That story couldn't possibly be true! (And if its true, it's probably just that the democrats just cared too darn much for people with knee injuries and made a mistake out of their overabundance of compassion.)

Straw man alert.

Everyone calls them "the Democrats". Obama himself would tell you that he's "a Democrat". It's not like he's subbing in some nasty word to defame them.

PS: "Democratic" is not what I would call a cabal that takes advantage of its narrow majority to force through legislation without seeking any input or support from the rest of the delegates. Then again, I'm a ReThugliKKKan so what do I know?

Democrat is the appropriate identifier for members of the Democratic Party.

You'll have to find something else to nitpick.

"agency managers overruled the scientists and approved the device for sale in December."

I am not sure how this could discredit Krugman's claims, since, as I recall, Obama wasn't inaugurated until January.

Bernstein's posts are often thought provoking when he sticks to legal issues (and, in fact, I think he is probably right on his larger point in this post), but I am becoming less and less able to wade through his partisan hackery.

So Sen. Kennedy was a liberal Democratic? I can see the case for using "liberal Democratic elites" but "liberal Democrat elites" is at least as logical. It depends whether you read it, as I intended as "liberal Democrat elites, or as you are reading it, as "liberal Democrat elites."

FDA was an agency of a Republican administration last year, n'est ce pas?

In December, the FDA was well aware that the Dems had taken over all three branches of government, and that there would be hell to pay if they crossed Lautenberg et al.

So you're ok with the conduct by the 4 Democrats in Congress who exerted all that pressure to benefit their campaign contributer, ruuffles? Or does your immediate resort to an irrelevant ad hominem attack indicate that you have no quarrel with the substance of the report, you're just pissed off at the messenger informing you about their corruption?

This is for all the readers who are too lazy to click through two links to a Krugman piece from last Fall:

FEMA’s degradation, from one of the government’s most admired agencies to a laughingstock, wasn’t an isolated event; it was the result of the G.O.P.’s underlying philosophy. Simply put, when the government is run by a political party committed to the belief that government is always the problem, never the solution, that belief tends to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Key priorities are neglected; key functions are privatized; and key people, the competent public servants who make government work, either leave or are driven out.

I think that amply qualifies as Krugman saying "the government was doing incompetent and corrupt things because conservative Republicans 'don't believe in' government." The other idea I attributed directly to Krugman, that the Republicans during the Bush era were libertarians, is amply supported by this and other Krugman columns.
On the issue of whether the government would function much better under the Democrats, that's the general thrust of K's relevant pieces, including again the one you can read if you click two links: "What we really need is a government that works, because it's run by people who understand that sometimes government is the solution, after all. And that seems to be something undreamed of in either Mr. Bush’s or Mr. McCain’s philosophy."

Put the government in the hands of true-believing liberal Democrats, and incompetence and corruption will virtually disappear.

I thought this was obvious hyperbole, but I guess some humorless readers really need to be hit over the head with it.

Note to Guest012, whose comment I just deleted: we run a respectable blog here. Take your nonsense to www.xoxohth.com.

Hyperbolic characterizations aside, I'm not sure there's all that much to see here.

1. Four New Jersey congressmen received campaign contributions totaling $26,000 from executives of a publicly-traded company headquartered in New Jersey. I am not particularly shocked by that number. (If you are shocked by that number, and you also think that campaign finance laws should generally be abolished, you may want to think about whether those are really consistent positions.)

2. When the company had trouble getting one of their devices through FDA approval, it called the congressmen, and the congressmen called the FDA asking about it. Again, not particularly shocking. Congressmen do call federal agencies on behalf of their constituents.

3. FDA "agency managers agency managers overruled the scientists and approved the device." Here, "agency managers" apparetnly chiefly refers to Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, a longtime Bush family friend and urologist whom President Bush appointed to head the FDA -- and who, it should be noted, says that he acted appropriately. Indeed, though I am never reluctant to slag a Bush appointee, I wonder if the quoted characterization is really fair. I have only skimmed the report, which is heavy on FDA inside baseball, but there's nothing in it that suggests to me that Dr. von Eschenbach went wildly over the line, or that he was living in mortal fear of a couple of Democratic congressmen.

