The main problem with obesity is lack of mobility at an old age. Old people are weak and 50 pounds makes all the difference between having to sit in a wheelchair all day, or the distance from your couch to the toilet becoming a marathon-like burden and being able to walk to the park to feed some doves and remeniss about the good old times. Megan confuses intragenerational Heritability of obesity with intergenerational change. Obesity didn't go up in some countries because of a change in the genome. Heritability only means that individuals with the fatso gene will end up at the top end of the distribution.

Constitutional?

Quoting kidneystones: And Meagan's lunatic faith in Ayn Rand is every bit as crazy. Both are 'beltway' insiders who have completely lost touch with issues that affect ordinary voters. Make no mistake, it is the tea-party demonstrators and Sarah Palin who have stopped health-care, not scolds like Megan, ancient before her time. Down-syndrome families have much more in common with Sarah Palin than they do with career-minded singles like Megan; or the eugenics-loving liberals, like the doc who showed-up here recently to promote denial of treatment to those most likely to die.

The energy and dynamism on the right comes from the folks in those crowds. David and Megan speak for the worst part of the right: the educated elites who, like the Dem elites, believe that societies need to be 'theoretically grounded' in a text written by some old wrinkly.

Without the crazies, Dems would never have won 2006 and maybe 2008. All the credit for stopping the Dems cold this summer goes to the 'crazies'. Palin's 'death panel' metaphor encapsulates perfectly the problems built-in to any solution provided by government. Megan and David sound good on camera, before an audience of outraged right-wing

Hyperpalatabilty??? I don't get this. What fast food tastes better today than 30 years ago if you really think about it? I think things today taste worse. French fries fried in lard are way better than the modern alternative.

More Megan..."Who's Crazy Now?"

Stop listening to Frum and all the other former members of Team Bush. Listen to R.S. McCain instead. For example, here's McCain on David Frum.

Quoting rcocean: Stop listening to Frum and all the other former members of Team Bush.

Listen to R.S. McCain instead. For example, here's McCain on David Frum.

Here's TBogg on McCain. (I've posted it before, but it bears repetition.) I don't think I'd mind if rc refrained from posting links to blatant racists,

The most basic moral and intellectual responsibility of anyone who holds a political position is to be able to clearly and straightforwardly admit to the disadvantages of his or her preferred policy. And Megan, like so many other of those opposed to health care reform, can't do it. She has had ample opportunity, and has been straight up asked, by myself and others, to admit to the pain and suffering her vision of health care causes. Hasn't done it. Won't. Can't. She's unable to bring herself to admit to the simple truth: as she is explicitly opposed to expanding access AND lowering costs in health care-- check her blog, I promise you, I am not misrepresenting her position-- her position leaves millions to suffer because they lack the ability to gain health care access. That's the truth; millions of people suffer under the system Megan prefers. Because early detection and treatment are the hallmarks of Western medicine, her preference kills people, too. Now, that's a position. If you're willing to admit that you are abandoning millions to uncertainty and untold thousands to pain, suffering and economic devastation, you can support the status quo. That's a mature, fair way to oppose health

This raises my opinion of Frum rather than distracting from it.

Quoting themightypuck: Hyperpalatabilty???

I don't get this. What fast food tastes better today than 30 years ago if you really think about it? I think things today taste worse. French fries fried in lard are way better than the modern alternative.

There's a hot book right now about how the food and restaurant industry, has using the best science has to offer, figured out how to push all our buttons. It's The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite by David Kessler (and it's not a diet book). Basically they learned out to pack extra salt, sugar, and fat into everything. They sneak sugar into salty foods, salt into sugary foods, etc, and it completely horks your appetite regulation.

Quoting Freddie: The most basic moral and intellectual responsibility of anyone who holds a political position is to be able to clearly and straightforwardly admit to the disadvantages of his or her preferred policy. And Megan, like so many other of those opposed to health care reform, can't do it. She has had ample opportunity, and has been straight up asked, by myself and others, to admit to the pain and suffering her vision of health care causes. Hasn't done it. Won't. Can't. ...

