Kind of not the point vis a vis Chris Buckley and NR. A writer for a publication that has a certain ideological slant shouldn't expect to remain employed at that publication if he takes a position that is contrary to the tenets of that ideology.
"Obama is SATAN" is the NR's ideology?
If an Utne Reader editor supported McCain because they genuinely believed his views were more in line with the goals of liberals, and that editor got fired, we'd have all kinds of bitching about Those Politically Correct Liberals.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I voted fairly conservative in the elections that took place between 2000-2008, but the nomination of Sarah Palin totally destroyed my faith in the platform. I knew they had resorted to pandering to evangelicals and anti-intellectuals. I would have voted for John McCain had the election been held prior to the VP being picked, but sure as hell wouldn't afterward. I've always supported portions of each platform, but that really tipped me over the edge to being farther on the liberal side.
I voted fairly conservative in the elections that took place between 2000-2008, but the nomination of Sarah Palin totally destroyed my faith in the platform. I knew they had resorted to pandering to evangelicals and anti-intellectuals. I would have voted for John McCain had the election been held prior to the VP being picked, but sure as hell wouldn't afterward. I've always supported portions of each platform, but that really tipped me over the edge to being farther on the liberal side.
pandering that could have very well put a woman who can't even tweet properly in the fucking White House
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
kaleeditySometimes science is more art than scienceRegistered Userregular
Someone who supports Barack Obama for the Presidency cannot reasonably call themselves a conservative, any more than a Bush supporter could reasonably describe themself as a liberal.
Or a conservative, given some of the things that went on under his watch.
this reversal is also true for Obama, though less annoyingly so
Fox News host Glenn Beck says he will donate his speaking fee for a pricey rally with former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Beck and Palin have drawn criticism over the planned rally in Anchorage, Alaska, where tickets cost $65 to $200 for a VIP package that offers a chance to meet the tea party stars.
"Glenn had always intended to donate the speaking fee from the event on Saturday, Sept. 11, in Alaska to Special Operations Warrior Foundation. Governor Palin is not and was never going to receive a fee for introducing Glenn at this event,” a Beck spokesman told POLITICO.
Neither Beck nor Palin previously said that they would not be taking a fee for the event. Both have made millions of dollars in the past year by giving paid speeches.
Palin encouraged supporters to buy tickets for the event at the Dena’ina Center on her Facebook page Wednesday, which are being sold through Ticketmaster and give attendees the option of sitting in a “dry section” or “wet section” where alcohol will be sold to those 21 and older.
In her Facebook post, Palin insisted that there would be “no better way to commemorate 9/11 than to gather with patriots who will ‘never forget.’”
OBAMA: You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter.
BECK: Oh, no. Let's ban that.
OBAMA: With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations —
BECK: PlayStations?
OBAMA: — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction —
BECK: Wow.
OBAMA: — a diversion.
All of this is not only putting pressure on you, it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy. So many voices clamoring for attention on blogs and on cable and on talk radio, it can be difficult at times to sift through it all, to know what to believe, to figure out who's telling the truth and who's not.
Let's face it: Even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I've had some experience in that regard.
BECK: Yes, with this show, but I don't make those claims, I just play the video that we get online. It's weird, isn't it?
I've never heard that the president ever say anything like that. I mean, first of all, what kind of information do you get from your iPod or PlayStation? It's almost like a red herring there.
And I've also never heard the president of the United States ever — at any time — say information is a distraction. That you don't know what to believe anymore. Whoa!
Information is power. And if it's not, then, well, we should fire everybody at the CIA. We should stop doing any kind of focus groups for speeches.
Information can be distracting. Hmm. Pesky problem — pesky problem.
Now, who's to blame for spreading all the rumors? Well, of course, 24/7 cable news. Well, I mean, some cable news channels, you know, they don't rank high on the truth meter. Could that be something like him declaring war on Fox again? It's so — it worked out so poorly for him last time.
Fox News host Glenn Beck says he will donate his speaking fee for a pricey rally with former Alaska GOP Gov. Sarah Palin on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Beck and Palin have drawn criticism over the planned rally in Anchorage, Alaska, where tickets cost $65 to $200 for a VIP package that offers a chance to meet the tea party stars.
