlo in the 1994 elections, my first– has long been lost. But van Mierlo himself has never lost my respect, because he has always stayed true to his ideals even with all the trouble he has had realising them.

Ouch!

Louis Proyect puts the boot into Michael Bérubé:

He would not have time in his busy schedule to roll up his sleeves and organize like-minded people to build a coalition conforming to his own ideals. If you read his blog, you will learn that when he is not writing articles on cultural theory or redbaiting the left, he is playing hockey or the drums. In other words, he is not actually sufficiently motivated to put his crappy politics into action, the way that a serious political person might. Fundamentally, we are dealing with a dilettante who enjoys shitting on people whose views he disagrees with. Like Walter Mitty, he must have fantasies about leading people into a more just world but like most liberal intellectuals he does not bother since the Democratic Party does all the work that is necessary to rout the Taliban and al-Qaeda. After all, the Obama administration that Berube genuflects to has all the guns and money it needs to kill Afghans. Why would they require any kind of volunteer activism from a college professor who has better things to do with his spare time?

I’ve had my runins with Bérubé as well; he fancies himself as somewhat of an enforcer of acceptable leftwing behaviour but suffers from the usual liberal blinders. Especially in the early years of The War Against Terror there were quite a few liberals like him as much or even more outraged that resistance against it was largely organised by socialists, anarchists and other dirty fucking hippies than by the war itself. Hence those huge rants against Chomsky, ANSWER and such targets, who, no matter how outrageous their statements, never actually killed anybody or ordered bombardments on civilian targets in the name of freedom, but who did have the temerity to find good things to say about America’s officially designated enemies. All part of the policing political debate so that only serious people get to participate. The irony is, people like Bérubé got exactly the same treatment from the “respectable” right, but thought that the correct response would be to offer them better targets…