Honestly Freddie, she hardly deserves your loyalty as a reader.

I buy Doritos from time to time and it doesn't take a fear of fat to make me think they taste like shit after the first few bites. Almost all branded food you can buy today is way too salty and way too sweet and has weird flavors (like all chip type snack foods have this weird taste that I don't remember from my youth--I think it is the oil they now cook this stuff in). I might be an outlier, but more salt and more sugar doesn't make me eat more horrible tasting food. To be honest, I think it is pretty hard to find genuinely delicious food for reasonable prices. Edit: just checked the link and that would be an awesome book to have (I'll look for it in the library). I will admit that I have eaten too much food that I thought tasted horrible on many occasions. I wouldn't term this as hyperpalatable because I wasn't eating it for the taste, but I get the idea they can pack stuff in food to make you crave it regardless of taste.

You may be familiar with a wonderful short book by the economist/philosopher Albert O. Hirschman called The Rhetoric of Reaction. Hirschman (better known for his essay "Exit, Voice and Loyalty") simply catalogs the three great arguments that conservatives use against virtually any progressive idea: Perversity (It will do the opposite of what you intend). Futility (It'll never work). And Jeopardy (It'll cost too much).

The book is only 167 pages long, but if you were hoping for a movie version, may I recommend bloggingheads today, where Megan McArdle of The Atlantic and I started off talking about the budget deficit, and quickly moved on to health reform, which I think is key to solving the long-term budget problem, and Megan, well, Megan thinks it will never work, will do the opposite of what's intended ("it will kill thousands of people"), and will cost too much. You can decide for yourself.

That's Mark Schmitt from June, but the point stands.

Quoting rcocean: Stop listening to Frum and all the other former members of Team Bush.

Listen to R.S. McCain instead. For example, here's McCain on David Frum.

Thanks for the link, rcocean. That was a great article. David Frum is a smart guy. He recognized early on that the electoral loss would motivate conservatives to toss out the cuckoo’s egg of neoconish elitism out of the Republican Party. But I bet he is surprised how successful, in such a short period of time, American patriots have been in achieving just that. He cloaked his deviance from the conservative movement as only tactical, as if the only disagreement he had with Rush was Limbaugh’s flawed private life and “crazy”, over-the-top rhetoric that allegedly makes ideas Limbaugh endorses as unpopular with the American public as the big man himself. However, to realize their disagreement is and has always been substantive and not tactical, one doesn’t have to go further than listen to Frum’s truly crazy ideas on having the government intrude in people’s private lives to fight obesity.
Similar bait and switch between political tactics and the core ideas that the Party stands for

Megan Mcardle is really hot. combined with her obviously rigorous mind i think i have a new crush.

Quoting kidneystones: the eugenics-loving liberals, like the doc who showed-up here recently to promote denial of treatment to those most likely to die.

If anyone reading this is wondering what KS is talking about, here's the post he's referring to:

Quoting zbjordan: Ann is an idiot...I am doctor and end of life care is a normal part of medical decision making. It's not called "death" care. To equate that as the same and to insuniate that lawmakers are just using semantics to hide the obvious just shows her obvious ignorance on this issue. End of life care, palliative care, or hospice care is not pulling the plug on someone who otherwise would be living for years, its for someone that has been determined by physicians that they WILL DIE within the next 6 months and that normal treatment should be switched over to comfort care. That is it. These people WILL DIE and to continue to treat them is a waste of time, energy, and resources. There has to be grounds set where the insurance company or the government for that matter can say enough is enough. We cant continue to pay for medication or procedures that will

the GOP can win by emphazing immgration and they will win most whites and thus win. this is crucial cause then we can halt the demagraphic transformation

Quoting AemJeff: Here's TBogg on McCain. (I've posted it before, but it bears repetition.)

I don't think I'd mind if rc refrained from posting links to blatant racists,

I agree. This should be posted every time someone links to Robert Stacy McCain.

Quoting TwinSwords: I agree. This should be posted every time someone links to Robert Stacy McCain.