"Glenn had always intended to donate the speaking fee from the event on Saturday, Sept. 11, in Alaska to Special Operations Warrior Foundation. Governor Palin is not and was never going to receive a fee for introducing Glenn at this event,” a Beck spokesman told POLITICO.
Neither Beck nor Palin previously said that they would not be taking a fee for the event. Both have made millions of dollars in the past year by giving paid speeches.
Palin encouraged supporters to buy tickets for the event at the Dena’ina Center on her Facebook page Wednesday, which are being sold through Ticketmaster and give attendees the option of sitting in a “dry section” or “wet section” where alcohol will be sold to those 21 and older.
In her Facebook post, Palin insisted that there would be “no better way to commemorate 9/11 than to gather with patriots who will ‘never forget.’”
OBAMA: You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter.
BECK: Oh, no. Let's ban that.
OBAMA: With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations —
BECK: PlayStations?
OBAMA: — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction —
BECK: Wow.
OBAMA: — a diversion.
All of this is not only putting pressure on you, it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy. So many voices clamoring for attention on blogs and on cable and on talk radio, it can be difficult at times to sift through it all, to know what to believe, to figure out who's telling the truth and who's not.
Let's face it: Even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I've had some experience in that regard.
BECK: Yes, with this show, but I don't make those claims, I just play the video that we get online. It's weird, isn't it?
I've never heard that the president ever say anything like that. I mean, first of all, what kind of information do you get from your iPod or PlayStation? It's almost like a red herring there.
And I've also never heard the president of the United States ever — at any time — say information is a distraction. That you don't know what to believe anymore. Whoa!
Information is power. And if it's not, then, well, we should fire everybody at the CIA. We should stop doing any kind of focus groups for speeches.
Information can be distracting. Hmm. Pesky problem — pesky problem.
Now, who's to blame for spreading all the rumors? Well, of course, 24/7 cable news. Well, I mean, some cable news channels, you know, they don't rank high on the truth meter. Could that be something like him declaring war on Fox again? It's so — it worked out so poorly for him last time.
OBAMA: You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter.
BECK: Oh, no. Let's ban that.
OBAMA: With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations —
BECK: PlayStations?
OBAMA: — none of which I know how to work — information becomes a distraction —
BECK: Wow.
OBAMA: — a diversion.
All of this is not only putting pressure on you, it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy. So many voices clamoring for attention on blogs and on cable and on talk radio, it can be difficult at times to sift through it all, to know what to believe, to figure out who's telling the truth and who's not.
Let's face it: Even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I've had some experience in that regard.
BECK: Yes, with this show, but I don't make those claims, I just play the video that we get online. It's weird, isn't it?
I've never heard that the president ever say anything like that. I mean, first of all, what kind of information do you get from your iPod or PlayStation? It's almost like a red herring there.
And I've also never heard the president of the United States ever — at any time — say information is a distraction. That you don't know what to believe anymore. Whoa!
Information is power. And if it's not, then, well, we should fire everybody at the CIA. We should stop doing any kind of focus groups for speeches.
Information can be distracting. Hmm. Pesky problem — pesky problem.
Now, who's to blame for spreading all the rumors? Well, of course, 24/7 cable news. Well, I mean, some cable news channels, you know, they don't rank high on the truth meter. Could that be something like him declaring war on Fox again? It's so — it worked out so poorly for him last time.
Derp derp derp
I just- I can't- arrrghhh I can feel blood vessels in my brain exploding! I was going to go through, line by line, how Beck was an idiot but really what's the point? It's just going to make me angrier.
No matter what you say, announce that your enemies will probably attack you for it because they don't want the people to know.
If they attack or even defend themselves against you: You were right.
If they don't do anything: They're scared of you, or pathetically incompetent.
There is no winning when you fight Glenn Beck. Therein lies his genius.
He's also filthy stinking rich.
