A Foolish Consistency Is The Hobgoblin Of Little Minds…

And not even his fiercest critics have suggested that Prof. Krugman has a little mind. Well, the Man Without Simplifications is trying to take away the Earnest Prof's John Bates Clark Medal and his crystal ball, but that is not what I am talking about.

No, I refer to the post-Thanskgiving attempt by the Earnest Prof to find some good in the world. His theme - export led growth has tremendously improved the economic quality of life for billions of third-worlders since 1975.

Now, he might have risen his flag to salute Roe versus Wade, and the creation, by judicial fiat, of a woman's right to choose. Am I being sarcastic? Not really, I am trying to think like a lefty, and perhaps I am making as hash of it. Personally, I might have plumped for Berlin 1989, but the success of free trade is an admirable, defensible, and related choice - I doubt it was a coincidence that the failings of one economic system were made even less tolerable by the success of another.

Hang on, we are meandering to our final shore. My puzzlement is a follows - if free trade has done so much good for the world, wouldn't one expect the Earnest Prof to support the political party more likely to promote free trade? George Bush has been far from stalwart on this issue, and has taken criticism from his own party as a result.

However, a couple of points are worth noting - Bill Clinton is not on the ballot in 2004; NAFTA was a Reagan/Bush initiative inherited by Clinton, and which passed the House in 1993 with many more Republican than Democratic votes; and finally, Clinton's attempts to drag his party into the twentieth century and remodel it as champions of free trade has failed.

The Man Without Fast Track Authority rounds up the free-trade views of the current crop of Dem Presidential aspirants. If you are worried about the economic development of the third world, you should be worried about these characters.

[Sorry - link-free until random dropping by ISP abates]

Comments

[Jim Glass]

"... if free trade has done so much good for the world, wouldn't one expect the Earnest Prof to support the political party more likely to promote free trade?

"George Bush has been far from stalwart on this issue, and has taken criticism from his own party as a result."
~~~

Yes, and good for those in his own party.

What's remarkable is how some in the other party are so happy to bash Dubya up and down for first putting the tariffs on and then being so slow to take them off -- without ever mentioning that *their own* presidential candidates, protectionists all, have been blasting Dubya *for* taking the tariffs off.

Prof. DeLong's blog, replete with this, being exhibit #1 in blogland, and Prof. Krugman's column perhaps being exhibit #1 in the larger world.

Of course, there's nothing remarkable in trashing the other party's candidate for style while ignoring the much worse substance -- by one's own measure -- of one's own. That's just everyday politics.

What's remarkable is how Prof. DeLong & friends insist on framing this all as a matter of Dubya's people being *dishonest political manipulators* -- i.e., for being so unlike themselves, with all their straightforward honesty and candor in being willing to criticize anyone who isn't a Democrat. ;-)

Well, perhaps it's the character issue that matters to them. Bush, having flipped back to the good policy on steel tariffs, has shown he's a weasel and should be called on.

Dean, Gehpardt & Co., having been firmly committed to bad trade policy from the start and proudly remaining so, have shown the strength of character and honesty so admired by stalwart, candid truth tellers like the good Profs., and so remain above crticism by them on matters of mere substance.

It would be nice, though, to see the good Profs. rise to the level of Republicans who've been willing to criticize Bush.

[John Thacker]

I have a belief that the Democratic Party, in it's current makeup and with the strong union influence, must be more protectionist than the Republican Party. However, it can become almost as free trade as the Republican Party, with the result that the two major political parties are to the right of public opinion on free trade. (I agree with free trade, but protectionist sentiment is out there.)

However, this requires Republicans to not cynically try to capture votes by making protectionist overturees. As soon as that happens, Democrats will run to the left to reassure the unions and others that they are more protectionist than the Republicans.

Still, given that the US political system is remarkably sensitive to the views of the populace, it's unlikely that a situation where both major political parties have firm views to the right of the overall populace's sentiments can continue indefinitely. This makes for an interesting contrast with Europe, where the political parties seem to reasonably often agree on issues despite the views of the populace.

I think that in general the American system is superior, but of course I also reserve the right to believe that sometimes public opinion is wrong.

[Brad DeLong]

The argument that "normal" Republicans are more pro-free trade than "normal" Democrats is a good one.

But we don't have a "normal" Republican here running for office in 2004, do we?

Keep your powder dry until 2008...

[John Thacker]

Oh, you're quite right, Professor DeLong, that President Bush has shown alarming willingness to compromise on trade for political gain. He's done a lot of "compromising" towards the center. Of course, that's presumably not the way of being moderate that you and many others would like-- but unfortunately you're not the only non-Republicans out there.

It doesn't necessarily make it any less alarming when the Democrats run even farther towards protectionism. Except, of course, one can make a claim that some Democrats, especially the ones who are making their protectionist claims be particularly vague, would be more free trade once in office, absent a President Bush to run against. I'm definitely open to that argument.

[John Thacker]

It remains, however, disturbing but not surprising that no Democratic candidate will seriously attack Bush for not being pro-free trade enough. As I argued above, that is essentially impossible in the current political system. No such Democrat could win the nomination.