I agree - post it every time, it will remind conservatives that liberals are NEVER interested in honest debate but only in smearing their opponents as "racists" or "bigots" or "Nazi" etc. I can't think of a single conservative/Republican that hasn't been smeared as a "racist" .

Oh, so sad...

'Ancient before her time.' Wow, yep. That about gets it. Get those credit card cheats, Megan! They're swindling YOU, and they're swindling ME!!!

This has to be THE Freddie from Ordinary Gents, yes?

David Frum's explanation of the capture of the Republican Party by the lunatic fringe explains very little. Although the absence of leadership at the national level has certainly allowed the "conservative industrial-entertainment complex" to drown out more reasonable voices, you cannot explain the influence of loud-mouthed rabble rousers without at least making an attempt to analyze the mind of the public that finds the drivel of Fox TV et al. persuasive. The peculiar synthesis, which as far as I know exists only in the US, between piety and populism, libertarianism and hostility towards "élites," free market idolatry and distrust of big government (except of course when it comes to the military-industrial complex), was forged by previous Republican administrations. If the lunatic fringe now rules the mass media, they are only echoing what their political masters taught them to say. So who is the puppet? And who is the puppeteer?

Quoting rcocean: I agree - post it every time, it will remind conservatives that liberals are NEVER interested in honest debate but only in smearing their opponents as "racists" or "bigots" or "Nazi" etc.

I can't think of a single conservative/Republican that hasn't been smeared as a "racist" .

From Steve Gilliard's conclusion at Jeff's link: "So when the GOP whines about being labeled the racist party, they're the ones who invite open, proud racists to speak before their groups." Listen, RC, I know that most Republican rank and file are not racists. But many in your party are. You should weed them out. Why do you instead tolerate and even elevate them? (And when I say "you," I don't mean "Republicans," but you, personally.)

On my facebook page, I suggested that we pay for health care reform by taxing the substances that make us unhealthy, like trans fats, corn syrup, etc. You would not BELIEVE the level of angst that caused. People were afraid that it would be a slippery slope, and that their beloved TWINKIES would become black-market goods.

"Conservative alternatives for health care reform" They yammered on and offered nothing, 0...nada.

obesity or eating disorders?

Thanks for this - not that it hasn't long been apparent that Kidneystones is a fundamentally dishonest ranter, but it's nice to see such a neat evisceration.

Quoting Freddie: The most basic moral and intellectual responsibility of anyone who holds a political position is to be able to clearly and straightforwardly admit to the disadvantages of his or her preferred policy. And Megan, like so many other of those opposed to health care reform, can't do it. She has had ample opportunity, and has been straight up asked, by myself and others, to admit to the pain and suffering her vision of health care causes. Hasn't done it. Won't. Can't...........

.......But, like I said, it's an opinion you can hold, and even hold with self-respect and integrity-- if only you are willing to admit to what, exactly, you are supporting. But if you don't, and you can't, then you have no leg to stand on at all.

Excellent post. Though I would rephrase it to say that the real moral and intellectual responsibility is to clearly and straightforwardly acknowledge and address the disadvantages of one's proposed policy as seen by others. Without this clarification, people will continue to see their ideas as less flawed than opposing ideas and will therefore never acknowledge the very flaws you want to see acknowledged. What one considers a disadvantage depends

Quoting kidneystones: And Meagan's lunatic faith in Ayn Rand is every bit as crazy. Both are 'beltway' insiders who have completely lost touch with issues that affect ordinary voters. Make no mistake, it is the tea-party demonstrators and Sarah Palin who have stopped health-care, not scolds like Megan, ancient before her time. Down-syndrome families have much more in common with Sarah Palin than they do with career-minded singles like Megan;

what is this? its all sensible, and dare i say, even thoughtful? wow.

Quoting kidneystones: or the eugenics-loving liberals,

oh never mind. thats right, i forgot you are an unhinged wingnut. sorry, my mistake earlier.

Quoting popcorn_karate: i forgot you are an unhinged wingnut. sorry, my mistake earlier.

The decline and fall of BHTV.