I think he believes some of what he spouts to some extent. Like the evangelists who "heal" their congregation only after sending in money. On some level, they know they're flim-flam-men, but on another level, they truly believe they are doing the lord's work and truly affecting people.
The greatest con-men are the ones who believe what they're saying.
I don't know what video games you're playing, but mine taught me to shoot Africans because they're infected. (Note: Sarcasm, Resident Evil 5 reference)
Everybody knows that too much information can be a bad thing. That is the entire reason summaries and briefs exist. Having everything makes understanding it difficult so you need to simplify it by using classes and other things to sift through to the relevant shit.
He also somehow manages to compare what Obama is doing to Wilson's actions during a time of war.
Only a man like Beck could turn "don't take everything you hear as fact" and "A lot of useful information just gets lost in the background noise" as an evil plot to silence Amerikuns.
Oh, come on now, don't be ridiculous. For better or for worse, the GOP is the party that best fits people with a conservative political/social ideology.
If someone like Chris Buckley no longer believes he can endorse the Presidential candidate chosen by the GOP, then it seems he has broken with the conservative movement as a whole. Which is his right, but it's odd to expect that he would continue to be employed as a writer or editor by a magazine that exists to further the conservative agenda.
There are some pretty bright lines when it comes to ideology. Someone who supports Barack Obama for the Presidency cannot reasonably call themselves a conservative, any more than a Bush supporter could reasonably describe themself as a liberal.
What do you mean by conservative here? I consider myself to be a flavor of conservative in the sense that I am extremely anti-populist and generally pro-business, anti-union and am generally in favor of a kind of realist foreign policy.
On social issues I'm pretty much a straight up libertarian.
Anti-populist is not conservative. It's something like elitist.
Conservatives in America, at least in the intellectual sense, maintained a strong skepticism of democracy, of the wisdom of the people, until they started winning elections in the 1980s and they were all, "the people are so smart".
Anti-populist is not conservative. It's something like elitist.
Conservatives in America, at least in the intellectual sense, maintained a strong skepticism of democracy, of the wisdom of the people, until they started winning elections in the 1980s and they were all, "the people are so smart".
That might explain why, as a liberal, I've come to the conclusion people are idiots.
Anti-populist is not conservative. It's something like elitist.
Conservatives in America, at least in the intellectual sense, maintained a strong skepticism of democracy, of the wisdom of the people, until they started winning elections in the 1980s and they were all, "the people are so smart".
That might explain why, as a liberal, I've come to the conclusion people are idiots.
Anti-populist is not conservative. It's something like elitist.
Conservatives in America, at least in the intellectual sense, maintained a strong skepticism of democracy, of the wisdom of the people, until they started winning elections in the 1980s and they were all, "the people are so smart".
That might explain why, as a liberal, I've come to the conclusion people are idiots.
Only a man like Beck could turn "don't take everything you hear as fact" and "A lot of useful information just gets lost in the background noise" as an evil plot to silence Amerikuns.
He said neither of those things
he said that Obama talked about information being worthless and obama declaring war on fox
Which was stupid and absolutely not what Obama said, but it also isn't what you said.
Don't twist their words, some of you are looking like crazies
Only a man like Beck could turn "don't take everything you hear as fact" and "A lot of useful information just gets lost in the background noise" as an evil plot to silence Amerikuns.
He said neither of those things
he said that Obama talked about information being worthless and obama declaring war on fox
Which was stupid and absolutely not what Obama said, but it also isn't what you said.
Don't twist their words, some of you are looking like crazies
Oh, come on now, don't be ridiculous. For better or for worse, the GOP is the party that best fits people with a conservative political/social ideology.
In reality or in practice? Six years they were completely in charge and all that happened was spending went up and government interference increased while they maligned anyone who dared insist they compromise on anything.
What part of that is supposed to be conservative?
Quid on
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
There are some pretty bright lines when it comes to ideology. Someone who supports Barack Obama for the Presidency cannot reasonably call themselves a conservative, any more than a Bush supporter could reasonably describe themself as a liberal.