[Alex Parker]

Isn't it worth pointing out that in 2000, the only two Democratic nominees were ardent free-traders?

My guess is, the Democratic Party only seems protectionist these days because Dick Gephardt is running for president. I bet once he's out, you'll hear a lot less protectionist rhetoric, even from the likes of Howard Dean.

[Cecil Turner]

Seems to me you gents (and the media) are neglecting the defense aspect of this. Steel production may not be as critical as it was during WWII, but it's still a primary factor in armaments. Having multiple domestic plants going bankrupt is not something a wartime president can ignore.

From a defense/diplomacy standpoint, the "flip-flop" was executed quite well. It gave a shot in the arm to the domestic steel industry, and removed the tariffs before they could spark a trade war. The political mileage seems limited (in fact, a slight negative), but I'm not convinced it was necessarily a bad thing. Overall, free trade is definitely the best answer, but that does not extend to allowing foreign competitors to drive out domestic production of critical industries.

[Robert Musil]

Good Professor Delong comments:

"The argument that 'normal' Republicans are more pro-free trade than "normal" Democrats is a good one. But we don't have a 'normal' Republican here running for office in 2004, do we?"

I'll leave the question of whether and how Mr. Bush is "normal" or not to the great minds.

However, as I point out in my post to which Maguire already has linked - and which the Good Professor ignores - what we obviously have here running for office in 2004 is a Republican who is a lot better on free trade trade than any of the Democrats now running.

[TM]

"Keep your powder dry until 2008..."

Man, I have barely been able to keep it together waiting for Dec 17. This is NOT the party of deferred gratification!

[Brad DeLong]

>>I have a belief that the Democratic Party, in it's current makeup and with the strong union influence, must be more protectionist than the Republican Party.<<

Which is why we--the Clinton Administration--tried as hard as we could to bind future U.S. governments to free trade through our treaty obligations. Labor unions and other Democratic interest groups may not like the free-trade cast of policy, we thought, but they will be bound by the rule of law: our treaty obligations to our allies and trading partners.

It didn't cross our minds that we would face a Republican administration that simply didn't care about fulfilling our WTO obligations. It still seems to me to be extraordinary and unbelievable.

I used to think that a Republican administration would surely be better than a Democratic administration on free trade. I no longer think so--at least not unless I'm allowed to send this Republican administration back as improperly cooked.

[Robert Musil]

"[W]e thought, but they will be bound by the rule of law: our treaty obligations to our allies and trading partners."

To argue that a party to a treaty concerning commercial trading (such as the US) considers itself to be not "bound by the rule of law" because it takes actions allowing sanctions under the treaty is highly overwrought. Does one consider a homeowner who walks away from a mortgage because the house has depreciated to consider himself to be not "bound by the rule of law?" Please.

Worse, the Good Professor expresses a naive, cramped and unrealistic view of both commercial and international law that was rejected as long ago as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes correctly observed that commerical obligations especially are best treated through a "bad man" perspective approach.

The Good Professor writes as if the WTO agreement had the specific performance entitlements of, say, an anti-genocide pact. The effect he creates is simultaneously naive and disingenuous. He seems more concerned with the loss of a strategic toy than with anything of real substance.

[Robert Musil]

Yes, yes, yes, we should all take Professor Delong's careful separation of those in the Clinton Administration from the loony-tune anti-traders that make up most of the Democratic Party. It's especially important to keep chanting that such a distinction exists as Al Gore prepares to endorse the looniest-tuniest anti-trader of them all: Howard Dean, the man who has shouted from the rooftops that what the Democrats need is to be rid of their lingering Clinton influence!

Yep. Things would have been a lot different for world trade and so much more if Al Gore had been elected!

[Paul Zrimsek]

"Labor unions and other Democratic interest groups may not like the free-trade cast of policy, we thought, but they will be bound by the rule of law: our treaty obligations to our allies and trading partners."

Which is why we see all the Democratic challengers saying things like "if it were just me, I'd be all in favor of keeping the steel tariffs, but we're bound by the rule of law."

I guess if even Kim Jong Il couldn't shake the Clintonites' faith in the voodoo mojo power of treaty obligations, it would be optimistic to expect Dick Gephardt to shake it.

[Jim Glass]

"It didn't cross our minds that we would face a Republican administration that simply didn't care about fulfilling our WTO obligations. It still seems to me to be extraordinary and unbelievable."

Yes, this is horrible. OTOH, Democratic Presidential candidates actively promising to put those WTO obligation in a barrel and drop them overboard -- and now trashing Bush for *not* doing same -- are not worth a single comment.

It seems rather like the "the other party is supposed to save the nation from ours on this issue" rationale I have seen derided in another forum.

Of course, a 'speak no ill of fellow party members' policy is perfectly understandable with a big election coming. I perfectly understand such political discipline. No problem. But it doesn't exactly square with a pose of speaking with truth and candor that's morally superior to what's found on the other side -- when on the other side people like Bartlett are savaging *their* leaders for acting like Hoover on Smoot-Hawley. Personally I'd just enjoy being partisan and drop the pose. Self-righteousness costs votes.