Quoting Me&theboys:
My 85 year old emphysemic father-in-law, a life long vigorous democrat, thinks it is morally acceptable to continue to spend Medicare dollars on getting total hip replacements (he's on his 5th in 3 years)

That explains a lot about where you're coming from.

Quoting kidneystones: ...or the eugenics-loving liberals, like the doc who showed-up here recently to promote denial of treatment to those most likely to die...

Shouldn't that be eugenics-loving progressives; after all they supported it in the 20s and 30s before Hitler took it to extremes.

Quoting claymisher: That explains a lot about where you're coming from.

Can you elaborate?

yeah - you have issues with me. i got that the first time you commented about it. is this just going to be an ongoing thing for you now? and how do you feel about the phrase "eugenics loving liberals"? does it sound like someone wanting to have a real discussion?

Why not Medicare for all? Is there any other way to cut this Gordian Knot? Corporations should love it because they no longer would have to provide health insurance to their employers, which would make them more competitive overseas. Workers' take home pay would go up for the same reason. And you still get to choose your doctor. What's not to like? Of course hospitals, big pharma, and doctors would hate it (most of them) but so what? Are they in danger of starving? I don't think so. Besides, how many divisions do they command -- divisions of voters, that is. As for the insurance companies, they can compete with each other to process Medicare claims the way they do now. Claims processing is the bigger part of their business already. They could also compete in the supplementary insurance market for those who want and can afford gold-plated coverage. Unfortunately, you've still got to pay for it all, which means a lot more government revenues. The graduated income tax is about maxed out so why not replace it with a graduated consumption tax that makes savings tax exempt?

Quoting rcocean: I can't think of a single conservative/Republican that hasn't been smeared as a "racist" .

This sentence is everything that's wrong with your world view, crushed down to a diamond.

Quoting DoctorMoney: This sentence is everything that's wrong with your world view, crushed down to a diamond.

It seems to me that there is a hole in you logic here. In the first part of the quote you call his world view wrong. In the second half you equate it to the most valuable and sought after gem stone around diamonds. Which is it wrong or precious?

Quoting piscivorous: It seems to me that there is a hole in you logic here. In the first part of the quote you call his world view wrong. In the second half you equate it to the most valuable and sought after gem stone around diamonds. Which is it wrong or precious?

Another way to convey that metaphor would be "refined to its purest, crystalline essense."

Quoting AemJeff: Another way to convey that metaphor would be "refined to its purest, crystalline essense."

Or: distilled. Or: condensed. In any case: reading comprehension FAIL by pisc.

The only FAIL here is your sense of humor!

Quoting piscivorous: The only FAIL here is your sense of humor!

If you were actually just kidding around, especially given your long history of saying whacked-out and/or smarmy things, not to mention showing at best a hit-or-miss relationship with the English language, a smiley would have been useful. [Added] Particularly given your other habit of whining when people try to interpret what you're saying.

Yet even the blind would have problems with a smiley I suppose!

Quoting piscivorous: Yet even the blind would have problems with a smiley I suppose!

Seems like a weak assertion to make when you have no evidence, especially as it contradicts a lot of other observations. I'd recommend you try using a smiley or two before you continue pontificating on this point.

I recall Megan saying that she wasn't much of a Randian, but chose the name "Jane Galt" back in the day just to annoy some commenter that hated Rand. Frum is wrong that obesity affects morbidity rather than mortality:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...alculated.html You are more likely to be obese if your friends are because people seek out friends who are similar to themselves.

Quoting piscivorous: The only FAIL here is your sense of humor!

I still maintain that I'm the only one who made a joke in this thread.

Re: Obesity
I have an idea for getting the idea across to children about obesity, AND THIS IS JUST AN IDEA:
In New York City over the past ten years, the numbers of obese adults in wheelchairs has increased proportionately every year. It's so bad now, that the buses have been slowed up badly, causing inconvenience to everyone.
Maybe a video of these increased numbers of disabled obese people using wheelchairs getting onto buses (mostly black patients) and in the outpatient clinics of hospitals could be shown in the schools, trying to impress upon kids that obesity has its tolls not only with mobility, but with cardiac and orthopedic issues but diabetes as well. There is also a myth that black men think that fat women are sexy, and that needs to be debunked.