What if, policy aside, you think the Republican candidate was lying about his positions, or was doomed to failure in enacting them, or was too inept to implement in a non-destructive fashion, or was terrible for any number of other reasons unrelated to his conservative credentials? Or that he was liable to die at any moment and had picked the functional equivalent of a particularly stupid slime-mold as his running mate?
There are all manner of reasons for an honest conservative to support even the left-wingiest of liberals if his opponent is terrible enough.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Oh, come on now, don't be ridiculous. For better or for worse, the GOP is the party that best fits people with a conservative political/social ideology.
In reality or in practice? Six years they were completely in charge and all that happened was spending went up and government interference increased while they maligned anyone who dared insist they compromise on anything.
There are some pretty bright lines when it comes to ideology. Someone who supports Barack Obama for the Presidency cannot reasonably call themselves a conservative, any more than a Bush supporter could reasonably describe themself as a liberal.
What if, policy aside, you think the Republican candidate was lying about his positions, or was doomed to failure in enacting them, or was too inept to implement in a non-destructive fashion, or was terrible for any number of other reasons unrelated to his conservative credentials? Or that he was liable to die at any moment and had picked the functional equivalent of a particularly stupid slime-mold as his running mate?
There are all manner of reasons for an honest conservative to support even the left-wingiest of liberals if his opponent is terrible enough.
It says much about a party who's best candidate fits what you just described.
Oh, come on now, don't be ridiculous. For better or for worse, the GOP is the party that best fits people with a conservative political/social ideology.
In reality or in practice? Six years they were completely in charge and all that happened was spending went up and government interference increased while they maligned anyone who dared insist they compromise on anything.
Anti-populist is not conservative. It's something like elitist.
Conservatives in America, at least in the intellectual sense, maintained a strong skepticism of democracy, of the wisdom of the people, until they started winning elections in the 1980s and they were all, "the people are so smart".
One of the great ironies of libertarianism is how you rectify a complete rejection of democratic process because "people are so stupid" with a complete worship of free market because "people are so smart."
There are some pretty bright lines when it comes to ideology. Someone who supports Barack Obama for the Presidency cannot reasonably call themselves a conservative, any more than a Bush supporter could reasonably describe themself as a liberal.
What if, policy aside, you think the Republican candidate was lying about his positions, or was doomed to failure in enacting them, or was too inept to implement in a non-destructive fashion, or was terrible for any number of other reasons unrelated to his conservative credentials? Or that he was liable to die at any moment and had picked the functional equivalent of a particularly stupid slime-mold as his running mate?
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Anti-populist is not conservative. It's something like elitist.
Conservatives in America, at least in the intellectual sense, maintained a strong skepticism of democracy, of the wisdom of the people, until they started winning elections in the 1980s and they were all, "the people are so smart".
That might explain why, as a liberal, I've come to the conclusion people are idiots.
If nobody minds I'm going to continue thinking that every generation has been at worst a small improvement to the one before it. barring certain exceptions of-course.
There are some pretty bright lines when it comes to ideology. Someone who supports Barack Obama for the Presidency cannot reasonably call themselves a conservative, any more than a Bush supporter could reasonably describe themself as a liberal.
What if, policy aside, you think the Republican candidate was lying about his positions, or was doomed to failure in enacting them, or was too inept to implement in a non-destructive fashion, or was terrible for any number of other reasons unrelated to his conservative credentials? Or that he was liable to die at any moment and had picked the functional equivalent of a particularly stupid slime-mold as his running mate?
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
In other words, you're not intending to select the best person for the job, merely the Republican. No matter how good the Democrat or how bad the Republican, voting for the former is never acceptable.
Well, since politics has become a team sport, of course there are people who go for their team and no other. The alternative to voting for a bad candidate their party puts forward is not voting in most cases.
I should clarify, this seems to be more the case with the Right rather than the Left (though I'm sure you'll find people who'll argue otherwise).
Anti-populist is not conservative. It's something like elitist.
Conservatives in America, at least in the intellectual sense, maintained a strong skepticism of democracy, of the wisdom of the people, until they started winning elections in the 1980s and they were all, "the people are so smart".