So what is the takeaway here? We should abolish the FDA? Congressmen should not take contributions from or make calls on behalf of constitutents? Bush family friends are not to be trusted as managers of federal agencies? You tell me.

that government would function much better under the Democrats and liberals because the Democrats and liberals believe in government, whereas the Bushies hated government.

How is this a silly claim? If you're the shareholder of a company, do you want your CEO to be someone who believes that the company can accomplish, or do you want your CEO to disparage the company whenever possible? It's not as if Bush cut the size of the federal government or reduced the federal government's powers.

What's silly is claiming that Krugman said that once Democrats were in power, the world would become magic and rainbows and ponies.

When the company had trouble getting one of their devices through FDA approval, it called the congressmen, and the congressmen called the FDA asking about it.

The report says that "extreme" and "unusual" pressure was put on the FDA. Doesn't sound like the typical, "hey, my constituent called me and I'm following up" call.

So what is the takeaway here? We should abolish the FDA? Congressmen should not take contributions from or make calls on behalf of constitutents? Bush family friends are not to be trusted as managers of federal agencies? You tell me.

Can't it be all of the above?

Seriously, would any other outcome be less objectionable than what actually occurred? Congressmen were responding to concerns from their constituents (there's a strong implication that they wouldn't have been as responsible to non-donors, but in an ideal world, they would have acted just as they did more often than they do now). Agency managers managed their agencies.

Of course, in this case, the constituents, Congressmen, and managers were wrong, and the scientists were right. I'm sure I could scout around and find a case where the technicians inside an agency were wrong and their managers and the legislature either overruled them or failed to do so.

The buried (and false) premise is that some amount of "tuning up" would fix the government. The government is no more able to make magically accurate decisions than anyone else and no amount of "believing in government" or "campaign finance reform" is going to change that.

do you want your CEO to disparage the company whenever possible

I'd love to see your evidence that George W. Bush "disparaged" the federal government "whenever possible." Or, for that matter, any evidence that that he thought that federal government involvement in health care (Medicare Part D), education (No Child Left Behind), moral education (abstinence education), stopping AIDS in Africa, or just about anything else was a bad idea, or that he acted on such views? Or that the Republican Congress did likewise during the Bush years?

The report says that "extreme" and "unusual" pressure was put on the FDA. Doesn't sound like the typical, "hey, my constituent called me and I'm following up" call.

The report says (p. 8):

Although inquiries from members of Congress about FDA’s handling of a constituent’s product application are not unusual, interviewees described the Congressional involvement in the ReGen matter as highly unusual not only in the members’ persistence but also in members’ interest in specific, substantive aspects of the device’s review. The Director of FDA’s Office of Legislation described the pressure from the Hill as the most extreme he had seen and the agency’s acquiescence to the Company’s demands for access to the Commissioner and other officials in the Commissioner’s office as unprecedented in his experience.

Again, I am not sure what the takeaway is here, other than that this case represented more Congressional pressure than usual. If there was something qualitatively "extreme" or "unusual" about the calls -- e.g., an improper threat -- presumably the report would have mentioned it.

sputnik:

TNeloms.
Are you truly claiming that the Krugman quote
"What we really need is a government that works, because it’s run by people who understand that sometimes government is the solution, after all."
is equal to that interpretation?

Of course not. I agree with you. That's why I also said:

I don't see how this FDA example counters the assertion that "sometimes government is the solution" or that a government run by people who believe this will work better.

I was following up on your post, not arguing against it :).

During the Bush years, we constantly heard the refrain, pushed especially by Paul Krugman, that the government was doing incompetent and corrupt things because conservative Republicans "don't believe in" government. Put the government in the hands of true-believing liberal Democrats, and incompetence and corruption will virtually disappear.

I heard this claim about incompetence a lot, but I never once heard it about corruption. Nor does the Krugman column you linked to say anything about it.