Quoting Me&theboys: My 85 year old emphysemic father-in-law, a life long vigorous democrat, thinks it is morally acceptable to continue to spend Medicare dollars on getting total hip replacements (he's on his 5th in 3 years).......

Quoting claymisher: That explains a lot about where you're coming from.

Quoting Me&theboys: Can you elaborate?

In the absense of any elaboration from you, I'll refrain from making assumptions about what you mean and instead just state that no fragment of a sentence explains anything about "where I am coming from".

It would be wonderful if BhTV could put up a diavlog between two health care economists. These political bloggers are smart enough point to intriguing studies, but I do not have confidence that they have the depth of knowledge, or the honesty, of a good old-fashioned academic who has devoted their life to the subject. Health care policy is really really complicated and should not be left to amateurs. Listening to most health care debates is like listening to two opposing sound bite jockeys trying to work out quantum physics or cell biology - it's just a waste of time. I would like for someone to answer some basic questions that stubbornly resist being answered in all the debates: 1)What accounts for the huge cost difference between the U.S. and other counties. Is it A)the types of procedures performed B)population differences or C) reimbursement rates? Which procedures or illnesses? What doctors? 2)What accounts for continuing increase in costs? Again break these down. 3)If there truly is a great deal of fat in the system, why don't private insurers refuse to pay for ineffective treatments? You would think this would be their #1 priority. If

Quoting formivore: It would be wonderful if BhTV could put up a diavlog between two health care economists. [...]

If anyone knows where such an analysis is available on the web, I would be grateful if they could give a link.

I'd start with Ezra Klein. He's not an economist, but he's gone deeper into the policy wonk weeds than anyone I've ever been able to follow while still keeping my eyes open.

Quoting Me&theboys: In the absense of any elaboration from you, I'll refrain from making assumptions about what you mean and instead just state that no fragment of a sentence explains anything about "where I am coming from".

I can't remember what I was thinking. I think I got you mixed up with someone else! I take it all back!

Quoting mystic: Re: Obesity
I have an idea for getting the idea across to children about obesity, AND THIS IS JUST AN IDEA:
In New York City over the past ten years, the numbers of obese adults in wheelchairs has increased proportionately every year. It's so bad now, that the buses have been slowed up badly, causing inconvenience to everyone.
Maybe a video of these increased numbers of disabled obese people using wheelchairs getting onto buses (mostly black patients) and in the outpatient clinics of hospitals could be shown in the schools, trying to impress upon kids that obesity has its tolls not only with mobility, but with cardiac and orthopedic issues but diabetes as well. There is also a myth that black men think that fat women are sexy, and that needs to be debunked.

I see no reason why blaming obesity on those shiftless coloreds wouldn't be an immediate win. /sarcasm

Quoting bjkeefe: I see no reason why blaming obesity on those shiftless coloreds wouldn't be an immediate win.

/sarcasm

To be fair, obesity* is a class/race issue as well. As for myths of attractiveness, that is not my area of expertise. * just so McArdle doesn't FREAK OUT, by obesity I don't mean BMI of blahblahblah, I mean so-fat-it-can't-be-good.

I think the most relevent question of this particular "debate" is: which one of these two have the ferocious, stasi-sounding guard dog in the background. And what diet is IT on?

Quoting Francoamerican: David Frum's explanation of the capture of the Republican Party by the lunatic fringe explains very little. Although the absence of leadership at the national level has certainly allowed the "conservative industrial-entertainment complex" to drown out more reasonable voices, you cannot explain the influence of loud-mouthed rabble rousers without at least making an attempt to analyze the mind of the public that finds the drivel of Fox TV et al. persuasive.

The peculiar synthesis, which as far as I know exists only in the US, between piety and populism, libertarianism and hostility towards "élites," free market idolatry and distrust of big government (except of course when it comes to the military-industrial complex), was forged by previous Republican administrations. If the lunatic fringe now rules the mass media, they are only echoing what their political masters taught them to say.

So who is the puppet? And who is the puppeteer?

