A reader asks,
I’m curious which writers you find best among the other tribes. Who do you read regularly so that you can take the most charitable view of those who disagree with the libertarian perspective?
1. I give points to anyone who looks at the virus crisis without saying that President Trump was a dominant causal factor. For example, Raj Chetty listening to the data tell him that individual responses preceded government lockdowns. I also give points to Chetty and to Amir Sufi for looking at the economic impact of the crisis without using a GDP factory framework.
2. I take points off from anyone who bashes libertarians as being responsible for things being in a bad state. If you ask me, there are many more opportunities to improve public policy by making it more libertarian, and there are very few opportunities for making public policy better by making it less libertarian. Feel free to make specific criticisms of libertarian points of view, but don’t disgrace yourself a la Niskanen Center.
3. For progressives now, I am most focused on their willingness to stand up for old-fashioned liberal values, such as free speech. So I give credit to Jonathan Haidt and Bret Weinstein and I enjoy listening to them. I like progressives who are willing to speak out for policy positions that go against their own tribe. In the past, I have mentioned William Galston and the Progressive Policy Institute as examples. Jason Furman would be another example.
4. For conservatives now, I am focused on their willingness to stand up for old-fashioned conservative values, such as fiscal responsibility and civility. Yuval Levin. George Will. Megan McArdle. I am probably overlooking many others.
5. These days, it is important to me to see writers who are not heavily dug in on President Trump. Some conservatives are too intent on supporting him. Many progressives are too insistent on attacking him.
Which writers do you think most succinctly and accurately present the mood of their tribe? If I read them, would it help me predict some important aspects of the future?
Tolstoy wrote that history is less like linear algebra and more like calculus. That is, there are no Heroes of History; great men who’s strategic decisions turned the course of events. Rather, history is determined by the smallest interval, the individual, and the effort that they expend toward their own ends.
So, which writers (or politicians and their tweets) do you think most closely describe the will of their tribe?
I’m a mid-western by birth but I’ve spent decades too close to the Hyper-Precious Berkeley Bubble, so, I’ve lost touch with other tribes.
So Arnold, you want conservatives to be tax collectors for the welfare state, and very polite about their subservient status? And you like those like George Will who are so antagonistic to President Trump as to vote for the Democratic Party, notwithstanding that it is even more fiscally irresponsible, and socialist to boot?
“Some conservatives are too intent on supporting him. Many progressives are too insistent on attacking him.”
I think some conservatives are too intent on attacking him as well.
Any “conservative” who has problems voting for Trump as opposed to Biden in the coming election isn’t paying enough attention to the current situation.
“[We] cannot spare this man. He fights”
Two of the five points tell us how much Arnold avoids consideration of Trump.
I don’t know, I think they tell us more that many people (on both sides) are overly obsessed with President Trump.
It is perfectly reasonable to look at the current political situation, and to grow weary of public obsessions with President Trump.
It becomes less reasonable when you develop a theory of political tribalism and write about its application to American society. Even worse when you declare that one of your defined tribes has become dangerous, but won’t explore Trump’s role as a vector.
Not really. Trump isn’t the driving force behind the epidemic so I do t think that point constitutes avoidance, just favoritism toward sensibility.
Arnold, are there any examples you are still proud of where you took a policy position that goes against your typical tribe? For example, I was impressed by your early relatively pro-lockdown stance, but you later retracted it, and although it seems evident now that (some) aggressive government responses have been successful, I’m not aware whether you have repositioned.
“Fiscal responsibility,” eh. Interesting. A phrase that can mean anything.
And a frustrating but important problem. We have listened to warnings for decades and nothing changes.
The last time the USA came close to it by any definition would have been in the administration of the Bill Clinton who managed to reduce federal employment by over 300,000 mainly DOD blue collar jobs, raise taxes, and to ride the dot.com bubble up while leaving the market downturn to occupy his successor’s first years in office.
As used at Askblog, it appears to generally mean decreasing deficit spending through more steeply progressive income tax rates. Searching the site turns up posts positively citing Kotlikoff’s fiscal gap analysis that purports to measure:
“the difference between the present value of all of government’s projected financial obligations, including future expenditures, including servicing outstanding official federal debt, and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts.” Too many assumptions there though for that to have any meaning.
What other ways are there to think about fiscal responsibility?
Should deregulation be counted as fiscal responsibility? As Robert Belliaforr writes:
“Research from the Mercatus Center … …has estimated that federal regulations have slowed economic growth by an average of .8 percent annually since 1980, and that U.S. GDP in 2012 would have been roughly 25 percent larger had regulations plateaued in 1980. Similar work on federal regulations going back to 1949 has found an even greater economic drag. “
But increasingly conservatives are jumping on the green new deal band wagon so beloved by libertarians and progressives. Whether the carbon tax tradeoff is actually a net positive seems to be only something populists, being generally averse to drinking kool-aid, seem to have any interest in investigating.