Corruption and incompetence are different things!

Put the government in the hands of true-believing liberal Democrats, and incompetence and corruption will virtually disappear.

Wow. You really knocked the crap out of that strawman. I mean, just look at the place - there's straw all over everything now. Hope you're happy.

Wow. You really knocked the crap out of that strawman. I mean, just look at the place - there's straw all over everything now. Hope you're happy.

Which is no doubt why we so frequently see no allowance for comments from certain authors here...

Though President Obama wasn't inaugriated until January, the election was in November. So the nature of the coming administration was known. Also even in Dec '08 the Democrats controlled the House and Senate. And they control the purse strings.

So what's your theory on why the FDA made this announcement Thursday? Is it that they're excited by the incoming Palin administration?

DB,
With all due respect, I don't get the point of your Update. I think you get accused of partisanship because--in the eyes of many many readers--you come across as a partisan hack. (Whether this conclusion is completely true or completely false is irrelevant, in terms of how it influences people.) Since these people's opinion of you is that you are partisan and biased, I don't think is surprising or amusing that you are accused of bias in this particular post. My guess is that you will get this accusation in any post of yours that goes after Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.

As to the substance of your OP: I think you are overstating Krugman, either in error, or as part of erecting a strawman. I think that most people who voted for Obama are not the least surprised to find bad acts by politicians in power. (We are not happy about it when it occurs, but that's not the same as being surprised that it happens.)

JPG's last point is one that many VC readers share, and may account for part of the level of vitriol DB gets as a response to his posts. (The fact that DB chooses not to allow comments in many of his posts also may be a factor, as I am guessing that some of his more, um, motivated opponents may be 'storing-up' some of their ill-will.) :-)

Since campaign finance has been brought up, I remain at a loss as to how giving money to a campaign is free speech. Yes, I understand that money buy ads that say things about the candidate, but it also buys haircuts, outfits, and travel arrangements.

If some legislature made it illegal to give more than $2000 a year to, say, a theatre group, would that be a infringement of free speech? If the fact that "money talks" constitutes free speech, isn't any restriction on what most of us would call commerce a free speech violation?

Now, I'm not a fan of campaign finance rules, but free speech seems to be a rather questionable lever to overturn it.

Are you serious? All you show is that there are Democratic politicians who will work to serve their big donors, and I don't think anyone ever denied that.

But to blame Democrats for being malignant bureaucrats because they brought to light an example of Republican mismanagement and bowing to undue outside influence, well, you have a pretty idiosyncratic view of things!

My question for the day: Is ruufles paid a bonus for each first post he is able to make? Perhaps this is part of his job title at the administration: "Volokh Monitor and First-Alert Responder." I bet he get double-brownie points for being the first to carp on Bernstein's posts.

While I think you've done a good take-down of Krugman's anti-Bush rhetoric, did he really need it? Can anyone argue with a straight face that Krugman was anything but angry with the Bush administration for having the temerity to be Republicans?

Really, this episode points out another fundamental flaw with Campaign Finance Reform. These corporations (presumably) followed all of the Campaign Finance laws. They disclosed their contribution, gave no more than the maximum, and still managed to buy undue congressional influence.

Maybe instead of worrying about campaign donors, we should worry about corrupt politicians. It seems to me that it's much better to toss a few career criminals politicians in prison than to infringe on First Amendment rights of the rest of the populace.

How is this a silly claim? If you're the shareholder of a company, do you want your CEO to be someone who believes that the company can accomplish, or do you want your CEO to disparage the company whenever possible?

If the company can't accomplish something, I want my CEO to be someone who believes that the company can't accomplish it.

I think you get accused of partisanship because--in the eyes of many many readers--you come across as a partisan hack.

I will just say that when I attack Republicans, Republican readers rarely accuse me of a being a pro-Democrat hack, they rightly accuse me of wild-eye libertarianism. When I criticize Democrats--even on the grounds that they are just as bad as Republicans!--though, the usual suspects come out and claim that I'm a Republican hack. That says a lot more about the usual suspects than about me, but you'd think they'd save their ire for a post where the criticism at least seems plausible. To be accused of partisanship for pointing out that the Democrats act just as badly as the Republicans, which means that the accuser believes that the Democrats are a lot better than the Republicans, is about as good a pot-kettle example as I can think of.

