Category Archives: The Partisan Mind

Coffee and Corporations

P.J. O’Rourke has an interesting review of Taylor Clark’s Starbucked, an anti-corporate biography of the coffee chain. O’Rourke paints a kindly portrait of the author as a young groupthink anti-corporatist who, in writing his book, came to realize some of the limits of his dogma:

“I never came to like “Starbucked.” But I grew very fond of its writer. Most books about social and business phenomena give the reader something to think about. This book gave the author something to think about… I experienced the pleasure a teacher must feel when he watches a kid with promise outgrowing the vagaries and muddles of immaturity (and the jitters of too many coffee-fueled all-nighters) and coming into his own as a young man of learning, reason and sense.”

What Makes Someone Right or Wrong?

The Editor, New York Times
229 West 43rd St.
New York, NY 10036

To the Editor:

Much as I enjoy conservative-bashing, I was disappointed in Paul Krugman’s October 5 column, “Conservatives Are Such Jokers.” He almost reflexively assumes that people who disagree with him have checkered motives. He comes off as reluctant to argue policies on their merits, in this case the SCHIP children’s health insurance program.

Why so quick to question his opponents’ motives? SCHIP opponents have put forward arguments that are either right or wrong. Motives have nothing to do with whether those arguments are right or wrong.

SCHIP opponents don’t like the program because they don’t think it will improve childrens’ health outcomes. The disagreement is a question of means, not ends. Does anyone actually favor having sicker children?

While Mr. Krugman clearly favors expanding the SCHIP program, he doesn’t really say why. I invite him to make his case – on the merits.

Ryan Young
Arlington, VA

Partisanship

“The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.”

-Plato, Phaedo.

More than Left and Right

As it has done with presidents of both parties, the Cato Institute has just released a study critical of the president’s consitutional record – Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W. Bush (23pp plus footnotes).

Now, as a libertarian who frequents Capitol Hill, a lot of republicans I talk to are skeptical of me because they think I’m liberal, and a lot of liberals won’t talk to me at all because they think I’m conservative. When a libertarian organization publishes something that breaks those conceptions, it’s pretty fun to watch, as Radley Balko points out. Since this new study is critical of a Republican administration, our progressive friends who think libertarians are Republicans are confused, even though they understand and largely agree with the study.

The Daily Kos, probably the biggest and best of the so-called “Angry Left” blogs, posted an excellent summary of the study. The comments are the fun part for me, though. It’s interesting to watch readers’ minds explore the idea that there are political persuasions besides hard left and hard right. A few astute commenters noted that it is possible to hold liberal positions on some issues (anti-war, pro-gay marriage, pro-immigration), conservative opinions on others (lower spending and lower taxes), and be philosophically consistent. In other words, what I call classical liberalism, and what most people call libertarianism.

Hat tip to Radley Balko for bringing the thread to my attention.