Instead of just jacking up tax rates, the tax base could be broadened and deductions limited. We saw a little of that with the new state tax and property tax limits that progressives, libertarians, and even some conservatives are eager to erase. And we see libertarians, conservatives, and many progressives opposed to consumption taxes other than narrowly targeted Pigouvian excise taxes on things like soda, plastic shopping bags, etc. None of the tribes seems more interested in broadening the tax base than targeting disfavored minorities for higher rates. What made Andrew Yang so interesting was that he upset that apple cart and in so doing attracted populist support but no love from the TLP tribes. It would be interesting if he could mount a third party challenge against President Harris in 2024.
All three TLP tribes agree that there is a linear correlation between immigration and increased tax revenues net of associated costs. Populists would like to see the math.
And one wonders what each of the tribes makes of this, one of my all time favorite Arnold Kling essays, arguing against the tax treatment of non-profits: https://www.aei.org/articles/privilege-nonprofits/
The teeny-tiny little tax on the largest college endowments might be considered fiscal responsibility. All three of the TLP tribes were in opposition, however, it was only populism that made it possible.
I don’t know where you get some of the things you say about libertarians. A libertarian who supported the green new deal would be an odd bird indeed. I think you might be referring to some support for a carbon tax, but the green new deal didn’t even include a carbon tax because that isn’t statist enough for them.
In general, libertarians are all in for Biden so they are in for his $2 trillion version of the green new deal too whether they like it or not. And we see none saying that Biden’s green new deal is a deal breaker that would lead them to take any action to oppose him.
But philosophically my impression is that most libertarians see CO2 emissions as an infringement on their natural rights to air that has less than 400 parts per million of CO2 and as therefore carbon emissions are equivalent to murder and they have no problem with outlawing coal and natural gas and continuing subsidies for wind and solar:
https://www.edf.org/blog/2013/11/07/libertarian-argument-climate-action
Cato shut down its climate branch for this election cycle.
We see Tyler Cowen fanning the flames of climate hysteria with his illiberal attack on Bjorn Lomborg.
And of course there is:
“Climate change is a pressing issue that demands an ambitious response in order to achieve decarbonization.”
-Niskanen Center
Some libertarians may try to sound reasonable on climate but there is nothing within the libertarian tradition that would attach any value to affordable energy and thus they will cheer on Joe.
Your comments are all way too strong. No one who has any libertarian leanings at all would support the green new deal.
Libertarians all-in for Joe Biden?? Come on!
The link you provided is to the Environmental Defense Fund — not even a remotely libertarian organization. As far as I can see, they are trying to follow Arnold’s advice and present arguments that might appeal to libertarians. Certainly a libertarian can have concerns about climate change, and something like a carbon tax would possibly be an approach that would be appealing. However, I think everyone agrees that there is an approximately zero percent chance of a carbon tax ever passing. People on one side want no tax, period. People on the other side feel that a carbon tax is not coercive enough. No one is in any mood to compromise.
I don’t read Tyler Cowen that often, but I took a look to see what he said about Bjorn Lomborg’s new book, and while he has some criticism I don’t see any flame fanning.
Does anyone even consider the Niskanen Center to be libertarian?
And to say that libertarians attach no value to affordable energy is absurd.
Well thank you for the fact check. I concede that you have the stronger argument. I hope that you are correct and that affordable energy will be a libertarian priority.
Is Megan McArdle a conservative? Does she even try to identify as such? She endorsed Obama back in 2008. She loudly and fully endorsed all the Democratic nominees in the 2020 cycle including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren? Do those candidates represent fiscal responsibility? Is the Green New Deal a model of conservative fiscal responsibility?
Right, she’s not. She’s a socially-progressive libertarian.
There is some confusion when people are described or describe themselves as being on “the right”, but I don’t think she has ever described herself as a ‘conservative’, or been described that way, perhaps never except by her leftist enemies until this very post.
Even Brooks – not exactly Mr. Conservative except in the minds of nutty NYT commentators, in his famous – if not exactly predictive – “Future of Conservatism” article, named her as a “soft libertarian”. (By his definition, are there any ‘hard’ libertarians left under 70?)
The test for whether someone is more X than Y is to compare overlaps in the Venn Diagram. Compare that person’s views and X, and then compare those commonalities to the overlap of X and Y. If the overlaps are mostly the same, then she is so much more Y than X that it doesn’t make much sense to call her an X instead of a Y.
I don’t think McArdle would have ever endorsed Warren specifically, who she has been critcizing harshly and with perfect justice for a long time, going back to all her old bogus “Medical Bankruptcy” claims.
Handle, I think you are missing this.
I read McArdle’s harsh criticisms of Warren, but McArdle would still fully support her politically. I remember McArdle saying, that she likes all the Democratic nominees (including Warren), she just wants whichever one can beat Trump in the general election. I can’t find the link to that, but I can find this similar McArdle quote:
McArdle would vehemently disagree with Bernie/Warren on policy, but she’d still support them 100% politically. That’s kind of weird, but that’s her position.