But *if* one is going to go out of one's way to publicly bill oneself as "once again the lonely voice of truth", shouldn't one be willing to speak the truth to the membership of one's own party about the quality of the policies of its leadership?

How lonely is the Democrat who attacks only Republicans?

"Keep your powder dry until 2008..."

Is somebody giving up already on 2004?

[Cecil Turner]

I stil think this particular instance (steel tariffs) is a bad example from which to generalize free trade bona fides. ISTM the bulk of the Democrats were supporting the unions' request for 40% tariffs. The rabid hawks (like me) supported anti-dumping provisions and licensing. And though it may not have been the primary cause of steel industry woes, dumping was common (and will be again, if it's allowed).

But the hypocrisy surrounding this issue is stunning. From the EU (whose average effective tariffs are about double the US's), to the very closed markets of China and Japan--the moralizing is laughable. Similarly the efforts to bash Bush over it, in favor of a Democrat who's demonstrably worse, is fuzzy logic at best.

[Brad DeLong]

>>Of course, a 'speak no ill of fellow party members' policy is perfectly understandable with a big election coming.<<

You're accusing me of a "speak no ill of fellow party members" policy? Me? After last Thursday's Wall Street Journal? Me?

I'm going to go let my mind boggle for a while...

Brad DeLong

[Brad DeLong]

>>I stil think this particular instance (steel tariffs) is a bad example from which to generalize free trade bona fides.<<

Shall we talk about the hideous waste of opportunity in the Doha Round instead?

One of the few good things a modern Republican administration generally does is to advance the ball on free trade. This one hasn't. That's too bad.

[TM]

For those of you (us) who missed the memo, this would appear to be the relevant WSJ excerpt:

Mr. DeLong, who sprinkles his site with trivia about his kids as well as links to whatever he has read recently, is a loyal Clintonite -- except when it comes to the former first lady. "Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life," he has written, citing his close encounter with her during development of the Clinton health plan. His writings on President Bush's economic policies are often shrill, usually entertaining. A running feature on his site is called "Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Fools?" He is up to part CCCXXVII.

Mr. DeLong, who says he tries to spend no more than an hour a day on his site, says he sees blogging as "a way to win the contest for intellectual influence."

And he's winning! Well, if we believe those Bear rankings, anyway.

His Hillary post was recently dredged up at this very site, and I am reasonably certain his good buddy Don Luskin has quoted it cheerfully, so it is hardly hidden under a bushel. In fact, I am pretty sure that Glenn, Andrew, and Mickey (but not Ringo or George) kicked it around at one time or another.

[Cecil Turner]

"Shall we talk about the hideous waste of opportunity in the Doha Round instead?"

Okay. AIUI the main barrier to moving ahead is agricultural subsidies--and there's precisely zero chance of getting an agreement on meaningful limits with either the EU or congress.

What am I missing?

[Jim Glass]

"You're accusing me of a 'speak no ill of fellow party members' policy? Me? After last Thursday's Wall Street Journal? Me?"

Gee, I don't read that screed sheet every day. Between keeping up on all the blogs and earning enough money to pay for my Interent connection something has to go. Newspapers, books...

But I'll go look now.

[Jim Glass]

Back again. Ah, 'Keep Hillary away from the White House', yes that's good -- but as she's not among those actively trying to get there, only for partial points. For the rest of the points plus interest repeat this in 2008, as Condi will when running against her.

BTW, I am even more skeptical about the claim of spending "no more than an hour a day on his site" than I am about the politics that get posted on it. I spend more than that just reading comments, to the point where I'm so far behind on my continuing professional education I risk getting disbarred.

If really so, and no helpful graduate assistants are involved, please teach a course on "Time Management in the Blogosphere". I'll fly out there to take it.

[Robert Musil]

"Shall we talk about the hideous waste of opportunity in the Doha Round instead?"

Suppose we say "yes?" Exactly what were the big, real opportunities that were missed but for something peculiar to this Administration? What were the low-lying fruits that a Clinton administration could have brought home? O, dear me, Good Professor Delong didn't say that - he says that bringing in trade agreements was something "modern" Republican administrations were so good at.

So, what, exactly were those big, missed opportunites in the Doha round that another "modern Republican" administration would have been able to reel in so nicely?

Just listing the top three might kick off the discussion nicely. You know, just to get things started.

[John Thacker]

"My guess is, the Democratic Party only seems protectionist these days because Dick Gephardt is running for president. I bet once he's out, you'll hear a lot less protectionist rhetoric, even from the likes of Howard Dean."

I doubt that that alone would be sufficient. As I argued above (and I believe that Professor DeLong would join me in this), there's a two way street that would also require President Bush to not try to gain votes through protectionist moves. Although if the Democratic candidates did tone down the rhetoric, it could encourage Bush to do so as well.

In any case, Professor DeLong does ignore how the free-trade bloc collapsed sufficiently among the Congressional Democrats to make fast-track trade authority only obtainable after so many concessions as to weaken its value considerably. In addition, I think he goes a little too far in ignoring the roles of other countries in the success or failure of the Doha round. For example, he might care to notice the different administrations in place in Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and elsewhere that have made negotiations on the global scale of WTO talks somewhat more difficult.

