I admire libertarians for their dedication to what is mostly an aesthetic enterprise, replacing the institutions of government with corporations. It's like a game whose goal is to dial down government's share of GDP to the lowest level without turning the country into a dystopian nightmare. At least I hope they care about that last part. Too bad that's about as useful as a lipogram is to fiction.

Quoting ginger baker: Weisberg's implicit point was that libertarians are in denial. If they actually ever walked the balk they would turn their little venal crusade supposedly waged on behalf of “freedom” and “the individual” not just at government infrastructure and moral doctrine but at the “private” realm of concentrated power and wealth which dominates their own lives – as well as the very economy they want to liberate. The ugly truth is that the banking and financial sectors are themselves the absolute epitome of hierarchical command and control, mindless paper trails, and a bunch of middle-class stiffs in business suits whose job it is to serve THE MAN.

That must have been a deeply implicit point in Weisberg's column. Are you sure it's not just your point? I could have sworn, having read Weisberg's column a couple of times, that his point was that this crisis discredits libertarianism as an ideology. And that's a pretty dumb point. As for your point, you can't reduce libertarians' motivations to something monolithic. For many libertarians, the point is utility maximization. They happen to think that, overall, utility is maximized if we put a lot of institutions into private hands. Second, libertarians

from the esteemed translator and linguist matt welch: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/154...1:55&out=22:04

Quoting Bobby G: Third, some libertarians care about rights. Regardless of the society that results from respecting rights, they have a menu of rights they think that it's important to respect, and they think we ought to respect them, let the chips fall where they may.

I'm a bit off-topic, but you've just highlighted my main problem with capital-"L" Libertarianism. Their view of rights seems to lead inevitably to a Hobbesian hell. I'm a liberal, rather than a libertarian mostly because given a choice between power progressively concentrating itself in private hands, and a constitutionally constrained government acting as an equalizer and arbiter - I'll take the latter. (Imperfect as that can be, in practice.)

Even conservatives don't like libertarians: The Marxism of the Right An excerpt: "If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society." This crisis won't be the end of libertarianism, alas. Until there is no longer a need to rationalize personal greed, it'll endure.

so. much. discussed. still. digesting. pair these guys up again.

Scheiber's observation that Obama tends to value expertise over ideology was more effective than he seemed to realize. Economics claims to be an empirical discipline, but economic policy has long been dominated by mostly meaningless quibbling between non-falsifiable philosophical ideologies. For about three decades, there seems to have been some fundamental confusion between economics and religious faith. Wouldn't a focus on "good design" be a refreshingly technocratic end-run around the whole tired debate? And wouldn’t that represent a more fundamental change than simply a political "swing of the pendulum?"

Good points by Ginger and a good response by Bobby. A quibble:

Quoting Bobby G: Second, libertarians know that a lot of private institutions are command-and-control. One response to that is: at least you don't have to work for those private institutions ...

This drifts towards glibertarianism. It is not so easy to escape the company town, nor is it so easy to avoid having to do business with Microsoft or IBM or General Motors or Standard Oil/ExxonMobil (at various points in the past, I mean). True, over time we see an eventual response from Apple and Mozilla, Sun and HP, Toyota and Honda, and ... okay, Big Oil is still uncontested. But it takes time to get there, and a lot of individual pain is caused in the meantime. It's one thing to be a young adult without dependents -- quit working for The Man, pull up stakes, and seek your fortune elsewhere. It's quite another to be middle-aged with teenagers about ready to go to college, a mortgage, looming health costs and retirement, and not too many skills for other markets. Unfettered capitalism always seems to move towards monopolies and monopsonies, and these last for non-trivial lengths of time, and they often are

Shorter Matt Welch:

People who worry about the financial system melting down are irrational Chicken Littles. Nothing drastic ever happens. The system takes care of itself. They need to get a grip.

But Obama and a Democratic Congress? ZOMG! Run for your lives!!1!

Notwithstanding this aspect, I did enjoy most of the diavlog. I thought Noam made a number of very good points (No Drama O'Scheiber FTW), and I found some of what Matt said useful, at least as cautions to keep in mind.

Time to put words and concepts to the anti-libertarian ranting, guys. Compare and contrast. The two--capitalism and corporatism--get conflated pretty much constantly, but any "real" libertarian is against the latter. You can certainly argue that they don't spend enough time on it, or that they don't allot enough government power in order to combat it in their version of the imaginary world where everyone's personal politics are supreme. However, left-of-center people are still focused on ends instead of process, so it's a little like attacking green apples when you know you're gonna go with oranges. I.e. How much power corporations can be allowed to have is a question of what the rules of the game should be, whereas left-liberals just would like the government to have that power so they can use it to do something.

Hi, and thhanks for th thouhgtful reply. Ins hort, I have always found those who identify as "libertarians" to be exacty those referred to by weisberg, you know, the 14 yr old readings Rand thinking their radical. Libertarianism is a hollow political ideology which reduces politics to the thin veil of economic formula, and in its most desparate moments, to the simplistic slogans of Benthemite England...which no one takes eriously these days. Libertarian thought also hides its contempt for democracy...but because it doesnt have the guts to go to Nietzsche it is thoroughly bourgeois! Henxe my earlier comment about middle-class stiffs n business suits. It also reduces human beings to "rational" self-interested subjects who can be charted with graphs and other "methodoligical" bs yet its understanding of subjectivity is temporally parochial...if not laughable. It completely ignores the Continent, and I dont mean Kant through John Rawls. you can have the last word...i have mor eimortantthings to do...

Quoting threep: Time to put words and concepts to the anti-libertarian ranting, guys. Compare and contrast. The two--capitalism and corporatism--get conflated pretty much constantly, but any "real" libertarian is against the latter. You can certainly argue that they don't spend enough time on it, or that they don't allot enough government power in order to combat it in their version of the imaginary world where everyone's personal politics are supreme. However, left-of-center people are still focused on ends instead of process, so it's a little like attacking green apples when you know you're gonna go with oranges. I.e. How much power corporations can be allowed to have is a question of what the rules of the game should be, whereas left-liberals just would like the government to have that power so they can use it to do something.