Tyler Cowen is the same way. Read this: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/01/the-economic-policy-of-elizabeth-warren.html
That is a brutal, devastating take on Warren’s policies. Cowen says, “she has the worst economic and political policies of any candidate in my adult lifetime.” Yet Cowen still supports her. He concludes with a slogan, “Yes I support her, but she has the worst proposed economic policies of any candidate in the adult lifetime of Tyler Cowen.”
I don’t think it’s right to say that they support Warren or Biden or whomever 100%. They have decided that they dislike Trump more than they dislike the Democratic nominee. That’s rather different than 100% support.
I agree that Cowen and McArdle both vehemently disagree with Warren’s policies and have eloquently explained that. At a political level, they clearly dislike Trump a lot more and aren’t the slightest bit shy about fully supporting whomever is on the Democratic ticket. Apparently, the most terrible policies in the world are rather minor compared to whatever it is that they dislike about Trump. As terrible as Democrat policy initiatives are, they don’t cause Cowen or McArdle to flinch an inch in their complete political support. If this isn’t 100% support, it’s close to it.
“McArdle would vehemently disagree with Bernie/Warren on policy, but she’d still support them 100% politically. That’s kind of weird, but that’s her position.”
That’s not merely “weird,” it is tribalist and reflects poorly on her rationality.
I wanted to add:
If this post is about taking the most charitable view of other major tribes that you disagree with: Kling is omitting anything close to the present Republican Party. This is not taking a charitable view towards the roughly half of the electorate that voted for Trump or support the present Republican Party. Every one of the figures listed is furiously opposed to Trump and the current incarnation of the Republican Party.
For progressives now, I am most focused on their willingness to stand up for old-fashioned liberal values, such as free speech.
Serious, non-rhetorical question about this. What would such a progressive look like? The distinction between classic liberals and Progressives is the latter’s rejection of freedom of speech and support for punishing any dissenters.
It seems to me that you’re talking about a progressive who is not a progressive.
I give credit to anyone who writes as it they understand the framework of taboos and contrictive parameters of discourse and the chilling intimidation of the cancel culture, and so does the following things.
1. Does not signal-boost orthodox falsehoods.
2. Never calls for anyone’s cancellation.
3. Does not criticize people for using pseudonyms as ‘cowards’.
4. Does not adopt a position which bolsters the perception that people who disagree are bad people with bad motives.
5. Does not use motte-and-bailey terms descriptively as if there isn’t rampant semantic abuse for the purpose of smearing people.
6. Does not point to bodies of ‘studies’ or research as strong proof or evidence when there is controversy regarding whether that body of work is ideologically and politically compromised.
7. Sticks to claims which by their very nature allow some possibility of tolerated refutation.
8. Does not ‘pariah bait’.
That last one is subtle, so let me explain. When there is a debate about some topic going on in public view, when both parties are aware of social pressures that distort or suppress open, civil dialogue, it is appropriate – indeed essential – for both parties to hold to a norm in which participants refrain from leveraging those social pressures to back their opponents against the wall of social opprobrium and thus provoke or force evasions which are then mischaracterized as intellectually points scored fairly. This is fighting dirty, and an unfair stratefic escalation of force used for the specific purpose of denying your counterpart the opportunity to respond. It is the equivalent of telling a boxer, “throw the fight or that whole mob over there is going to beat you a pulp afterwards.” And then, when the boxer goes down, pretending you won the fight fair and square, which is dishonest.
Kling is almost uniquely excellent on all these, which is why I hang out around here.
+1
Since 2016 we have been living in Trump years.
Some conservatives are too intent on supporting him. Many progressives are too insistent on attacking him.
The attacks and demonization against “Trump” are actually more against all Republicans / conservatives who oppose the PC agenda. Recall how they demonized Kavanaugh, perhaps the cleanest person in public politics in 50 years. Recall demonization attacks against Romney, a bit against McCain but HUGELY against Sarah Palin; and of course the naming of Bush Derangement Syndrome against Bush.
I am totally against the PC demonization project – all too similar to what the Nazis did to Jews; to what the commies did to Ukraine kulaks; to what the Hutus did against the Tutsis. Not “racism”, but tribalism. They must be fought – but Reps like Bush were unwilling to fight.
Trump fights. He fights for “all” Americans, and against tribal divisions. I am intent on fighting against the PC tribal (/identity) politics.
We should be calling it “tribal”, not “identity” politics.
Arnold, have you not found anybody worth reading that supports Trump?
My other favorite blog is The New Neo (formerly neo-neocon, an ex-Dem NE woman with liberal family who seems honest & thoughtful):
http://www.thenewneo.com/
For a Trump supporting fanboy, I read Don Surber:
https://donsurber.blogspot.com/ – definitely intentional support for Trump, but a good review of lots of news from a retired newsman.
Powerline is pretty conservative group blog, including Trump critic Paul M.:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/08/the-washington-post-shows-solidarity-with-portland-arsonists.php
Finally there is the fine free speech advocate Jonathan Turley
https://jonathanturley.org/