Bush's FDA made a decision contrary to good science.

Must be because of Democrats.

The facts don't support your generalized conclusion that Democrats are just as incompetent and corrupt as Republicans. You might as well have arrived at these conclusions: "This shows Roman Catholic politicians (Pallone and Menendez) are just as corrupt as Jewish politicians (Rothman and Lautenberg)." Or "This shows New Jersey politicians put the interests of their constituents above the interests of product consumers." Or "This shows the Bush FDA was unusual susceptible to Congressional pressure." Or "This shows the Bush FDA was pro-manufacturer." Or whatever.

To be accused of partisanship for pointing out that the Democrats act just as badly as the Republicans

"Just as badly"?

What's worse, for a Democratic legislator to speak to a Republican-controlled executive agency on behalf of a constituent, or for the Republican-controlled executive agency to cave in and approve a product knowing that such product carries a design defect that will harm many medical patients?

I don't see the moral equivalence here. The Republican-controlled FDA had control over the approval process, and it failed to properly protect the public from unnecessary harms. These four legislators had no control over the outcome.

Ooh David Nieporent is here. Is he going to ask Bernstein for evidence that anyone (Krugman or otherwise) said "Put the government in the hands of true-believing liberal Democrats, and incompetence and corruption will virtually disappear."

Of course not. But that has nothing to do with partisanship. He's just, uh, concerned about people providing the proper evidence for their claims.

What you are seeing are the hypocrites who supporter the Democrats? They don't give a rat's arse about corruption or waste unless it can be used to further their parties grasp on power by labeling against their opponents.

Witness the outrage by Democrats that ACORN was exposed as the criminal enterprise it has ALWAYS been, they were mad at the two people who exposed it not the employees of ACORN. ACORN could have been pimping out Salvadorian twelve years olds in every housing project in America and the supporters would have attacked those two people because ACORN uses its corruption to elect DEMOCRATS to power. Anything is acceptable to these supporters as long as YOU support the proper party, Democrats? Look at there rally around the naked graft of Murtha and his airport to nowhere?
Rangel, Reid, Jefferson all were supported by these leeches simply because the have a (D) behind their name.


Anyone who listens to the deranged Paul Krugman for political or economic advise is serious mentally incapable. That man has some real issues.

I would add that the only reason the Libertarians, Greenies, et al haven't proven themselves "as corrupt and incompetent" as the Dems and Repubs is that they've never held power, and thus have been deprived of the opportunity to F up as much.

I pledged money to my former Congressman's campaign. I also called his office for help in a dispute I had with an agency of the federal government. The Congressman's office helped me.

That's now considered corruption?

"...wild-eyed libertarians intent on drowning the government in a bathtub..."

Dude, don't tease me like that. I'll be weeping all day in mourning for what we don't have.

That's now considered corruption?

I actually think this is a case of corruption. I'm not sure if the four legislators did anything illegal - they might have. But I'm almost certain that some Bush FDA people did illegal things when they doctored their reports in order to fast-track the product to approval.

But I'm not sure what people expect from politicians when they are allowed to receive money from corporations. Do we expect them to take money from Corporation X, and then not do anything to help Corporation X? That's counterintuitive and obviously not what happens in real life.

I think this case shows how easily Bush agencies were corrupted.

Haha hey there 'castro.

I think the heart of this case is really here:

[Bush] agency managers overruled the scientists

As far as the charge of "incompetence" goes: these four legislators set out with a goal, and facing huge odds against them (hard science which concluded that the product was defective), achieved that goal. They achieved that goal by exploiting the corruptibility of Bush officials. They got FDA managers to overrule the scientists and approve the product.