Agree with your opening sentiments, although I'd say I'm hard-pressed to see how unfettered capitalism doesn't invariably lead to corporatism. Toward the end, I think you're guilty of the same amount of over-simplification that you begin by criticizing. I am a lefty/liberal. I am also a big fan of letting things play out on the free

Well that just makes you a Kaus-ian neoliberal, if true. There's a point about this, and basically I need to say something that can seem very disingenuous. It is possible (in fact I take your word for it!) that you in fact are a market-liberal-ish guy. There are a lot of people like that, I know. But it doesn't change the fact that the main thrust of the greater multifaceted social meta-organism that is "the left" or "left-liberals" is a desire to achieve results in social/economic equality, relationships between the individual and the collective/state, etc., nor the fact that they have a fundamental difference in opinion in what rights people have and what freedom means (positive/negative etc.). The disingenuous part is just that a lot of people may be moderate, but without pull from the other side or the need to compromise, they might never meet a leftish impulse they didn't like. Of course this is also true of conservatives who actually support a fairly liberal society, but if ideologues were able to continually press the national greatness/social cohesion/virtue/purity buttons they'd never quite find a reason to resist. I guess this is all

Quoting threep: Well that just makes you a Kaus-ian neoliberal, if true.

You really know how to hurt a guy. ;^) To the rest: well said. Agreed totally with the need for competing viewpoints to keep things in check. Minor quibble: I still think you're exaggerating the extent to which the old-style big-government left's views hold sway. I am inclined to think you're exaggerating for effect, so I'll just leave it at that. It is true that we of "the left" would like to see more socioeconomic equality in our society. Surely, you don't think this is a bad thing? Again, though, I claim that many on the left, particularly those with clout, have learned from the past that there are plenty of bad ways to try to achieve this end. Go liberaltarianism!

Eight years of a nefarious common political enemy would probably tend to cause you to underestimate the number of people you would sharply disagree with if the focus was turned inwards.

How can anyone be dumb or arrogant enough to still defend libertarianism? Did you watch Greenspan, possibly the top libertarian of them all, specifically admit that his IDEOLOGY was wrong??? Might want to try glancing at the front page of any newspaper. It's over guys...just let it go. Why do I suspect I'll still be hearing "Well, marketsmarketsmarketsmarkets..." for the rest of my life?

oh................my..............god. both of you are absolutely insane. uh, Matt?
which deregulation? are you kidding me? now I know why I stopped reading Reason years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...dia/index.html they're laughing, mr. welch
well, there's this one for starters. then we have Greenspan's fantastic choice to totally ignore Warren Buffett (you know, that investor guy?), etc. about the $62 trillion web of credit swaps.....
wow, I don't get offended by much but you have serious nerve to come on here, being as discredited as you can possibly be, and you actually think it's acceptable to go on the offensive??? as if it's somebody else's fault? i think you need to watch Greenspan testify again so you can see the unequivocal death of your religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwpnH_OTZio
i don't think life could possibly get any more clear than that. now I'd suggest looking up "brain plasticity." you can't "detail" your way out of this one. i don't care how many numbers and facts you list, it's not like we don't all know what happened.
i couldn't even pay attention to noam 'cuz i was so distracted by the hot air from mr. welch but he didn't seem any better because he was partially agreeing. i mean, forgive me for pointing out

Come on Matt give "Atlas Shrugged" a run through. Her entire philosophy is in that book according to her protege Leonard Peikoff (an heir to her estate which means he must have a few bucks). Afterall, don't you want to know who John Galt is? I did. It looks like the Libertarian party is tanking. Their candidates for pres and vp are former Republicans, Bob Barr & Wayne Allen Root, and are not true free market types like Harry Browne & Ron Paul. Also, if deservedly or not the meltdown of the free market banking system will cause them to take a hit. That said they are still around whereas the Peace and Freedom party an outgrowth of the Vietnam antiwar movement seems to have disappeared. John

Quoting threep: Time to put words and concepts to the anti-libertarian ranting, guys. Compare and contrast.

Compare business and capitalism. That's the distinction libertarians can't wrap their heads around. Business has always existed. I mean: we're talking beginning of time, here. Business exists under totalitarianism; it exists under anarchism (or would!). Capitalism is new, strange, and requires a strong government to function. It's hard to understand and make work, too. That's why libertarians pretend capitalism is just business. It isn't.

Quoting Ray: That's the distinction libertarians can't wrap their heads around.

You really need to talk to more libertarians if you think they're that stupid. Of course some are, but really we're talking about a lot of very smart people who know this stuff.

Business has always existed. I mean: we're talking beginning of time, here. Business exists under totalitarianism; it exists under anarchism (or would!).

Capitalism is new, strange, and requires a strong government to function. It's hard to understand and make work, too.

That's why libertarians pretend capitalism is just business. It isn't.

I think you're confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians, whether rights- or utility-based, know that there have to be rules of the playing field before a market economy can function. Read Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty or Epstein's Simple Rules for a Complex World.

Quoting bjkeefe: This drifts towards glibertarianism. It is not so easy to escape the company town, nor is it so easy to avoid having to do business with Microsoft or IBM or General Motors or Standard Oil/ExxonMobil (at various points in the past, I mean). True, over time we see an eventual response from Apple and Mozilla, Sun and HP, Toyota and Honda, and ... okay, Big Oil is still uncontested. But it takes time to get there, and a lot of individual pain is caused in the meantime. It's one thing to be a young adult without dependents -- quit working for The Man, pull up stakes, and seek your fortune elsewhere. It's quite another to be middle-aged with teenagers about ready to go to college, a mortgage, looming health costs and retirement, and not too many skills for other markets.

Yeah, I didn't raise that point because I didn't want to disturb the flow of my post. But you should have raised it. So, uh, good for you for ... doing what you should do. Anyway: sure, there are company towns, and it's certainly a delicate situation for those people. Often, they can't work anywhere else. But the point is, by and large people have the opportunity for exit. It's

Quoting Bobby G: I think you're confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians, whether rights- or utility-based, know that there have to be rules of the playing field before a market economy can function. Read Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty or Epstein's Simple Rules for a Complex World.

What's Ayn Rand: anarcho-capitalist or libertarian?

Please no more libertarians. These goofs don't live in the real world. Most are just Liberals that want to smoke dope and not pay taxes. The remainder are other-worldly capitalist ideologues - the nut cases who quote Ayn Rand and bury gold in their back yard. GE, B-of-A, Exxon and all the other massive banks, hedge-funds, GSEs, and corporations that dominate our society aren't "free enterprise" and they need to be tightly controlled and regulated. Only a goof or a "libertarian" would argue otherwise.