One of the great ironies of libertarianism is how you rectify a complete rejection of democratic process because "people are so stupid" with a complete worship of free market because "people are so smart."
Not necessarily. I'm sure his libertarian bias creeps into his analysis, but Bryan Caplan's book goes into how people can be and are systematically irrational about economic and political policy, but not necessarily so on an individual level. That is, people recognize when shit doesn't work out when they're personally involved. The larger economy and political situation, and all the inputs and outputs and all that, are so far removed that people can pretty easily keep supporting the same thing that doesn't work and never feel the burn of failure. They just blame "didn't do [my preferred thing enough]" or say "[policy I don't like] fucked everything up" or whatever. Or they simply fail to see if there has been any particular change, or they believe their anecdotal experience is representative, or...
But more personal stuff is very different. People may very well be stupid, but they're far more likely to learn to be smarter after they are punished by failure and mishap.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
Sorry, but again, conservative how? In terms of balanced budgets? Fiscal responsibility? Tackling the welfare state? Promoting a realist foreign policy? Social issues?
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
Sorry, but again, conservative how? In terms of balanced budgets? Fiscal responsibility? Tackling the welfare state? Promoting a realist foreign policy? Social issues?
Part of his tribe.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
Sorry, but again, conservative how? In terms of balanced budgets? Fiscal responsibility? Tackling the welfare state? Promoting a realist foreign policy? Social issues?
You have no talked to MM much have ya.
Tax Cuts Tax Cuts Tax Cuts.
That's all there is to conservative ideology in his book.
Speaking only for myself, I's sit the election out and wait for the next one. Or vote for a 3rd party candidate.
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
So your saying that there is never a good enough reason to vote democrat?
Edit: Given that the US is a two party republic (It's virtually impossible for a third party to make a serious break into politics), you realize that you are effectivley advertising your support of a Monarchy right?
I'm sure his libertarian bias creeps into his analysis
Its more the irony involved in the argument that people are systematically irrational in terms of voting, while he then supports libertarian policies, wherein those two views are more or less incompatible. The belief that voters are irrational in things which are complicated and/or not largely involving them destroys the logical foundations of libertarianism.
Of course, iirc, Caplan is much more nuanced than many Libertarians, but when Libertarian policy is then explained as the solution to this systematic irrationality, and when Caplan (like many foolish economists) enable those people with naive solutions and ideals it can become a both a problem and a criticism.
That being said, I do agree with the crux of the issue, that people generally don't know what the fuck when it comes to politics unless they are well educated in the field and continually keeping up on the specifics of the issue.
Posts
"Obama is SATAN" is the NR's ideology?
If an Utne Reader editor supported McCain because they genuinely believed his views were more in line with the goals of liberals, and that editor got fired, we'd have all kinds of bitching about Those Politically Correct Liberals.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
pandering that could have very well put a woman who can't even tweet properly in the fucking White House
this reversal is also true for Obama, though less annoyingly so
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,601022,00.html Derp derp derp
I wish I could hate him to death
That man is functionally deficient.
I'd say he's more of an evil genius.
No matter what you say, announce that your enemies will probably attack you for it because they don't want the people to know.
If they attack or even defend themselves against you: You were right.
If they don't do anything: They're scared of you, or pathetically incompetent.
There is no winning when you fight Glenn Beck. Therein lies his genius.
He's also filthy stinking rich.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I think he believes some of what he spouts to some extent. Like the evangelists who "heal" their congregation only after sending in money. On some level, they know they're flim-flam-men, but on another level, they truly believe they are doing the lord's work and truly affecting people.
The greatest con-men are the ones who believe what they're saying.
I don't know what video games you're playing, but mine taught me to shoot Africans because they're infected. (Note: Sarcasm, Resident Evil 5 reference)
He also somehow manages to compare what Obama is doing to Wilson's actions during a time of war.
What do you mean by conservative here? I consider myself to be a flavor of conservative in the sense that I am extremely anti-populist and generally pro-business, anti-union and am generally in favor of a kind of realist foreign policy.
On social issues I'm pretty much a straight up libertarian.