How is that "incompetent"? The four legislators sound "corrupt" (in the sense they put the interests of a corrupt financial donor about the physical well-being interests of real humans) and the FDA managers sound corrupt AND incompetent. It was the FDA managers' job to make sure unsafe products don't hit the market. They failed in their task - they were incompetent.

Sarcastro:

1. Bernstein takes an example of a Democratic FDA overturning a corrupt decision made by a Republican FDA as evidence that Democrats are just as corrupt as Republicans.

2. Bernstein claims that he constantly heard the refrain "Put the government in the hands of true-believing liberal Democrats, and incompetence and corruption will virtually disappear." Evidence for this: zero.

3. Bloggers and commenters here spend considerable energy arguing that (a) campaign donations = free speech; (b) corporations have constitutionally protected free speech; (c) there is no such thing as the public interest, just self-interested individuals jockeying for power. Then Bernstein comes along talking about "corruption" without batting an eye.

Republicans abuse their authority, Democrats abuse their positiion.

subpatre:

The FDA actions were first exposed in the Wall Street Journal on March 6, 2009.

It's almost like you're suggesting that the New York Times was late to the party...again!

I'm always struck by the number of comments when Bernstein and Lindgren open comments on the line of:

You shouldn't blog on this topic.

Oh, there are a few who disagree on substance, but the most vehement are those who nitpick at minor issues to try to discredit the entire post, without going near the substansive point.

And I think Bernstein's point is valid, Governement whether in the hands of Big Government Liberals or Big Government Conservatives is going to be wasteful, incompetent and corrupt. Smaller government is going to at least reduce the scale of the problem. And if it leaves us all freer, and more money in our pockets, then all the better.

Krugman's claim - that Republicans simply don't think the government can do anything right - is wholly accurate.

Um. I'm currently registered as a Republican. I think there are some things the government is the best institution to be doing. So who's setting up the strawman now?

In fact, no Republican I know personally advocates this view. I believe those who advocate this view tend to drop out of the Republican Party and become Libertarians.

Wait wait wait come on here. So now everyone here is a wonderful believer in the importance of government regulation? I mean, who cares if the FDA approved this device? Why are citizens relying on wasteful government regulation to figure out if medical devices are safe or not? And if people really have a problem with some New Jersey politicians taking money from a corporation, they can make their own donations to other politicians who better represent them. Free speech, baby; enough with the moralizing and the "public interest" and "common good" nonsense.

No?

Specifically, as a continuation of the previous post, I am glad we agree that the post does not really come even close to providing evidence for its theme as defined by its author.

a post whose theme is that when given power the Democrats are just as corrupt and incompetent as the Republicans.

when a lack of agreement with the Republican-controlled Congress on how to spend money led to less spending than we'd have gotten under total control by either party.

that, and a president who focused on keynesian economics to use a period of wonderful economic growth to balance the budget. details. details.

Good. I agree with you that it's a random anecdote that isn't evidence of anything.

You need to learn the difference between "evidence" and "proof."

Not to mention the additional step in analogy of population being a structural problem inherent to the human sexual drive and the need to reproduce.

And by the way the India analogy isn't a good one. It's more like a Catholic arguing that Protestant ministers are corrupt because they don't take vows of poverty and chastity, look at all the evangelical leaders' sex scandals, etc. Response: what makes you think that this is a product of vows as opposed to human nature and opportunism, see the recent Catholic priest scandals.

Libertarian Party message:

Vote against corruption. Vote Libertarian. We're not corrupt (because we don't have any power and won't sell out, so we don't get the big donations).

Maybe some, but that isn't really where at least some libertarians come from.

David alluded to the problem that I see with government and government employees - the problems are structural. And the bigger the government, the more structural problems you are going to see. It isn't that big government is bad, per se, or that government employees are evil, or any of that, but rather, that it is bad because of inherent structural problems, and the bigger it gets, the worse it gets.

Let me add that I worked in and for the federal government for the fifteen years that I worked as a software engineer, in a number of departments and agencies, notably Commerce (Census and NOAA), Agriculture (primarily Forest Service, but most of the rest too), Energy (most of the national labs west of the Mississippi), and, even the IRS a couple of times. I am sure I missed a couple too.