Quoting rcocean: Please no more libertarians. These goofs don't live in the real world. Most are just Liberals that want to smoke dope and not pay taxes. The remainder are other-worldly capitalist ideologues - the nut cases who quote Ayn Rand and bury gold in their back yard.

GE, B-of-A, Exxon and all the other massive banks, hedge-funds, GSEs, and corporations that dominate our society aren't "free enterprise" and they need to be tightly controlled and regulated. Only a goof or a "libertarian" would argue otherwise.

no kidding, i'll second that. why have there been so many lately? is bob giving them a chance to defend themselves or is it that they're overrepresented on the internet? either way they can be done now

Been absent from the comment section for awhile, a pattern that will persist through the election, but I couldn't resist making this post available to the forum. The Obama Tax Lies.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: no kidding, i'll second that. why have there been so many lately? is bob giving them a chance to defend themselves or is it that they're overrepresented on the internet? either way they can be done now

Good question. This site has long overrepresented the fringe, lunatic theories of libertarians. I mean, it's interesting. I don't mind listening. But it's wacked, and grossly overrepresented on this site. Thing libertarians need to grasp: People like government. The American people are never going to agree to throw out democracy and replace it with the tyranny of unchecked private power. We can see how that works in Haiti and we don't want it here!

Welcome back! Hope you're doing okay.

Quoting piscivorous: Been absent from the comment section for awhile, a pattern that will persist through the election, but I couldn't resist making this post available to the forum. The Obama Tax Lies.

OMGWTF! I haven't even clicked the link yet and I already changed my mind and am voting for McCain.

Quoting TwinSwords: Good question. This site has long overrepresented the fringe, lunatic theories of libertarians. I mean, it's interesting. I don't mind listening. But it's wacked, and grossly overrepresented on this site.

Thing libertarians need to grasp: People like government. The American people are never going to agree to throw out democracy and replace it with the tyranny of unchecked private power. We can see how that works in Haiti and we don't want it here!

no fing kidding man...Haiti and the rest of the third world....the ultimate free market experiment! okay, Hossa just scored and i've officially missed most of the first 2 periods....i'm really gonna stop typing now, i swear.

From my study of your thoughtful comments you are not likely to click through to it and actually read it but such is life. I'm doing fine thanks just tired of the whole name calling and finger pointing that this form has turned into.

Good question. I would say she's a libertarian, although the fact that she thinks all taxes should be voluntary (paid for through a lottery, where one winner gets a lot of money, and the government gets to keep the rest) makes that a bit squishier. Still, most anarcho-capitalists say there shouldn't be a government-run military or legal system, and to the best of my knowledge Rand supported those. So I'd see her more as a libertarian.

Hey, I remember reading your name many moons ago. If you're a conservative who doesn't name-call, I'd love to have your support.

What lunatic theories? Libertarians have been incredibly influential in the intellectual world--they have firm footholds in philosophy and economics and are respected in both. And yes, libertarians know that Americans love government. Hey, that reminds me: Americans hate gay marriage! Do you think that last sentence is relevant? And don't respond by saying "it's not true." Even if it's not true now--though it still is--it was clearly true in 2000 and 2004. It was just as relevant then as is your statement that Americans love government.

Quoting Bobby G: Good question. I would say she's a libertarian, although the fact that she thinks all taxes should be voluntary (paid for through a lottery, where one winner gets a lot of money, and the government gets to keep the rest) makes that a bit squishier. Still, most anarcho-capitalists say there shouldn't be a government-run military or legal system, and to the best of my knowledge Rand supported those. So I'd see her more as a libertarian.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. The majority of libertarians I've ever encountered are Randites, and they all seem to agree with creepy consistency that the only legitimate functions of government are police, military, and courts. In effect, this makes them anti-democracy; in effect, they want to ban government except within those very narrow confines (police, military, courts). And I think this is why libertarianism will never be much more than a fervent hope for a few extremists and ideologues: people will never agree to subject themselves to the tyranny of private power, or agree to wipe out government and their own voice in shaping the kind of society they live in.

Quoting Bobby G: What lunatic theories? Libertarians have been incredibly influential in the intellectual world--they have firm footholds in philosophy and economics and are respected in both.

Okay, fair enough. I don't deny that. What I consider lunatic is the idea that we're ever going to consent to live under tyrannical systems of private power that deny people the right of government as a counterweight.

Quoting Bobby G: And yes, libertarians know that Americans love government.

Some do, some don't.

Quoting Bobby G: Hey, that reminds me: Americans hate gay marriage!

Do you think that last sentence is relevant? And don't respond by saying "it's not true." Even if it's not true now--though it still is--it was clearly true in 2000 and 2004. It was just as relevant then as is your statement that Americans love government.

What Americans think about gay marriage or government is highly relevant when considering realistic political possibilities. I think libertarians should know that people are never going to agree to live under their system of tyranny. We've made too much progress to consent to become slaves. At least in the case of gay marriage, attitudes can change quickly -- and will, because, I believe, hate and bigotry always wilt when exposed to sunlight. The

Quoting piscivorous: From my study of your thoughtful comments you are not likely to click through to it and actually read it but such is life. I'm doing fine thanks just tired of the whole name calling and finger pointing that this form has turned into.

Well, in any event, glad to have you back. I think some of us regulars were thnking about you and hoping that you're doing okay. Glad to hear all is well. And with that.... Let the name-calling begin!

Whatever floats your boat! Mine runs better on civility, until my patience has been tested, so until the election cycle passes and sufficient time for the gloating from the victories side and the whining of the losing side abates this comment thread will be one of the few I will participate in.

Quoting Ray: Business has always existed. I mean: we're talking beginning of time, here. Business exists under totalitarianism; it exists under anarchism (or would!).

Capitalism is new, strange, and requires a strong government to function. It's hard to understand and make work, too.

At the risk of making more noise about very squishy terms, I'd argue that at least one fundamental aspect of capitalism has always been around, and is always around in state-controlled economic systems, too: the individual's desire to maximize his or her own gain. Even if money is non-existent or strictly controlled, and most every good or service is doled out by the government, and all work is supposed to be for the good of the community or the state, there are always things that people identify as scarce resources, and people will seek out ways to improve their chances of getting them (or more of them). For example: admission slots to better schools or the Party in the USSR were things that caused no end of wheeling and dealing.

Quoting TwinSwords: Some do, some don't.

OK, you're right. I overgeneralized.

What Americans think about gay marriage or government is highly relevant when considering realistic political possibilities. I think libertarians should know that people are never going to agree to live under their system of tyranny. We've made too much progress to consent to become slaves.