Franco, Hey. How's it going? I'm curious what type of conservatism you think would serve the U.S. better than the one we've got. You may not understand American piety, but it is a fact. As a historical matter, the rural, religious populists were part of the Democratic

RF,
Great post. Just a couple points.

Quoting rfrobison: And yet, according to Jonah Goldberg, anyway, more Republicans than Democrats voted in favor of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. But I digress.

If those bills (VRA of 1965 and CRA of 1964) were before Congress today, they would get very few Republican votes, and overwhelming Democratic votes. The high Republican vote totals for those bills reflect a different period in our history, when there were still Republicans in the north, and Democrats in the South. The votes predate the mass migration of Southern whites out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party. The votes for both bills reflected regional attitudes more than partisan ones. The votes against Civil Rights were cast almost exclusively by Southern politicians, regardless of party. Here's the breakdown for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, from Wikipedia: The original House version: Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%) The Senate version: Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) Note that outside the region, more Democrats voted for the bill than Republicans.

Quoting rfrobison: This attitude is epitomized in Thomas Frank's book "What's Wrong With Kansas," which he wrote just after Bush was re-elected in 2004. In it, he argued, basically, that the working class in America is

Quoting TwinSwords: RF,
Great post.

Thanks, TS, nice of you to say so.

If those VRA of 1965 and CRA of 1964) were before Congress today, they would get very few Republican votes, and overwhelming Democratic votes...The votes for both bills reflected regional attitudes more than partisan ones. The votes against Civil Rights were cast almost exclusively by Southern politicians, regardless of party.

Sure. And Nixon, the consummate political strategist, saw a way to split the Democratic "solid South" and took it. He may have been a racist or he may not, but he never let moral compunctions stand in the way of victory--as Watergate went on to prove. On your larger point, I'm reasonably sure that even if they had the chance, White southerners wouldn't try to reinstate Jim Crow. I certainly hope they wouldn't.

What's authoritarian about observing that poor and middle class Republicans are voting against their own interests?

What's the old quip? If you have to ask, you'll never understand. ;-) In all honesty, I never read Frank's book. But it occurs to me that he's fallen into the trap of a sort of Marxist worldview, which argues that the only thing that matters (or should matter)in people's lives is their economic interest, and

Quoting formivore: It would be wonderful if BhTV could put up a diavlog between two health care economists. These political bloggers are smart enough point to intriguing studies, but I do not have confidence that they have the depth of knowledge, or the honesty, of a good old-fashioned academic who has devoted their life to the subject. Health care policy is really really complicated and should not be left to amateurs. Listening to most health care debates is like listening to two opposing sound bite jockeys trying to work out quantum physics or cell biology - it's just a waste of time.

I would like for someone to answer some basic questions that stubbornly resist being answered in all the debates:

1)What accounts for the huge cost difference between the U.S. and other counties. Is it A)the types of procedures performed B)population differences or C) reimbursement rates? Which procedures or illnesses? What doctors?

2)What accounts for continuing increase in costs? Again break these down.

3)If there truly is a great deal of fat in the system, why don't private insurers refuse to pay for ineffective treatments? You would think this would be their #1 priority.

If

Quoting Unit: Here is a link full of info:

http://hanson.gmu.edu/EC496/Sources/sources.html

Ahhh good link. Thanks.

Quoting rfrobison: Note how when the Rev. Jesse Jackson runs for president, ...

A bad example. He was never a serious contender, even in the Democratic primaries.

Quoting rfrobison: ... or Barack Obama loudly proclaims his faith in Jesus, no one on the left caterwauls about America becoming a theocracy; only when Republicans have a religious figurehead do they fret that America's politics are not unlike Iran's. But that's just partisan politics.

No, it's really not. While Obama makes references to his faith, he also makes it excruciatingly clear that he thinks this is a separate part of his life. Apart from some lukewarm support for faith-based initiatives (arguably, just a political bone to be tossed), his policies indicate that he is not driven by his faith. For example, he supports funding of stem cell research, he strongly supports a woman's right to choose, he thinks only science should be taught in science classrooms, etc. And you never hear him even allude to doing something because he was "called to," by Jesus. It is also true that many on the left are not particularly comfortable with his occasional moments of religiosity. People like me tend to view those as one of

Quoting TwinSwords: What's authoritarian about observing that poor and middle class Republicans are voting against their own interests?