But what I found was that government employees fell roughly into two categories - hard working optimists, and those who had taken on-the-job retirement. Unfortunately, right now, the later category almost always have priority for jobs, when jobs are cut. I would expect a lot more "functionals" (like you have to deal with at the local DMV) in areas where there were a lot of clerical workers, but I saw more of the young idealists than anything.

So, really, it isn't that government workers are lazy or corrupt. Yes, the system does tend to ultimately encourage that, but I knew plenty who weren't.

Yet, that doesn't mean that government agencies or departments can do anything efficiently or well. Or that they are really accountable. They almost never can. Why?

My theory is that it revolves around the fact that there is no real bottom line in government agencies. Companies go out of business when they don't do their job, and their bottom line is always at least breaking even. So, when things get tight, that guy who took on-the-job retirement a couple of years ago is dumped. Or, the company fails.

Governments don't have a bottom line. Rather, they have a number of, invariably conflicting, goals. They cannot possibly meet all those goals, since resources are not infinite (even if the government could acquire all of those that are available).

For example, an agency may have $X to do something, and might be able to do it if it could hire whomever it wanted. But, it can't, because then they wouldn't have the right color, sex, and military consistency. Oh, and then the task may violate environmental, work safety, etc. limitations. And, it can't get done quickly anyway, since it has to go out for competitive bid through the government procurement process, etc. And how about the CO2, lead, and other pollutants? How green are the various proposals? And, the agency is likely to have other, internal, goals that have to be considered too.

So, in the end, most anything that the government does is done half assed, because there are so many metrics involved. And, to some extent, those running the projects, departments, divisions, agencies, and departments (below the appointed level) have a lot a lot of power to do what they want, because they can always point to how well they are doing against other metrics when called on failing on any one.

And what do they want? Most likely, they are greedy like the rest of us (which is the underlying reason that socialism invariably fails). They want money now, and in retirement. This often means trying to make more money in a highly regimented system, where the best way to do so is to build an empire. The bigger the empire, the more people under you, the higher the grade needed to run the empire.

Yes, companies have the same problem - except that inefficient and counter-productive empires get dismantled when the companies get desperate when they lose profitability. One thing that governments do not have are mechanisms to force this.

As a final note, one thing that is a bit scary about this Administration is its heavy use of "czars". The problem with them is that they blur the lines of authority, without changing the lines of responsibility. And, the result is that agencies have just one more power center to give it conflicting requirements, goals, and mandates, all without having any responsibility for the real operation of the agencies that they are involved with. They weaken the already weak power that appointed officials have to get the bureaucracy to do what it is supposed to be doing.

Oh come on, David. Anti-government rhetoric is a staple of Republican politics.

I guess that is what constitutes "evidence" or "proof" to you leftists...

The facts don't support your generalized conclusion that Democrats are just as incompetent and corrupt as Republicans

Hilarious.
Um, do you mean like Charlie Rangel?
Or like William Jefferson?
Or did you mean like Blago?
How about this?

The FBI has arrested 44 people and accused them of fraud, accepting bribes, trafficking in human organs, money laundering and other nefarious activities. Among those arrested were prominent rabbis with plush homes in Deal, NJ.
The most disturbing aspect of the arrests was that several New Jersey elected officials were arrested, cuffed and charged with accepting bribes. These were:
Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano III (D),
Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell (D),
Ridgefield Mayor Anthony Suarez (D),
Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini (D),
State Assemblymen Harvey Smith (D) and
State Assemblymen Daniel Van Pelt (D).

I could go on all day...

Joe the Plumber refers to the arrest of corrupt "New Jersey State Assemblymen Daniel Van Pelt (D)". Van Pelt is a Republican.

Joe reminds me of when Fox News ran (D) next to Mark Foley's name after Foley was caught in a sex scandal. Indeed, Fox does this with disgraced public officials so often, it's almost not surprising that Joe would bungle this. (Joe didn't cite sources. Mine is the official New Jersey web site.)