Once again, I think you're equating libertarianism with Objectivism (Rand's system). Randroids are actually only a small subset of libertarians, albeit a loud and annoying one. Also, I don't see why things like deregulation of the airlines, legalization of drugs, lowering of taxes, legalization of prostitution, elimination of the draft/selective service, and reduction of welfare services means living under tyranny or amounts to becoming slaves. I'm not a libertarian, but "private tryanny" seems far too strong for what would result.

At least in the case of gay marriage, attitudes can change quickly -- and will, because, I believe, hate and bigotry always wilt when exposed to sunlight. The more people get to know gays, the less they will want to go along with the hate mongering agenda of the Republican Party. But I don't see that happening with government. I don't think you'll ever be able to get people to change their attitudes on

Quoting Bobby G: But the point is, by and large people have the opportunity for exit. It's not only that they don't have to work for a particular business; even if there's only one business in town they can leave the town, not that that's always a great option.

I agree in principle, but I want to insist that practically speaking, this is really hard for a lot of people.

But regardless, it's unclear what the alternative is. Government make-work?

Put like that, no. On the other hand, the WPA was helpful for a while, and there remain lots of things that need doing that wouldn't just be make-work.

A lot of libertarians would favor a Charles Murray/Milton Friedman style negative income tax so that even when the corporation goes away, people still have enough financial power to have an option.

Don't know enough about this to comment meaningfully.

I guess it depends on what you mean by monopolies. I don't know that it ever--and I mean ever--happens that you get a true, 100% monopoly without government assistance. You'll get your 90%ers, though. This can be bad, but of course curing this problem can often be worse.

Oligopolies would have been a better word choice. As to the

Welcome back, piscivorous.

Quoting Bobby G: Once again, I think you're equating libertarianism with Objectivism (Rand's system). Randroids are actually only a small subset of libertarians, albeit a loud and annoying one.

I see, thanks again for the clarification. As I mentioned earlier, my contact with libertarians basically consists of Randites, so I am evidently missing the distinctions you're pointing out. Megan McArdle recently suggested, for example, that she could tolerate certain kinds of government that didn't fit the Randian version of libertarianism that I've been familiar with. I'm glad to know there are those that aren't as extreme and absolutist about the role of government.

Quoting Bobby G: Also, I don't see why things like deregulation of the airlines, legalization of drugs, lowering of taxes, legalization of prostitution, elimination of the draft/selective service, and reduction of welfare services means living under tyranny or amounts to becoming slaves. I'm not a libertarian, but "private tryanny" seems far too strong for what would result.

Absolutely, I agree. It's too late for me to elaborate, but I agree that those things are all reasonable forms of conservative thought, whether I agree with the particulars of them or not. What I consider slavery is the outcome of unfettered free enterprise.

Quoting Bobby G: They changed quite a lot during the Reagan era, and they've

I'm sorry, but several here have expressed the sentiment that unregulated (or even under-regulated) free markets inevitably march towards corporate monopolies, and I just can't let such an absurd statement stand. Every monopoly in American history (and, indeed, every large corporate oligarchy), came about as a direct result of the government pissing in the pool of the free market. A true market economy NEVER would have resulted in Standard Oil or Bell Telephone, nor the many monopolies which FDR aided in exchange for unionization concessions. The fact that the government occasionally busts up large monopolies and trusts doesn't change the fact that Big Government is what propped them up in the first place.

Quoting Tara Davis: I'm sorry, but several here have expressed the sentiment that unregulated (or even under-regulated) free markets inevitably march towards corporate monopolies, and I just can't let such an absurd statement stand.

Every monopoly in American history (and, indeed, every large corporate oligarchy), came about as a direct result of the government pissing in the pool of the free market. A true market economy NEVER would have resulted in Standard Oil or Bell Telephone, nor the many monopolies which FDR aided in exchange for unionization concessions.

The fact that the government occasionally busts up large monopolies and trusts doesn't change the fact that Big Government is what propped them up in the first place.

I think there's something to that. But what would you say about Microsoft? That the government abetted them by buying many copies of Windows and Office? I think it's also not so simple as you make it -- that "Big Government propped them up" -- without dealing with the reality that a large enough company (or small group of large companies) begins to have significant clout over the government. ADM? Oil companies? Big Tobacco? Boeing? So, I agree that government helped these big companies get bigger, and stay that

Quoting Bobby G: I think you're confusing libertarians with anarcho-capitalists. Libertarians, whether rights- or utility-based, know that there have to be rules of the playing field before a market economy can function.

Alan Greenspan.

Quoting bjkeefe: At the risk of making more noise about very squishy terms, I'd argue that at least one fundamental aspect of capitalism has always been around, and is always around in state-controlled economic systems, too: the individual's desire to maximize his or her own gain. Even if money is non-existent or strictly controlled, and most every good or service is doled out by the government, and all work is supposed to be for the good of the community or the state, there are always things that people identify as scarce resources, and people will seek out ways to improve their chances of getting them (or more of them).

That's still just business. Or greed or self-interest. None of which defines capitalism or is sufficient to establish it. You're making exactly the kind of mistake I was talking about. Capitalism is what capitalism and capitalism alone does. Both the desire to maximize one's own gain and the practice of exchanging scarce resources have always existed. Capitalism is just a few hundred years old. I should clarify what I'm saying about libertarians in this regard, in light of Bobby G's comment. Yes; some libertarians do

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: How can anyone be dumb or arrogant enough to still defend libertarianism? Did you watch Greenspan, possibly the top libertarian of them all, specifically admit that his IDEOLOGY was wrong??? Might want to try glancing at the front page of any newspaper. It's over guys...just let it go. Why do I suspect I'll still be hearing "Well, marketsmarketsmarketsmarkets..." for the rest of my life?

Because the alternative is a Washington bureaucrat setting the price of milk every week, maybe you think that's OK. The credit default swaps were only viable financial instruments with tax-payer insurance (Fannie/Freddie) "waiting in the wings" - so to speak. Ultimately, they amounted to little more than fraud. Now, if government were to actually enforce a few really sensible regulations, and enforce contractual obligations (something it can do better from the outside of the business world) I doubt anybody would mind; it's the government owning and running everything that they (and I would hope, you) want to avoid.