But... I think Obama is a pretty great guy.
Conservatives in America, at least in the intellectual sense, maintained a strong skepticism of democracy, of the wisdom of the people, until they started winning elections in the 1980s and they were all, "the people are so smart".
That might explain why, as a liberal, I've come to the conclusion people are idiots.
Read this book.
And this book.
I don't have enough anti-depressants.
According to his network, my PlayStation tells be to load up with automatic weapons and go hog wild on a terrified populous!
why do you keep disappointing your playstation
http://www.audioentropy.com/
He said neither of those things
he said that Obama talked about information being worthless and obama declaring war on fox
Which was stupid and absolutely not what Obama said, but it also isn't what you said.
Don't twist their words, some of you are looking like crazies
I think you misread me
In reality or in practice? Six years they were completely in charge and all that happened was spending went up and government interference increased while they maligned anyone who dared insist they compromise on anything.
What part of that is supposed to be conservative?
What if, policy aside, you think the Republican candidate was lying about his positions, or was doomed to failure in enacting them, or was too inept to implement in a non-destructive fashion, or was terrible for any number of other reasons unrelated to his conservative credentials? Or that he was liable to die at any moment and had picked the functional equivalent of a particularly stupid slime-mold as his running mate?
There are all manner of reasons for an honest conservative to support even the left-wingiest of liberals if his opponent is terrible enough.
They hate gay people.
It says much about a party who's best candidate fits what you just described.
Let's not forget Muslims.
One of the great ironies of libertarianism is how you rectify a complete rejection of democratic process because "people are so stupid" with a complete worship of free market because "people are so smart."
But, as a conservative, if you find yourself unhappy with the GOP candidate, endorsing/voting for the Democrat is hardly the solution.
Rigorous Scholarship
but not this
If nobody minds I'm going to continue thinking that every generation has been at worst a small improvement to the one before it. barring certain exceptions of-course.
In other words, you're not intending to select the best person for the job, merely the Republican. No matter how good the Democrat or how bad the Republican, voting for the former is never acceptable.
I should clarify, this seems to be more the case with the Right rather than the Left (though I'm sure you'll find people who'll argue otherwise).
Not necessarily. I'm sure his libertarian bias creeps into his analysis, but Bryan Caplan's book goes into how people can be and are systematically irrational about economic and political policy, but not necessarily so on an individual level. That is, people recognize when shit doesn't work out when they're personally involved. The larger economy and political situation, and all the inputs and outputs and all that, are so far removed that people can pretty easily keep supporting the same thing that doesn't work and never feel the burn of failure. They just blame "didn't do [my preferred thing enough]" or say "[policy I don't like] fucked everything up" or whatever. Or they simply fail to see if there has been any particular change, or they believe their anecdotal experience is representative, or...
But more personal stuff is very different. People may very well be stupid, but they're far more likely to learn to be smarter after they are punished by failure and mishap.
Sorry, but again, conservative how? In terms of balanced budgets? Fiscal responsibility? Tackling the welfare state? Promoting a realist foreign policy? Social issues?
Part of his tribe.
You have no talked to MM much have ya.
Tax Cuts Tax Cuts Tax Cuts.
That's all there is to conservative ideology in his book.
So your saying that there is never a good enough reason to vote democrat?
Edit: Given that the US is a two party republic (It's virtually impossible for a third party to make a serious break into politics), you realize that you are effectivley advertising your support of a Monarchy right?
Its more the irony involved in the argument that people are systematically irrational in terms of voting, while he then supports libertarian policies, wherein those two views are more or less incompatible. The belief that voters are irrational in things which are complicated and/or not largely involving them destroys the logical foundations of libertarianism.
Of course, iirc, Caplan is much more nuanced than many Libertarians, but when Libertarian policy is then explained as the solution to this systematic irrationality, and when Caplan (like many foolish economists) enable those people with naive solutions and ideals it can become a both a problem and a criticism.
That being said, I do agree with the crux of the issue, that people generally don't know what the fuck when it comes to politics unless they are well educated in the field and continually keeping up on the specifics of the issue.