[Brad DeLong]

>>there's a two way street that would also require President Bush to not try to gain votes through protectionist moves. Although if the Democratic candidates did tone down the rhetoric, it could encourage Bush to do so as well.<<

But we already tried that, didn't we?

Throughout 1998, 1999, and 2000 Clinton resisted calls for steel protection on the grounds that it wasn't in the national interest, even though it would have been to his (and his designated successor's) political interest.

One of the pieces of blowback from the Bush steel tariffs is that every Democratic candidate is now convinced--on the level of rhetoric--that they aren't going to be free-trade saps again.

The fight on the level of policy within the next Democratic administration has yet to be joined, and I have hopes that we will win it--that the WTO framework will be strong enough and that the next Democratic president will value international cooperation enough to avoid bone-headed moves like the Bushies' steel tariff. But it is very depressing to contemplate having to fight for free-trade ground that in 2000 I thought had been won.

[Cecil Turner]

Professor,
You're still slamming Bush for a policy that is closer to your position than the various Democrat alternatives. And again, the war in 2001 changed the equation a bit. This argument appears purely partisan--and more than a bit hypocritical.

[Robert Musil]

"One of the pieces of blowback from the Bush steel tariffs is that every Democratic candidate is now convinced--on the level of rhetoric--that they aren't going to be free-trade saps again."

There is not one Democratic "contender" who has claimed this to be even a minor reason for his current anti-trade stance. Nor is there any other evidence that the Democrats' swing away from free trade is "blow back" related in this way. Good Professor Delong's claim is just plain baloney.

If anything, Bush's willingness to impose the tariffs was "blow back" from the essentially unlimited willingess of more and more Democrats to argue that free trade was just another way of the Bush Administration showing that it doesn't care about "jobs." Indeed, the Democratic "contenders" are still saying that - and it has been a mantra of that Party since 2001 at least.

Already in the 2000 election, Al Gore embraced a much-further-left platform and stance than Clinton had assumed. The Clinton trade advances were passed on by Republicans in Congress over the protests of Congressional Democrats. Dean and most of the other Democratic "contenders" are just following in Gore's footprints and the always-prevailing sentiment of their own Party.

In short, Good Professor DeLong's argument is nothing but his customary shrill, partisan historical revisionism.

[Jim Glass]

"In any case, Professor DeLong does ignore how the free-trade bloc collapsed sufficiently among the Congressional Democrats to make fast-track trade authority only obtainable after so many concessions as to weaken its value considerably."

Indeed, free trade authority finally passed by just one vote after the Democratic congressional leadership did everything in its power to defeat it. This of course gave a whole host of marginal congress creatures tremendous power to extract concessions.

None of which was mentioned by the lonely voice of truth at the Times as it slammed Dubya's political venality for making those very same concessions. Why that neglect? Oh, Democrats are too weak and inept to affect policy in any meaningful way, so there's no reason to waste ink by mentioning them, the voice convincingly explained.

"One of the pieces of blowback from the Bush steel tariffs is that every Democratic candidate is now convinced -- on the level of rhetoric --that they aren't going to be free-trade saps again. "

Sure sounds like: Republicans weasely doing the right thing is going to encourage us Democrats to go hog wild doing the wrong thing if we get the chance. So that'll be the Republicans' fault -- and that's why they deserve to be trashed now for what we'll probably do later if only we can.

And there's no point in us Democratic pro-free trade economists trying to publicly educate our Democratic side of the electorate about why they shouldn't fall for that "free trade sap" line -- and maybe even support our candidate who spins that line the least. (Lieberman?) 'Cause even a lonely voice of truth doesn't want to feel as lonely as that would leave us.

But even so -- as far as I'm concerned it'd all be politically fair par for the course, no problem, if it wasn't for all the claims of moral superiority, superior intelligence, and the superior honest candor of the voice of truth that have been part of the package.

Combined with irrational aversions to theocratic judges and Robespierrean lobbyists, that does get annoying at times.

[Robert Musil]

Give him hell, Jim.

[Brad DeLong]

>>Sure sounds like: Republicans weasely doing the right thing is going to encourage us Democrats to go hog wild doing the wrong thing if we get the chance.<<

No it doesn't. Not if you read the next sentence I wrote. Intellectual foul. 25 yards and loss of down.

We're going to try hard to get a sensible trade policy out of the next Democratic administration. I think we'll win--I think the next Democratic administration will do more to reduce trade barriers than the current Republican administration is doing. But the example of the Bush administration has certainly made our task harder.

[Robert Musil]

"I think the next Democratic administration will do more to reduce trade barriers than the current Republican administration is doing."

Things sure are easier for the Good Professor, since he writes as if he had no obligation to support his beliefs in any evidence whatsoever - or perhaps he's just writing off any possibility of a Democrat being elected in 2004. If not, just who the heck is supposed to be doing more to reduce trade barriers out of the cuurent crowd? As reported by the Los Angeles Times:

Gephardt: "The president's decision to prematurely lift the tariffs on steel imports severely undermines the recovery of the U.S. steel industry from decades of unfair trade practices that have jeopardized the viability of a vital domestic industry."