Good to see that critics of libertarianism exist somewhere in the universe. While I agree that the current financial crisis has been a blow to their creed, I think that libertarians will remain a powerful force in US politics -- way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. It will remain the de facto worldview (or dream) of much of corporate America. At its core, after all, libertarianism is just a rationalization for personal greed, which is everybody's favorite sin. Indeed, all the Republicans need to do is dump the Jesus freaks/Huckabee/Palin wing of their party and become more libertarian and they'll win elections into perpetuity. (Shhh... don't tell anyone...)

Quoting Ray: You're making exactly the kind of mistake I was talking about. Capitalism is what capitalism and capitalism alone does. Both the desire to maximize one's own gain and the practice of exchanging scarce resources have always existed. Capitalism is just a few hundred years old.

Right. This is a point not well understood. Captialism is a stage of historical development based on the methods and means of production, and as you say, only dates back to approximately the 1600s. It didn't exist before that. Trade and motivation and greed and currency have always existed; but not capitalism.

Quoting rcocean: Please no more libertarians. These goofs don't live in the real world. Most are just Liberals that want to smoke dope and not pay taxes.

Funny, my standard line about libertarians is that they are "conservatives who like to smoke dope."

Yes. Alan Greenspan. He also thinks there have to be rules of the playing field.

Quoting MemeInjector3000: At its core, after all, libertarianism is just a rationalization for personal greed, which is everybody's favorite sin.

Exactly! Basically, the owner class needed an intellectual framework to justify systems of exploitation, so they developed the capitalist creed that is the national religion in the United States. Every literate American can recite Matt Welch's entire argument by the 7th grade, not only because it is amazingly simplistic, but because the assumptions of free enterprise are so deeply embedded in our culture. You literally cannot grow up with any basis awareness of the world around you and not be regularly bombarded with the numerous myths that justify this system. A good example is one we are being bombarded with daily during the election: raising taxes during a recession will collapse the economy. Funny how with conservatives reality never matters. This is exactly what they promised during the first years of the Clinton administration: his tax increases would throw the country into a deep recession. And then the exact opposite happened. But reality never alters the tenets of conservative faith, so we must endure the same nonsense talking points this year, and for the rest of our lives.

Funny, but living under socialism doesn't feel much different to me than capitalism did.

Quoting nyc123: Because the alternative is a Washington bureaucrat setting the price of milk every week, maybe you think that's OK. The credit default swaps were only viable financial instruments with tax-payer insurance (Fannie/Freddie) "waiting in the wings" - so to speak. Ultimately, they amounted to little more than fraud. Now, if government were to actually enforce a few really sensible regulations, and enforce contractual obligations (something it can do better from the outside of the business world) I doubt anybody would mind; it's the government owning and running everything that they (and I would hope, you) want to avoid.

I guess you're gonna have to convince me this is worth replying to...

Libertarians have lost some juice but they will still be around. One big reason for this is that many are not happy with our dominant 2 party system. From what I gather many are now eschewing any party affiliation and are registering as "declined to state." So, as off the wall some of these third parties are people will look at them closer due to fatigue with the same 'ole, same 'ole. Also, this particular party has a political/economic intellectual framework to work from that goes way beyond Ayn Rand. Sure, from what I gather most of their apologists seem to be Austrian econimists like Von Mises, Hayak, Rothbard and the like and appear to be weak on a social contract but these thinkers are way more credible than the Objectivist crew with Ayn Rand at their helm. John

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: I guess you're gonna have to convince me this is worth replying to...

I think it is important to find common ground. If you believe that the concept of individual private property exists, you have a bit of libertarian in you. I am not an anarchist, nor do I agree with "nut-jobs" but I do see where a drop of the libertarian axiom can help keep power in check. You were speaking of Alan Greenspan recanting his ideology, I would ask you, what is (*was*) his ideology? You call it libertarianism, I don't recognize it as anything except power corrupted. As the CEO of a (practically) unaccountable corporation that can print as much paper money as it wants and in so doing, set the price of it, I would argue that the Chairman of the Fed has far too much power. I would also argue that a congress with an ideologically-aligned president has too much power. Greenspan held interest rates at impossibly low levels for so long (ignoring his own 1996 "irrational exuberance" speech) that a big contraction was inevitable. The longer we wait (and each bailout just kicks the can down the road a few months/weeks) the more painful it will be

Quoting Ray: That's still just business. Or greed or self-interest. None of which defines capitalism or is sufficient to establish it.

Okay. But I still think that one of the things that defines capitalism is the admission that self-interest is a universal human trait, and that it's better to work with that assumption rather than to try to suppress it.

I don't think Alan Greenspan was a libertarian when he headed the Fed since many of that party don't believe in central banking. In fact, I am sure they think it's one of the main culprits in this economic meltdown along with the billionaire Wall Street bailout (rescue) plan. John

Who elected Alan Greenspan king of the libertarians? Certainly not libertarians; as head of the Federal Reserve, Greenspan was a regulator. Yup, the statists around here are trying yet another cram-down of their talking points in order to throw the discussion off track and distract attention from yet another colossal failure of their unbridled regulation-lust.

"golly-gee, you're smart"...he says as he stared, lovingly....

i can't find anything significant to disagree with there but as i said in another post somewhere...there's really just not much reason to have them around. all those common sense moves you described can just be filed under "common sense"....there's really no reason to have a whole separate category for it, let alone be forced to wade through numerous diavlogs about them where they exhibit a total lack of humility. if there were ever a time for them to shut up it would definitely be right now.

Quoting fedorovingtonboop: i can't find anything significant to disagree with there but as i said in another post somewhere...there's really just not much reason to have them around. all those common sense moves you described can just be filed under "common sense"....there's really no reason to have a whole separate category for it, let alone be forced to wade through numerous diavlogs about them where they exhibit a total lack of humility. if there were ever a time for them to shut up it would definitely be right now.

Well said. Can we stop with endless stream of "How many angels can dance on a pin" libertarians.? If BHTV wants out-of-touch intellectuals, why not try a few marxists or Monarchists. At least they'd be a change of pace.

Quoting threep: Eight years of a nefarious common political enemy would probably tend to cause you to underestimate the number of people you would sharply disagree with if the focus was turned inwards.

If this was a response to my earlier "Go liberaltarianism!", you might find this interesting reading.

Quoting rcocean: Well said. Can we stop with endless stream of "How many angels can dance on a pin" libertarians.? If BHTV wants out-of-touch intellectuals, why not try a few marxists or Monarchists. At least they'd be a change of pace.