Joe reminds me of when Fox News ran (D) next to Mark Foley's name after Foley was caught in a sex scandal. Indeed, Fox does this with disgraced public officials so often, it's almost not surprising that Joe would bungle this. (Joe didn't cite sources. Mine is the official New Jersey web site.)

Let me suggest that they do this precisely because the other major news outlets, whether broadcast or print, don't. Rather, they tend to put an (R) by the name of corrupt Republicans, but ignore the party if it is a corrupt Democrat.

pro-Democrat

Maybe we could get to the bottom of this if Bernstein would identify this lone Democrat he's always talking about.

I have seen little evidence, as of yet, indicating that the Democrats running the country right now are any more competent than the Republicans who did so before them.

But what is becoming increasingly evident, is that they are far more corrupt.

It is so because Bruce Hayde beeeliiievees it! No facts or evidence are necessary!

Let me clarify something - I don't believe that Democrats, per se, on average, are more corrupt than Republicans, but rather that this Administration, possibly through its lack of experience, has hired more than its share of questionable people (and tried to hire a bunch more, many of whom were dropped when their corruption came to light).

As for Gale Norton - note that she is the first (and likely last) Bush cabinet level appointee to be the subject of a formal political corruption investigation. And whatever happened happened in either 2005 and/or 2006.

Jon Roland:

Vote against corruption. Vote Libertarian. We're not corrupt (because we don't have any power and won't sell out, so we don't get the big donations).

As long as money can influence the outcomes of elections it will, and it will buy the influence that power brings. Unless or until people start voting for the candidates who don't receive much money at all, the situation won't change.

This is like the "nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded" logic. By your reasoning, voting for Libertarians would just make them powerful and corrupt.

++++++++++++++++

Vader:

In fact, no Republican I know personally advocates th[e] view [that Republicans simply don't think the government can do anything right]. I believe those who advocate this view tend to drop out of the Republican Party and become Libertarians.

Grover Norquist isn't a Republican?

+++++++++++++++++

David Bernstein,

I will just say that when I attack Republicans, Republican readers rarely accuse me of a being a pro-Democrat hack, they rightly accuse me of wild-eye libertarianism. When I criticize Democrats--even on the grounds that they are just as bad as Republicans!--though, the usual suspects come out and claim that I'm a Republican hack. That says a lot more about the usual suspects than about me

As a native English speaker, the differences between Texas, New York and British dialects couldn't be more obvious. To someone less steeped in the language, those differences can be opaque. I think what you're describing speaks to how much more self-identified libertarians have in common with Republicans than they do with Democrats. From our point of view, you guys can seem remarkably difficult to tell apart.

[re Bernstein] I think what you're describing speaks to how much more self-identified libertarians have in common with Republicans than they do with Democrats. From our point of view, you guys can seem remarkably difficult to tell apart.

Well, let's see. Most libertarians have opposed the Iraq invasion and occupation. Opposed the Patriot Act and its re-authorization. Opposed the "War on Drugs." Opposed Bush's expansion of Medicare and his "No Child Left Behind" boondoggle. Are you starting to see the differences more clearly, or do you just not want to?

walstad:

Most libertarians have opposed the Iraq invasion and occupation

Really? Prove it.

Arguably the most visible 'libertarian' blogger is Glenn Reynolds. He opposed the war?

This is supposedly a libertarian blog. VC posts pre-war can be found here. I see plenty of pro-war statements (they are easy to find, but let me know if you would like me to enumerate specific examples). I see no anti-war statements. Do you?