Dean: "Despite what President Bush may claim, the steel industry needs additional breathing room to get back on its feet. But the tariffs are a short-term solution to a larger problem: this administration's broken trade policy. Our trade agreements need to benefit workers, not just big multinational corporations."

Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, who works for Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry's presidential campaign: "I thing [removing the tariffs is] going to provide plenty of ammunition to go after Bush. Here you have a situation where Bush is essentially agreeing to the exportation of more U.S. manufacturing jobs. That hurts."

Kerry: "Bush is cutting and running from his commitments to help working Americans."

And what does one make of the Good Professor's shift from preposterously asserting that all of the current Democratic "contenders" are anti-trade from "backwash" to Bush's tariffs to this: "But the example of the Bush administration has certainly made our task harder."

Yes, indeed. It's just like the Good Professor says: The Democrats would LIKE to do the right thing, they're TRYING to do the right thing - but Bush is just MAKING THEIR TASK OF DOING THE RIGHT THING SOOOOOOO HARD. Sure, professor, sure. You're not dissembling or delusional. Nope. Now, just don't get too excited.

[Jim Glass]

*25 yards* and loss of down??

I'm going to have to check the rule book on this. I think someone's touched the ref.

[TM]

One of the little pearls I picked up in someone's comments section (I'll credit the Bro Judd, but who knows?) is that comments work well if the folks imagine they are having a conversation in someone's living room. I might, in such a context, say "Paul Krugman's columns are daft". I probably would not say, "the guy sitting next to me is daft". Well, actually, I said exactly that one time when the guy sitting next to me insisted that Michael Jordan would be good enough to play in the Major Leage Baseball All Star Game, but mostly I would discourage it.

With that said, I would feel more comfortable if we got away from the dissembling and delusional themes.

I happen to agree that by flouting the WTO, Bush makes it a bit easier for Dems to do the wrong thing on trade. George Will has an earnest attempt to both denounce Bush's behavior and turn it against the Dems in his latest column:

The Bush administration's really lawless unilateralism was its 21 months of steel tariffs. The imposition of them, for purely political reasons, was reprehensible. The manner of lifting them, after two adverse rulings by the World Trade Organization and the credible threat of politically costly retaliations, was disgraceful. In a perverse tribute to the centennial of the birth of George Orwell, who said insincerity is the "great enemy" of clear language, the administration, showing contempt for the public's intelligence, insisted on lifting the tariffs without using the word "tariffs," preferring the Orwellian locution "temporary steel safeguard measures." And the administration, which is struggling to have its words about Iraq taken seriously, insisted that the sudden lifting of the tariffs, 15 months early, had nothing to do with the WTO and everything to do with "changed economic circumstances," and the alleged fact that the tariffs "have now achieved their purpose." If Democrats strenuously oppose unilateralism, why has the president's belated conformity to international norms been denounced by the two leading Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt?

Very sly. When your own guy hands you lemons, make a sour face at the other side.

[Jim Glass]

Dang, sleeve hit the post button before my appeal to the Commissioner was attached.

It boils down to this: Team Dubya gets called for weaseling on trade. 15 yards, fine, stipulated. But provocation is recognized as a mitigating factor in law and football too.

"... the example of the Bush administration has certainly made our task harder."

Recognized. But why is it not recognized that attacks by Democrats using the trade issue as a weapon to win the marginal vote in a 50/50 electorate have also made the task harder for the Bush administration to be as pure as Ivory Snow (and the young, innocent Marilyn Chambers) on trade?? (Heck, NY is neither a manufacturing nor a swing state and Senator Chuck here is proposing tariffs and bashing Team Dubya it seems every day.)

Perhaps it's because the Democrats have just acted rationally as political animals in pounding this issue to get those marginal votes. OK, fine, so no blame there. But why then is it irrational, blameful or unexpected for the Republicans to respond politically as they did to protect those same swing votes -- hey, they want to win the election too!

And is their consideration *really* supposed to be: "Hey, we've got to make life easier for the Democrats who follow us, so let's not respond politically to their attacks but instead sacrifice votes to them as they want, so it'll be easier for them to make sound policy later?" I think that's a rather one sided point of view! ;-)

As far as I'm concerned each party has acted perfectly rationally, the Dems attacking to get votes by deep-sixing sound policy on an issue and the Repubs defending those votes by compromising sound policy -- what vulnerable party doesn't respond to an attack that way? It happens on a lot of issues. It's all pretty noxious, but democracy beats the known alternatives.

And if Dem econ commentators from CPBB to the Times to across blogworld don't want to mention the Dems' role in provoking the Repub response, or the relative merits of deep-sixing and compromising, and want to say trade politics is a moral failing on the Repub side but rational behavior on the Dem side, well, the 11th Commandment is part of the game, so that's fine by me too. No problem, really.

But to bear hug the 11th Commandment like that while also claiming to be superiorly honest and candid -- while on the other side folks like Bartlett and the WSJ are comparing Dubya to Hoover on trade -- is a tad annoying at least to me. I appeal to the Commissioner for an offsetting penalty, at least 10 yards for "unnecessary self-righteousness".