Agreed. I'll leave it to The Editors:

Libertarians are like furries: the internet’s full of ‘em, but they are not a significant political constituency.

Quoting kidneystones: You'll be pleased to know, btw, that Slate published how the staff is voting:

You'll be unsurprised to realize that our little pissant is afraid to give the link to the Slate story, since the arguments given alongside each vote are solid, and in many cases, come from people who used to like McCain, but are turned off by the sort of bile that kidneystones epitomizes. Read them for yourself. Also worth reading, at the same link, the current and past Slate editors' arguments about the difference between a journalist having a preference and having a bias, another concept way too nuanced, I'm sure, for our resident Larry Johnson Wannabe. Keep 'em coming, ks! You've become my new favorite wingnut!

Barack Obama: 55
John McCain: 1

Yes, but the Bradley Effect applies to at least one infamous Slatista. Hint: Deploy the moose.

Quoting kidneystones: Inspiring Stuff: Online Fund-raising scam. Big money from big donors. All money, all the time.

Don't miss the 'Anthony Robbins Obama' infomercial!

A whole new scale of corruption. You'll be pleased to know, btw, that Slate published how the staff is voting:

Barack Obama: 55
John McCain: 1
Bob Barr: 1
Not McCain: 1
Noncitizen, can't vote: 4

Just like the run-up to the Iraq war: one-sided media coverage.

What could possibly go wrong?

Democracy is a messy affair. People, opinions, clouded judgment and obsession.
But take comfort, once BO is ensconced in the oval office, his health care plan will allow you to remedy those renal rocks that have soured you to the electoral process. Even though your condition is preexisting, take some comfort.. hope is on the way. Once the lasers blast the source of your discomfort to bits, your thinking should clear. Cheers!
Best wishes.

Quoting bjkeefe: ... the difference between a journalist having a preference and having a bias ...

Following up, here are some excerpts from Politico's reflection on press coverage of the two candidates, by John Harris and Jim VandeHei (Editor-in-Chief and Executive Editor, respectively):

The Project for Excellence in Journalism’s researchers found that John McCain, over the six weeks since the Republican convention, got four times as many negative stories as positive ones. The study found six out of 10 McCain stories were negative.

What’s more, Obama had more than twice as many positive stories (36 percent) as McCain — and just half the percentage of negative (29 percent).

You call that balanced?

OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal

Quoting Wonderment: Yes, but the Bradley Effect applies to at least one infamous Slatista. Hint: Deploy the moose.

Wasn't that hilarious (or telling?) how he was the only one who wouldn't give a reason for his vote?

I just skimmed the politico story, so if this was addressed, then just say that to me. Couldn't it be that McCain's campaign, given this year's situation for Republicans, has a much harder road to hoe? And if that's true, should that be reflected in the press coverage? Like, "McCain campaign did bad thing B today" versus "the difficult times for Republicans keep on forcing McCain campaign to make difficult choices, which is why it did bad thing B today"?

Not really. He's given reasons before in Kausfiles as well as on bloggingheads. The main reason: McCain would spend his capital to pass comprehensive immigration-reform, Obama would spend his capital to pass healthcare reform. Mickey likes Obama's healthcare plan and--you probably didn't know this--doesn't like comprehensive immigration reform. Moreover, even if he were against Obama's healthcare plan, he would still favor Obama because he thinks Obama's healthcare reform is more reversible than McCain's immigration reform. To paraphrase Kidneystones, stop drinking the Andrew Sullivan kool-aid.

Quoting Bobby G: Not really. He's given reasons before in Kausfiles as well as on bloggingheads.

But not on the page where every other Slate employee did. Note that some of the writing there was taken from earlier published work; e.g., Hitchens. Presumably, in those cases, the writers were asked to approve linking or excerpting. Which raises the question: why wouldn't Mickey sign off on that? I recall the BH.tv-based mentions he has made. Just thought it was an amusing oddity. I hardly need to drink Kool-Aid to want to poke fun at Kaus.

Quoting kidneystones: McCain treated him with kid gloves through-out the campaign and that's to McCain's credit.

For someone so whiningly desperate to see Obama defeated that he'll type Ayers/Rezko/Wright until his fingertips bleed, this is truly surreal, even considering the source. Never mind reality. Let us all now praise John McCain for not doing what it takes to win! I am beginning to suspect that our own little version of Larry C. Johnson has become a believer in the theory of Time Cube. If he's not the originator, that is.

I demand you drink the Kool-Aid! But seriously, we don't know why he hasn't given an explanation. Maybe he feels that that explanation by itself isn't good enough, and that to have a good explanation he'd need a lot more space. Maybe he didn't want to sort through Kausfiles to give his explanation. Maybe he's got a longer piece coming up where he gives his reasons for and against. But you know all this. You just want to poke fun at Mickey. What's Mickey ever done to you? Aside from immigration you practically have the same views! To quote Mr. O'Reilly, Tell me where I'm wrong.

Quoting Bobby G: I demand you drink the Kool-Aid!

But seriously, we don't know why he hasn't given an explanation. Maybe he feels that that explanation by itself isn't good enough, and that to have a good explanation he'd need a lot more space. Maybe he didn't want to sort through Kausfiles to give his explanation. Maybe he's got a longer piece coming up where he gives his reasons for and against.

But you know all this. You just want to poke fun at Mickey. What's Mickey ever done to you? Aside from immigration you practically have the same views!

To quote Mr. O'Reilly, Tell me where I'm wrong.

Your speculation is plausible, although for a professional writer not to be able to knock out a paragraph on demand to such a well-formed question ... I dunno. As to why I like to poke fun at Mickey, I don't really want to get into another one of those debates. I'll just say that he has long bothered me with his protestations that he's a Democrat, voted for Kerry, will vote for Obama, while spending all of his time harshing or even smearing the Dems and ignoring every GOP foible. I'll also

You know, I don't have much of a problem treating a lunatic as a credible source for information. First, by "lunatic" I don't mean someone who's mentally ill. I just mean someone who time and again misrepresents things and repeatedly gives bad arguments for things. Second, I think we're good enough to know when some statement does and doesn't have the indicia of truth. If it comes from a nut, I'll be more skeptical, but if it sounds likely given background information I already have, I'll give it some credence.

Quoting Bobby G: You know, I don't have much of a problem treating a lunatic as a credible source for information.

First, by "lunatic" I don't mean someone who's mentally ill. I just mean someone who time and again misrepresents things and repeatedly gives bad arguments for things.