If "most libertarians" opposed the war, where are their pre-war statements opposing the war? I'm sure there are some such statements, but are they congruent with your claim of "most?"

jukeboxgrad:

This blog is more conservative--even neocon--than libertarian, overall. What attracted me here in the first place was the mostly pro-gun rights tilt. Go to LP.org for the Libertarian Party, of which I'm a life member. If you find two pro-Iraq-War words to scrape together, I'll consider renouncing my membership. Ron Paul is a Republican who actually ran for president as a Libertarian in the 80s. His views are libertarian enough to make him a near-pariah in his own party. You may remember he was the only candidate for the Republican nomination who outright opposed Bush's warmongering, as well as the Patriot Act. Over at the Mises Institute (Mises.org) they're all for free markets and against the war. Robert Higgs and company at the Independent Institute: same thing. Some of these folks also blog at Liberty &Power, which you can click on at the Blog Roll above. Granted, there are some avowed libertarians who favored the war--you'll find some divergence of opinion at CATO and over at Reason Magazine, I believe--that's why I said "most" Libertarians opposed it. You might want to check some of these organizations out, even just for the sake of fascination in finding what you don't seem to think can exist: lots and lots of people who support free markets and free trade and oppose empire.

Of course, this thread shows that there are plenty of individuals who are so wedded to their "Republicans bad, Democrats good" premises that they are, thus far, beyond reasoned debate.

Again, Professor, your understanding of proof and evidence is far superior to mine, as of course is your grasp of analogy, but your statement is like saying that if people throw up on the food at McDonalds, it shows that they are wedded to the notion that burgers are inherently disgusting.

Every bill signed by a Democratic President should contain this final paragraph:

Even if a president identical to George W. Bush were elected and given the responsibilities and powers involved in the enforcement of this law, as written, I would want it on the books.

Every Republican president should face that same final paragraph with Jimmy Carter's name substituted.

This story isn't just about corruption and the FDA. It's also a warning about Obamacare: Would you think it's such a great idea if President Sarah Palin got to appoint the people running it?

And in general, is paying down debt when you've got the money Keynesian? Or just common sense? The disagreement arises where Keynes says the government should spend money it doesn't have.

Umm, keynes doesn't say that. That's where the accumulation of surplus during the crest in the business cycle (which is what Clinton did) comes in.

Ok, I can't put my finger on a quote by Keynes. I've had his General Theory on my shelf for some years and can't get to it. But Keynes' name is invoked by proponents of massive deficit spending during economic downturns--like, Obama's so-called "stimulus." This isn't about spending any (non-existent) surplus, it's all about printing money out of thin air or going deeper in debt to China. I suppose it's quite possible that Keynes himself would disavow this "Keynesianism."

the fact that certain presidents who will not be named ran deficits during an economic boom cycle is the problem, not the government spending during a recession.

Well, maybe so, but my quibbles with that would take us too far from the subject of the thread and too far into the night (EDT here).

When hiring a chef for your steakhouse do you hire a Vegan who dislikes people who eat meat or someone who enjoys a good ribeye? That's the essence of Krugman's point.

When hiring an executive, do you hire someone who thinks he is good enough to micromanage his employees or someone who knows when to delegate to their experience and respect their closeness to the work?

When hiring a general, do you hire someone who thinks that war is a great idea or someone who thinks that it's a horrible last resort?

Or, to go straight to the heart of humility and epistemology, we can look at a change a few hundred years ago that was so significant we've been calling it "The Enlightenment" ever since:

When learning about the world, do you want to hire a believer who knows all his opinions are true or a scientist who keeps making up new ways to try and find out when they're false?

It is entirely reasonable for someone to believe that government (or bureaucracy, or war, or falsehood) is bad, but also believe that it is an unavoidable or even necessary evil that must be handled as competently as possible.


Note: I'm not saying that Republicans are competent, particularly not this latest batch. But the kind of ridiculous hubris displayed by "everything will run smoothly with us in charge" Democrats was part of how the Republicans became incompetent.

<blockquote>So what is the takeaway here? We should abolish the FDA? Congressmen should not take contributions from or make calls on behalf of constitutents? Bush family friends are not to be trusted as managers of federal agencies? You tell me.</blockquote>

The UL (certifier of electrical eqpt.) doesn't seem to have these problems.

I was a Libertarian for 15 years I quit shortly after 9/11 because of the Lib stance on the war.

I'm now a libertarian Republican. Down with the Drug War. Up with the war on aggressive Islam.