You know, maybe if y'all had bashed leading the Dems' trade policy the way the Bartlett and the WSJ and y'all too have bashed Dubya's, Rove wouldn't have calculated that he needed to give up so much on trade, and the world would be a better place all around. Or maybe not. But at least then all the claims to moral superiority would be better grounded.

"We're going to try hard to get a sensible trade policy out of the next Democratic administration. I think we'll win ..."

Good luck on that. Let's hope the guys you have running now don't take their campaign stances too seriously, should one of them win.

Until then, no more gratuitous football references, please! This is the time of year Jets fans try to forget.

[Brad DeLong]

>>Recognized. But why is it not recognized that attacks by Democrats using the trade issue as a weapon to win the marginal vote in a 50/50 electorate have also made the task harder for the Bush administration to be as pure as Ivory Snow (and the young, innocent Marilyn Chambers) on trade?? (Heck, NY is neither a manufacturing nor a swing state and Senator Chuck here is proposing tariffs and bashing Team Dubya it seems every day.)<<

Because I'm not wearing my glasses? (Actually, I don't wear glasses: but the doctors say I have incipient presbyopia and will need glasses next year, but will probably be a stubborn f*** and not get them for five more years).

OK, OK. I recognize it. I recognize it. Touche. Good point.

May we keep our horses so that we can get on with the spring plowing?

[Brad DeLong]

>>If Democrats strenuously oppose unilateralism, why has the president's belated conformity to international norms been denounced by the two leading Democratic candidates, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt?<<

Because the Democratic Economic Policy Team has not yet assembled, driven over to Howard's place, and beaten him with the rubber hose?

[Robert Musil]

It is well-known that under the "Constantly Retroactively Revised Uniform Rules of PC Social Behavior", which President Clinton imposed on every non-Presidential federal employee and ex-employee by Presidential ukase, all football references are sexist per se.

They also create a hostile blog comment environment.

No wonder the Good Professor and Sir Hillary (I mean, Sen. Hellary) didn't get along!

[TM]

At the risk of preaching to the choir here, I would love to hear the President (but I would settle for Dean) stand up and say, "I have a plan to help fight the war on terror, fight AIDS in Africa, work towards a cleaner planet, create jobs to America, and reduce our problem with illegal immigration - free trade could help Pakistan with their textiles, and a Pakistan with jobs, development, and a future is a more reliable ally agaisnt the al Qaeda and Taliban remnabts in Afghanistan.

Free trade could help African countries export agricultural products, grow their econoomies, and position them to afford better basic health and vital medicines. Wealthier countries around the world have historically been more inclined to afford investments in a cleaner environment. And, if the 90's are any guide at all, the USA, with its flexible, multi-cultural work force, is the best positioned country in the world to compete in a free environment."

And so on. Bah. In my evil moments, I contrast this with the vision offered by Europe, which is basically, here is your foreign aid check, now go away. A hand out, not a hand up.

Well, between this and the Andy Pettitte news, I feel like... like... like a Jets fan!

[Terry Hughes]

"'Mr. DeLong, who says he tries to spend no more than an hour a day on his site, says he sees blogging as 'a way to win the contest for intellectual influence.'

And he's winning! Well, if we believe those Bear rankings, anyway."

TM, how can you write such a thing? Haven't you been listening to the Democrats and reading between Brad's lines? Don't you know that it matters not one bit that the left controls all of ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN news, the Washington Post, the NY Times, the Boston Globe, and so much more of the media which in the aggregate have audiences many, many times the size of Fox News and the few conservative media outlets? Don't you know that THE RIGHT STILL JUST DOMINATES THE NEWS NOW - TO THE POINT THAT THE LEFT JUST CAN'T GET IT'S MESSAGE OUT OVER ALL THE RIGHT WING ECHO CHAMBER EFFECTS.... EffectS .... Effects ....effects ...eff...e....!!!

In exactly the same way, all those hits on Brad Delong's blog just trickle through the contest for intellectual influence like water through a sieve. By my careful calculations, just one Just One Minute hit is worth about 5,000 Brad Delong hits on an average day. But the effect is exponential and gets very complicated once you plug it into the Dixit-Stiglitz formalism, let me tell you! It's sad. But I don't make the rules, I just observe their effects.

[Pouncer]

Jim Glass

>>(Bush is a politician who betrays principle
>> for votes...)Recognized. But why is it not recognized that attacks by Democrats using the
>>trade issue as a weapon to win the marginal
>>vote in a 50/50 electorate have also made the
>>task harder for the Bush
>>Administration ...Senator Chuck here is
>>proposing tariffs and bashing Team Dubya
>>it seems every day.

Brad DeLong:

>OK, OK. I recognize it. I recognize it.
>Touche. Good point.
>May we keep our horses so that we can get
>on with the spring plowing?

This sort of honesty is admirable and should be encouraged. Bravo, Brad! And Bravo, Jim, for stipulating Brad's original point.

I'd love to see an opposition candidate who would say, "Bush is a well-intentioned man and a fair president, whom our country will survive as we have survived Millard Fillmore and Rutherford B. Hayes. But I'm a better man and would be an excellent president in the traditions of FDR and, yes, even the GOP's Greatest Ever President, the inestimable Lincoln. Vote ME!"