Second, I think we're good enough to know when some statement does and doesn't have the indicia of truth. If it comes from a nut, I'll be more skeptical, but if it sounds likely given background information I already have, I'll give it some credence.

Sounds like you don't have much respect for Mickey, either. ;^) Assuming you're actually talking about GP, hey, whatever floats your boat. I prefer not to have to work unnecessarily at filtering and applying caution when I'm being told something or when I'm looking for something, especially in the way of basic news. Especially given the plethora of other known good and potentially good sources. I agree that GP is useful, and even credible, as a representative voice of a certain part of the conservative movement. In some sense. Kind of like one guy on the supermax floor not throwing his feces through the bars tells you there's a good chance they're all

Quoting Bobby G: I just skimmed the politico story, so if this was addressed, then just say that to me.

Couldn't it be that McCain's campaign, given this year's situation for Republicans, has a much harder road to hoe? And if that's true, should that be reflected in the press coverage? Like, "McCain campaign did bad thing B today" versus "the difficult times for Republicans keep on forcing McCain campaign to make difficult choices, which is why it did bad thing B today"?

Sounds like an inexcusably favorable way to cover McCain, if you ask me. How tough a row to hoe did Barack Hussein Obama, a black man with little time in national office, have? Especially after the MSM convinced itself that 18 million Clinton Democrats were permanently soured on him and that seven seconds of video of his erstwhile pastor had to be shown and discussed for ten million airtime-hours? How many times did we hear the words "clinging" and "bitter?" And really, how many excuses do you want to be making for someone who wants to be the President of the United States? And I would also say that this scenario you describe, in fact, was exactly the sort of

LOL at the feces thing. But I like Mickey--I'd say I have respect for him. The arguments of his that people say are dumb are ones I don't find dumb, and I'd say he's more or less right about immigration. Don't tell Wonderment. Or tell him. The ensuing scuffle may be entertaining.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sounds like an inexcusably favorable way to cover McCain, if you ask me. How tough a row to hoe did Barack Hussein Obama, a black man with little time in national office, have?

Is it "row" or "road"? I thought it was "road." He did have a tough ro/w/ad to hoe as a black man with little time in national office, but one would have expected his lack of experience to be highlighted more by the MSM than just by Clinton, to the extent she even highlighted it. Actually, now that I think about it, how tough was his blackness for him, really? Is anti-black sentiment such a large part of even the blue-collar Dem base? Didn't the media like him more because he was black? And don't bring up Jesse and Al--yes, they're black, but they're very in-your-face about it. They challenge you about race and say things you don't want to hear (and they're thoroughly corrupt); Obama is, as Shelby Steele puts it, a bargainer--he won't call you racist if you won't hold his blackness against him.

Especially after the MSM convinced itself that 18 million Clinton Democrats were permanently soured on him and that seven seconds

Quoting Bobby G: Is it "row" or "road"? I thought it was "road."

A hoe is a farming implement, and is used in rows where crops are planted. Tough row to hoe.

Wow. That makes that idiom become very interesting to me now. I will be sure to use it as much as possible in future conversations. But using it in future conversations will be a ... uh ... it'll be a diff... ah, shit, it'll be hard.

Quoting Bobby G: BTW, yes, the liberal media is not LEFT. But that doesn't mean they're not liberal. 86% of them voted for Clinton. You really believe that makes no difference in their coverage? What percentage do you think will vote for Obama? I'd be over 90%. You think that makes no difference? There is no way it makes no difference. Look at their coverage on social issues, for goodness' sake.

I disagree. First of all, who's included in that 86%? Does it include people who work in the news business but have no influence over coverage, like camera men and copy editors? What's important is the people who dominate the delivery of news. Take Bill O'Reilly's show. There could be 50 or 60 people working at Fox who have some connection to that show, but all of them, regardless of their political point of view, are serving the agenda of O'Reilly himself, and helping him deliver a far-right broadcast. The other problem is that left and right are relative terms. If you have two glasses of water -- one at 100 degrees and one at 110 degrees, the 110 degree glass is the "warm" glass between the two. If I have two glasses, at 120 and 110, then the 110 degree glass, in my case, is

Quoting Bobby G: Wow. That makes that idiom become very interesting to me now. I will be sure to use it as much as possible in future conversations. But using it in future conversations will be a ... uh ... it'll be a diff... ah, shit, it'll be hard.

LOL! ;-) Sounds like you have a long road ahead of you!

Quoting Bobby G: BTW, yes, the liberal media is not LEFT. But that doesn't mean they're not liberal. 86% of them voted for Clinton. You really believe that makes no difference in their coverage? What percentage do you think will vote for Obama? I'd be over 90%. You think that makes no difference? There is no way it makes no difference. Look at their coverage on social issues, for goodness' sake.

One of the other ways, I think, conservatives get away with claiming that the media is liberal, apart from the fact that today's conservative movement and Republican Party really are dominated by an extreme right wing element, is that they have a much broader definition of "the media," and include things like MTV, The Oscars, and regular television programming, e.g., The Daily Show, American Idol, reality TV shows. Liberals, I think, tend to limit their defintion of "the media" to journalistic enterprises.

I'm pretty sure the 86% is reporters. I should have been more careful with my words. When you include non-news TV shows into the mix, it just gets worse. BTW, I'm not a Bush fan. Er, not a GW Bush fan. I wasn't since 2005 (a little late, I know). Nasty coverage of Bush doesn't really bother me, as long as there's no double standard.

But I like Mickey--I'd say I have respect for him. The arguments of his that people say are dumb are ones I don't find dumb...Don't tell Wonderment.

Perfectly understandable. I feel the same way about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and Rashid Khalidi.

[quote=Bobby G;95896]... I like Mickey--I'd say I have respect for him. The arguments of his that people say are dumb are ones I don't find dumb ... I have had respect for Mickey. He often has had an interesting take on day-to-day politics and I like that there are no sacred cows for him. I can also see how others would have respect for his views on certain topics where I find him less than persuasive.

... and I'd say he's more or less right about immigration.

This is not a topic I find worth debating. As with Israel/Palestine and a couple of others, no one who participates has the slightest chance of budging away from the views he or she comes in with, and everyone already knows all the arguments the other side will make. But, for the record, I consider Mickey a xenophobe, at best, on this matter.