Authoritarian seems like the wrong word, but it sounds elitist. Frank's argument is that working class Americans in certain regions of the country who vote overwhelmingly Republican aren't voting their own self-interest, based on his own assumptions about what they should consider their self-interest to be. However, it is entirely possible that the people in question just weigh their interests and the importance of certain issues differently than Frank thinks they should. (In many ways, I don't vote my self-interest in that I vote in ways that make it more likely that changes that don't have the best effect on my personal finances will occur, but I wouldn't actually say that's voting against my self-interest, because I think these changes will be better for the country as a whole.) On the other hand, that an argument sounds elitist doesn't make it wrong, and the rhetoric for some time (and especially recently) tends to support Frank's point, from the Joe the Plumber nonsense to the birthers to death panel fears. Another problem with the Frank

Quoting bjkeefe: While Obama makes references to his faith, he also makes it excruciatingly clear that he thinks this is a separate part of his life.

And I don't think it's accurate to say that he gets a pass for them. It clearly annoys some parts of the left, as you note (although that might not be a bad thing, politically, and Obama has ignored it). Also, kidneystones seems to be going on about it.

his policies indicate that he is not driven by his faith. For example, he supports funding of stem cell research, he strongly supports a woman's right to choose, he thinks only science should be taught in science classrooms, etc. And you never hear him even allude to doing something because he was "called to," by Jesus.

I don't know how much I think he's "driven by his faith," but I just wanted to point out that none of these distinctions indicate he is not. The position he takes are entirely consistent with the kind of liberal Protestantism he has generally portrayed himself as part of.

Quoting rfrobison: But it occurs to me that he's fallen into the trap of a sort of Marxist worldview, which argues that the only thing that matters (or should matter)in people's lives is their economic interest, and that a larger government is the best, nay, only means of bettering the lot of the poor.

I have read the book, although it's been some time since I did, and I think this is a little overstated. His point is less that big government is inherently good as that various areas with a progressive tradition have switched from Dem to Republican at the same time as Republican policies seem to have been destructive for their areas. You can certainly argue whether those policies were so destructive or whether some of the changes involved (as some areas just declined) were more structural and going to happen anyway. Beyond that, yes, I think he overemphasizes the notion that the pocketbook issues are really the important ones and assumes that voting on value issues if you are less well off is voting against one's self interest. I don't agree with that, although I think the bigger problem with

Quoting stephanie: And I don't think it's accurate to say that he gets a pass for them. It clearly annoys some parts of the left, as you note (although that might not be a bad thing, politically, and Obama has ignored it). Also, kidneystones seems to be going on about it.

I don't know how much I think he's "driven by his faith," but I just wanted to point out that none of these distinctions indicate he is not. The position he takes are entirely consistent with the kind of liberal Protestantism he has generally portrayed himself as part of.

Fair enough, and as I noted elsewhere, I can accept this. Especially when the alternative is usually some Bush/Palin/Brownback/Huckabee-style fundamentalism, where the only thing left to wonder is which will carry the day, ignorance or intolerance.

Quoting bjkeefe: Fair enough, and as I noted elsewhere, I can accept this. Especially when the alternative is usually some Bush/Palin/Brownback/Huckabee-style fundamentalism, where the only thing left to wonder is which will carry the day, ignorance or intolerance.

Yeah, I mainly just posted because I thought the comment was funny when kidneystones had just been going on about Preacher Obama and attributing complaints about that to Althouse too, I believe.

Quoting stephanie: Yeah, I mainly just posted because I thought the comment was funny when kidneystones had just been going on about Preacher Obama and attributing complaints about that to Althouse too, I believe.

I presume I need not go on at length about the idea of treating kidneystones's "thoughts" about Obama as having anything approaching merit.

Heya rfrob, long time no see.