Sadly, no such candidate appears, in either party. Nor do partisens of either strike such a tone.

Y'know, I'd even consider it an improvement if a candidate or his supports would forthrightly declare, "Sure, I'm a jerk and am pandering for your votes and will probably have to break about 90% of my campaign pledges. But HE's a BIG jerk and has already broken 95% of HIS promises to his own supporters, and if we allow him a second term he'll only get better at it. Why not let a beginner try -- if only because I won't be as skillful and experienced a jerk as the incumbant?"

[Robert Musil]

Pouncer just seems to want to live in a world without real or clear or appropriate political discussion.

Why should a politician or advocate spend time semi-lauding an opponent or semi-castigating himself? Why isn't that something the opponent is better able to do? A world in which one has to weed through a patch of pseudo-reasonable "my-opponent-is-mostly-a-good-guy-but" or "I-know-I'm-a-jerk-but-he's-worse" claptrap in most political speeches and columns would be time wasting and exhausting. Even partisan commenters who are not as shrill as Krugman or Delong rarely do that kind of thing. It's rare because it confuses the audience and the distinctive points being made by the commenter.

In short, there are good reasons why political discussion doesn't work the way Pouncer would like it to work. One can argue against "shrillness" - although the obvious shrillness of the Delongs and Krugmans and others of the lumpenintellectuariat doesn't bother me, personally. But the drippy faux reasonableness and graciousness (or the even more phony confessions of relative imperfection) advocated by Pouncer would be beyond the endurance of most readers and voters for no valuable result.

[TM]

The Pouncer will enjoy Mickey's "George Bush is Pedro Martinez", down on Nov. 12.

[Pouncer]

re: TM's Pedro Martinez

That's true. I did. I still do.

Re: Mr Musil's clear and appropriate ...

My learned colleague will surely correct me if I am mistaken, but my impression is, and has long been, that a candidate's mastery of the standards of decorum expected in the courtroom and the floor of the legislature is, at least in some small part, token of his qualification for the office which he seeks. Our host will, I trust, permit me to make allusion to the Bard's soliloquy of Marc Antony which, far better than my own poor rhetoric, illustrates the persuasive power of -- superficially -- respectful speech. Also, the Right Honorable Barney Franks memorable point of order ("Crybaby?") is, in my own and many opinions, a funnier line by a politician than many of those offered by the professional and well-paid entertainer, Rush Limbaugh. Mister Limbaugh himself well understands the rhetorical and humorous power of UNDERstating certain positions, and making his points with "half a brain tied behind his back". And perhaps the most masterful of modern rhetoricians, candidate Ronald Reagan, did not give the lie direct in accusing his opponent President Carter, of mis-stating Reagan's position on Social Security. He merely expressed an exasperated patience with a man deserving, via respect for the office he held if no other reason, that patience. "Well, now, there you go again..." Reagan called the Soviet system an "evil empire", but he called on Mikhail Gorbachev, directly -- as a reasonable, humane, and pragmatic leader rather than a Evil OverLord in some movieland alternative reality -- merely to "tear down this wall."

Our current president has pledged his rhetorical talents toward altering "the tone" of debate in our capital. That the tone has not mellowed may in part be his own failing. It may be at least as much the fault of his followers as his detractors, each of whom take him less seriously than he deserves. But it seems to me his followers have the greater responsibility to -- attempt, at least at times -- to raise the standard; to extend the first gesture of respect to worthy opponents; and to distain the shrill sewer of partiality and partisanship in speech.

What one does in smoke-filled cloakrooms and lobbies and hallways, by dark of night and under seal of mutual confidence -- that of course is another matter. One expects to call a bastard a GodDamnedBastard in such venues, at least if language more denigrating can't be easily brought to lip.

But I am, I confess, a neophyte in such matters. I beg my estimable friends here enlighten me, as I beg, too, to resume my seat.

Thank you very much.

[TM]

LOL. I don't suppose, "Oh, pipe down" would be an adequate response?

I missed the Barney Franks/crybaby bit. Although his name brings back memories of this time in 1998 when we were all reminded that there were some fairly impressive personalities (and some less so) hanging around Congress.

[Robert Musil]

Pouncer,

Sometimes understatement is effective - and sometimes it's not the best way.

But even political understatement doesn't involve allusions to an opponent's worth or boilerplate meditations on one's own failings or other circumloqutions you advocate. Where such blathering IS routinely practiced, the results are hideous. Example: job interviews. Interviewer: "What is your greatest weakness?" Applicant: "I drive myself too hard and have a need to deliver perfect results for the benefit of my employer so strong that it sometimes leaves me exhausted. I've never been able to bring that under control and have no reason to think I ever will - but I feel I must always, always try - for the benefit of all, you understand."

Yeech!

Shrillness - even at the levels practiced by Barney Frank - or the Delongs, Krugmans and others granules of the American lumpenintellectuariat - is fine, and nothing compared to what is regularly practiced in the rest of the Anglosphere. The Canadian, Australian and British Parliaments commonly employ rhetoric vastly more heated than anything heard under the Capitol Dome. ("Sir, whether I succumb to the pox or the noose depends only upon whether I embrace your mistress or your principles!" - or words to that effect). And their media commonly employ acrimony way beyond what is even tolerable in this country.