I agree with you on Wright. As a Catholic who believes in Original Sin, I think most people are evil, and worthy of, if not eternal damnation, then damnation for some non-negligible period of time (myself included). So yes, God damn America, especially an America that thinks it's overall a morally good place. (Note: this does not mean that I think America is significantly worse than most countries; morally rotten though it is, it is better in many respects than many, many countries.) I don't agree with you on Ayers. I don't know Khalidi's views.

Quoting Bobby G: I'm pretty sure the 86% is reporters. I should have been more careful with my words.

So we don't know what the 86% is composed of. We don't know if it's just reporters, or if it's everyone connected to journalism, or somewhere in between. Suppose it is, as you suspect, just reporters who are mostly Democrats or liberals. What would that prove? Does this group of "reporters" include sportscasters and sportswriters, weathermen, movie critics, and the fashion reporter? I'd guess that 86% of reporters don't even work on political news. How do you know that the entire 86% of reporters considered liberal aren't all working on non-political journalism? Furthermore, your argument presumes that the reporter dictates what he covers and how, as if there is no editorial direction or pressure, or influence from publishers. You're a genuine intellectual; a scholar. And because of that, I know you know how meaningless the 86% figure really is. Wouldn't a better question be "does the news have a liberal bias?" rather than "are reporters, including most of whom never write about politics, liberal?" Of course it would. And I think that any objective analysis of the actual output of news coverage would find that it has a conservative bias. Note: I will confess that

Quoting Bobby G: I think most people are evil, and worthy of, if not eternal damnation, then damnation for some non-negligible period of time (myself included). So yes, God damn America...

Can I ask, what is eternal damnation like? Does it mean roasting in the flames of hell, or otherwise suffering some kind of horrific torment? If so, do you think that's what awaits most people in the afterlife? For those who escape eternal damnation, what do you think the appropriate non-neglible amount of time would be? Is God powerless to stop people from suffering eternal (or non-trivial terms of) damnation, or is he the one who administers the punishment? If the latter, why would God want to do that to people?

Quoting TwinSwords: Can I ask, what is eternal damnation like? Does it mean roasting in the flames of hell, or otherwise suffering some kind of horrific torment?

I don't know what it's like, but it's constantly likened to a very painful physical torment. Since I'm not sure I believe in a soul, but only a physical resurrection, it would stand to reason that the torment would be physical. But it could simply be emotional.

If so, do you think that's what awaits most people in the afterlife?

Yes.

For those who escape eternal damnation, what do you think the appropriate non-neglible amount of time would be?

As I see things, the appropriate amount of punishment would be the amount that it takes to make a person give up his sins and accept God's grace.

Is God powerless to stop people from suffering eternal (or non-trivial terms of) damnation, or is he the one who administers the punishment? If the latter, why would God want to do that to people?

God is not powerless to stop it, as God is omnipotent. He could simply make us do whatever he wanted. However, he can't make us freely do whatever he wanted. So, God might be powerless

Quoting TwinSwords: So we don't know what the 86% is composed of. We don't know if it's just reporters, or if it's everyone connected to journalism, or somewhere in between.

As it turns out, different surveys taken at different times survey different people. Some of them survey the Washington Press Corps. Others of them survey "Washington-Based Reporters". Here's an example of the surveys. Note that the figure was 89% of Washington-Based Reporters voted for B. Clinton over GHWBush.

Suppose it is, as you suspect, just reporters who are mostly Democrats or liberals. What would that prove? Does this group of "reporters" include sportscasters and sportswriters, weathermen, movie critics, and the fashion reporter? I'd guess that 86% of reporters don't even work on political news. How do you know that the entire 86% of reporters considered liberal aren't all working on non-political journalism?

The above survey answers this question. Turns out, it's just reporters who cover political issues. Which seems pretty consequential to me.

Furthermore, your argument presumes that the reporter dictates what he covers and how, as if there is no editorial direction or pressure, or influence from publishers.

This is true, and it's an important caveat to my argument. There almost certainly is editorial direction or pressure, though

Quoting Bobby G: Still, editors couldn't be that conservative, given that Obama has outdone McCain 234-105 in newspaper endorsements.

It's interesting to note how many endorsements Obama has gotten from newspapers who had previously never endorsed a Democrat, or who hadn't endorsed anybody, or either, for a long time. As you sort of allude to here:

What I think I should do next is find out the number of newspapers that endorsed Clinton over Dole, Clinton over Bush I, Kerrey over Bush II, Gore over Bush II, Dukakis over Bush I, etc.

IIRC, the endorsement totals were about 50-50 in 2004. Some data here and here. Bottom line: I think the two candidates, their campaigns, their demeanors, and their VP picks have done more to affect the endorsements than any sort of "bias."

I think I agree with you. In 2004, the endorsements were roughly 51-49 for Kerry. In 2000, from what I could find, they favored Gore a little more, like 53-47. In 1996, it was more lopsidedly for Clinton over Dole, something like 65-35, from what little info I could find. In 1992 I couldn't find much data. One important difference, though, is that the papers with the highest circulation--i.e., the most reputable papers with the most plum positions--tend to endorse Dems over Republicans every year in noticeable amounts.

and the white house press corps donates to Democrats roughly 10 to 1. Note that I heard this on Meet the Press or This Week, so I can't provide a survey to back it up.

Quoting Bobby G: One important difference, though, is that the papers with the highest circulation--i.e., the most reputable papers with the most plum positions--tend to endorse Dems over Republicans every year in noticeable amounts.

Nice counterweight to AM radio, don't you think?

The difference is that AM radio hosts don't, for the most part, claim to be non-biased. When you tune into Rush Limbaugh, you know you're getting an opinion/entertainment show.

This is just the course of the wind. When the economy was shit and inflation was high in the 70's, people adored the more hands off, friedmanesque politics that Republicans and Democrats were talking about. Democrats still talk about the negative income tax and EIC like it was their idea. Now we are seeing the crash and flaws of this system. The idea that Libertarianism is dead is stupid. It's just going to be in the dark for a while. People said socailism/communism was dead but now every first world country is rushing to socialist policies to "fix" the results in industires like healthcare. However what will be interesting is to see how corporations and small buisnesses react to this. Economic growth has soared under the "evil libertarian" approach of the past few decades and it will be interesting to see whether or not these buisnesses will try to escape the return of the 60's.

Will Wilkerson had the best line in this regard: a temporary downward turn following years of success disproves free market economics like Weimar Germany disproves Democracy.

Classic glibertarian. Capitalism is natural and perfect. Downturns are a necessary part of the Austrian business cycle. Therefore downturns are good for you! So enjoy being broke!