Quoting rfrobison: To be honest, I'm not sure how much sway libertarians have on either party. I myself have a libertarian streak, having been schooled in neoclassical economics in university and remembering all too well the failed economic policies of the 1970s as Keynesianism grew long in the tooth.

What were causes of the economic problems of the 1970s again? As for Frank, and his book which you didn't read and are assuming the worst of, I think you're doing a pretty good job of shooting down your own strawmen. Have you heard about Andrew Gelman's analysis? Basically poor folks vote the same everywhere, but rich folks in poor states vote more Republican, and rich folks in rich states vote more Democratic. Click on the images for more:

"The graduated income tax is about maxed out so why not replace it with a graduated consumption tax that makes savings tax exempt?" Two reasons why not: First, the graduated income tax is hardly "maxed out". The 92% marginal rate in the Eisenhower years didn't do too much damage to the American Dream. Raising taxes to those marginal levels would do much to cure the ills brought on by the previous administration. Second, consumption taxes are regressive, taxing the poor at higher marginal rates than the better off. It's one reason why Republican conservatives favor consumption taxes when they propose taxes.

Quoting JLF: "The graduated income tax is about maxed out so why not replace it with a graduated consumption tax that makes savings tax exempt?"

Two reasons why not: First, the graduated income tax is hardly "maxed out". The 92% marginal rate in the Eisenhower years didn't do too much damage to the American Dream. Raising taxes to those marginal levels would do much to cure the ills brought on by the previous administration. Second, consumption taxes are regressive, taxing the poor at higher marginal rates than the better off. It's one reason why Republican conservatives favor consumption taxes when they propose taxes.

You can have a progressive consumption tax! Robert H Frank talks about it all the time. All you have to do is make the brackets progressive.

Quoting rfrobison: I'm curious what type of conservatism you think would serve the U.S. better than the one we've got. You may not understand American piety, but it is a fact..

Thoughtful post. Since twinswords, stephanie, bjkeefe and claymisher have already chimed in, I have little to say in reply to your specific points. A certain "piety" will probably always be as American as applepie. I think, though, that the kind of Christian religiosity (=religion for the sake of religion) that exists in the US is rather remote from its European roots; it is emotional, sentimental, anti-intellectual, and uninformed by the two-thousand-year history of theology that elevated Christianity from being an apocalyptic Jewish sect to something like a philosophy of life. It has become too closely bound up with patriotism and the American civil religion, and sees itself too much as a foil to science (notably evolutionary biology), for me to take it seriously. I see it as nothing but an obscurantist ideology. There are Christians in Europe too, you know, but they are much less bumptious and, unlike Americans, they know a little history.

Quoting Francoamerican: Thoughtful post. Since twinswords, stephanie, bjkeefe and claymisher have already chimed in, I have little to say in reply to your specific points.

A certain "piety" will probably always be as American as applepie. I think, though, that the kind of Christian religiosity (=religion for the sake of religion) that exists in the US is rather remote from its European roots; it is emotional, sentimental, anti-intellectual, and uninformed by the two-thousand-year history of theology that elevated Christianity from being an apocalyptic Jewish sect to something like a philosophy of life. It has become too closely bound up with patriotism and the American civil religion, and sees itself too much as a foil to science (notably evolutionary biology), for me to take it seriously. I see it as nothing but an obscurantist ideology. There are Christians in Europe too, you know, but they are much less bumptious and, unlike Americans, they know a little history.

You obviously have garnered your opinion of religiousity in America from a pretty narrow slice of the pie. Admittedly, one expounded on by the left and its media here. Makes one wonder if your purported knowledge of history starts with the same ignorant base. Some Americans do know a

Quoting claymisher: I can't remember what I was thinking. I think I got you mixed up with someone else! I take it all back!

OK. No prob.

Quoting formivore: [...]

Here is a helpful short article by T. R. Reid: "5 Myths About Health Care Around the World." It appears from the article's bio line that Reid has a new book coming out. Bloggingheads bookers, please note -- TR was doing dialogs back before we added the V, with Bob Edwards on Morning Edition. He's great in conversation. (h/t: DougJ)