You must either learn to love acrimony or exhibit a vibrant Democracy in which the tone is more subdued. As "Give-'em-Hell-Harry" might have put it: If you can't stand the heat of a democracy, then get yourself to a monestary or at least stay home.

I insist.

[Brad DeLong]

Dear Pouncer,

Well, what is the discussion space that floats around the MinuteMan's weblog? Is it a nice club with wood-paneled walls and Persian carpets on the floor, nice comfy chairs and a roaring fire, where people of goodwill can sit back, drink fine port and crack walnuts, and discuss the events of the day and how to bring humankind to Utopia with other humans of goodwill and wit?

Or is it the equivalent of rhetorical gladiatorial combat inside the Flavian Amphitheater?

Either environment can be refreshing. But it is important that people have common expectations as to which kind of place we are in. And in either case participants with a remarkably high noise-to-signal ratio greatly diminish the quality of the experience. It's important to balance one's attempts at wit or invective with actual arguments and assessments of reality, after all.

I have heard that the Hood River 1996 Oregon Zinfandel port is especially fine...

[TM]

There is also the "It takes all kinds" angle. Ann Coulter and Michael Moore make it easier for the rest of us to play the "calm voice of reason" schtick. What would chili be without the spices - bland beans and beef?

[TM]

Prof - the '96? I am partial to the Hood River '94, myself.

[Jim Glass]

"It's important to balance one's attempts at wit or invective with actual arguments and assessments of reality, after all.

"I have heard that the Hood River 1996 Oregon Zinfandel port is especially fine..."

Though if I remember my drinking days, Zinfandel can have a marked effect on one's wit, invective and assessments of reality.

(Admitting I don't actually remember so much about 'em, but for the stories I've been told, and that they most often didn't involve Zinfandel.)

[Robert Musil]

There is the first Brad Delong, the one who wrote:

"It's important to balance one's attempts at wit or invective with actual arguments and assessments of reality, after all."

But apparently there is also a second Brad Delong, the one who wrote: "Shall we talk about the hideous waste of opportunity in the Doha Round instead?" - but without identifying a single such "opportunity," although such has been requested, and refused to actually talk about the hideous waste of opportunity in the Doha Round at all. The noise-to-signal ratio of this particular rhetorical flourish (it appears to be an attempt at wit or invective) is funtionally infinite, since no actual argument or evidence is presented. That kind of inconsistency certainly has come to be expected of some participants here, even if it's not exactly desired.

But, then, no argument or support was provided for the bald assertion that "it is important that people have common expectations as to which kind of place we are in," either. The Parliaments of Britain, Canada and Australia routinely funtion as exemplars of both of what the Good Professor presents are incompataible paradigms. Few would deny that plenty of port goes down in the Palaces of Westminster, and plenty of gladitorial combat goes on in the same locale every time the PM takes the floor for Q&A.

I also think it's charming and revealing that posts of certain of the participants here are so often of high noise-to-signal pitch. Mr. Wessel described that pitch of one such participant in his WSJ article: "often shrill." Tippling in the vintage can produce that pitch, eh, Good Professor?

[Pouncer]

Brad:
>Well, what is discussion space ...
>Is it a nice club with wood-paneled walls and >Persian carpets on the floor ... with other >humans of goodwill and wit?

>Or is it the equivalent of rhetorical >gladiatorial combat inside the Flavian >Amphitheater?

I would beg the chair and the chamber to direct the learned professor to persuade me, first, that those are the only alternatives. May I remind all that I have already compared this space and political opinon fora in general to the courtroom and the congress. I submit these are adversarial arenas as public and as well observed as any a Roman Circus. This in contrast to the cigar-and-port salons where, upon invitation only, the "right sort" of the "best people" confer in secrecy to work out in unwritten gentlemens' agreement their private divisions of public spoils. And yet the custom of the conference has long been to avoid direct confrontation. Since 1876, the custom has been codified in "Robert's Rules". This is a typical example of the democratic spirit of the era, like the contemporary "Dewey Decimal System" or Hartley's "Manual of Politeness" -- aimed at elevating, enlightening, enabling and empowering the common man to take a rightful place among the knowledgable, the powerful, and the gently born.

It strikes me that the habit of the powerful to demonize their adversaries is rather more an ancient European practice of kings and emperors than the habit of American social democrats, whigs, and federalists. It from our beginnings has been insufficient for our leaders to merely brand another a tyrant or despot. Instead " ... a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that should declare the causes which impel them ...let Facts be submitted to a candid World."

The author of those lines had every reason to believe he was at the time ruled by an idiot, but managed to make his point without explicitly making that accusation.

Jefferson was, I believe, a Democrat.

I tire, I grow faint, I weary. And I fear that a plea for civility, like appeals to native Justice and Magnanimity, to the Ties of our common Kindred, to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity, all have failed. If so, then war can not be far in our future. I fear. I do.
The decade BEFORE Robert's Rules applied in the Congress gives evidence of where incivility can take us.