Resolving this crisis has taken years, and there’s a reason: a debt crisis has never really been solved this way before.  Here’s Zoe Chace of NPR’s Planet Money team.

[...]

CHACE: Usually, it’s like this: the countries default on their loans – then we talk.

It struck me upon hearing this that yes, that’s true.  The immediate example to me was Mexico in the early 1980s (and then several other Latin American cases that followed suit):  the countries in question basically came out and said one day:  we are suspending loan repayments because we cannot afford to keep paying.  This led to economic crisis (locally and regionally).  Then came the scramble to fix the problem which eventually led to structural adjustment of economies under the auspices of international lending institutions.

The Greek case is different:  instead of going off the cliff and then sending in the rescue crews, the goal here is to find a way to stop form going over the cliff.

Of course, this approach is driven by the fact that Greece is not only in the EU, but part of the Eurozone.   Its partners have every reason to avoid being dragged off the cliff too.

Greece’s parliament has passed a controversial package of austerity measures, demanded by the eurozone and IMF in return for a 130bn-euro ($170bn; £110bn) bailout to avoid default.

[...]

The austerity measures include:

• 15,000 public-sector job cuts
• liberalisation of labour laws
• lowering the minimum wage by 20% from 751 euros a month to 600 euros
• negotiating a debt write-off with banks.

Meanwhile,

The vote came amid some of the worst violence seen in Greece in years.

Protesters outside parliament threw stones and petrol bombs, and police fired tear gas. Several people were injured and buildings were set on fire.

Not only was their rebellion in the streets, but also inside parliament:  “Coalition parties expelled over 40 deputies for failing to back the bill.”

His thesis:

I’ve argued that maybe we need a third party to break open our political system. But that’s a long shot. What we definitely and urgently need is a second party — a coherent Republican opposition that is offering constructive conservative proposals on the key issues and is ready for strategic compromises to advance its interests and those of the country.

This is, I think, a reasonable request as at the moment it does not seem that the Republican, as a coherent political collective, it especially interested in governing.  This is problematic because the nature of our system, one of separated powers and checks and balance, requires some degree of cooperation if governing is to take place.  This fact is further emphasized by the nature of the rules of the Senate.

Friedman focuses on three areas: globalization, debt and entitlements, and energy.

On globalization he is partially doing his Friedman thing, which is make bold assertions that ultimately sound interesting but at ultimately are more glittering phrases than useful analysis, i.e., “This is a world in which there will be no more “developed” and “developing countries,” but only HIEs (high-imagination-enabling countries) and LIEs (low-imagination-enabling countries).”  This leads to a similarly good-sounding but largely void formulation:  “We need strong government, but limited government, which enables our companies and individuals to compete globally.”

However, on debt and entitlements he hits the nail on the head:

The second of our great long-term challenges are our huge debt and entitlement obligations. They can’t be fixed without raising and reforming taxes and trimming entitlements and defense. We absolutely cannot just cut entitlements and defense. That would imperil the personal security and national security of every American. We must also reform taxes to raise more revenues.

But when all the Republican candidates last year said they would not accept a deal with Democrats that involved even $1 in tax increases in return for $10 in spending cuts, the G.O.P. cut itself off from reality. It became a radical party, not a conservative one. And for the candidates to wrap themselves in a cartoon version of Ronald Reagan — a real conservative who raised taxes, including the gasoline tax, when he discovered his own cuts had gone too far — is fraudulent.

This is simply true:  serious efforts are needed and pretending like cuts alone will fix the problem is simply wishful thinking (at best).  Likewise, “cartoon” Reagan is about right.

On energy he is likewise right when he states “can’t drill our way out of” the problem.  It sounds nice, but it ignores reality—this is especially true with, as he notes, “7 billion to 9 billion people by 2050, and more and more of them want to drive, eat and live like Americans.”

Fundamentally, the conclusion is spot on:

Until the G.O.P. stops being radical and returns to being conservative, it won’t provide what the country needs most now — competition — competition with Democrats on the issues that will determine whether we thrive in the 21st century. We need to hear conservative fiscal policies, energy policies, immigration policies and public-private partnership concepts — not radical ones. Would somebody please restore our second party? The country is starved for a grown-up debate.

Such competition is needed and is such a debate.  We aren’t getting such at the moment.  And yes, as some will no doubt state, the Democrats are far from perfect.  This is not a post about the virtues of the Democratic Party and it should not be interpreted as such.  It is, however, about the copious vices of the GOP.

An illustration from the piece:

Ki Gulbranson owns a logo apparel shop, deals in jewelry on the side and referees youth soccer games. He makes about $39,000 a year and wants you to know that he does not need any help from the federal government.

[...]

He says that too many Americans lean on taxpayers rather than living within their means. He supports politicians who promise to cut government spending. In 2010, he printed T-shirts for the Tea Party campaign of a neighbor, Chip Cravaack, who ousted this region’s long-serving Democratic congressman.

Yet this year, as in each of the past three years, Mr. Gulbranson, 57, is counting on a payment of several thousand dollars from the federal government, a subsidy for working families called the earned-income tax credit. He has signed up his three school-age children to eat free breakfast and lunch at federal expense. And Medicare paid for his mother, 88, to have hip surgery twice.

Now, on the one hand, the programs (EITC, free meals at school, etc.) exist and one can argue that one has the right to take what one can get regardless of philosophical objections.  One the other hand, however, there is a something deeply problematic about what appears to be (both in this specific case, as well as within the general politics of this topic) a serious contradiction in position v. alleged political preferences (or, perhaps even more likely, a profound misunderstanding of these policies in the first place).

Back to the specifics of this example:  Gulbranson is a small businessman, the very definition of entrepreneurial America and hence a “maker” and yet he also is taking free meals for his kids at school, amongst other things, which makes him a proverbial “taker,” yes?  (So much for easy dichotomies in the real world).

In fairness, Gulbranson did say the following in the interview:

Their difficulties, Mr. Gulbranson said, have made it hard to imagine asking anyone to pay higher taxes.

“I don’t think most people could bear to pay more,” he said.

Instead, he said he would rather give up the earned-income credit the family now receives and start paying for school lunches for his children.

“I don’t demand that the government does this for me,” he said. “I don’t feel like I need the government.”

How about Social Security? And Medicare? Can he imagine retiring without government help?

“I don’t think so,” he said. “No. I don’t know. Not the way we expect to live as Americans.”

But, of course, even if we eliminate school meals and the EITC, the major social spending by the federal government is Social Security and Medicare.   Any discussion about the size of government has to address this fact.  Further, these are programs that only work with some substantial amount of redistribution.  To wit:

A woman who was 45 in 2010, earning $43,500 a year, will pay taxes that will reach a value of $87,000 by the time she retires, assuming the money is invested at an annual interest rate 2 percentage points above inflation, according to the Urban Institute analysis. But on average, the government will then spend $275,000 on her medical care. The average is somewhat lower for men, because women live longer.

Medicare is often described as an insurance program, but its premiums are not nearly high enough. In simple terms, Americans are getting more than they pay for.

So, again:  if the Tea Party is serious about less government and even lower taxes, then this issues has to be addressed far more head on than has been the case.  And such an addressing has to deal with the fact that either we have to pay more in taxes, severely cut benefits, or some mix.  Simplistic calls for limited government are just that, simplistic.

One response to the column was by Tom Maguire (and who was quote favorably by the aforementioned Reynolds), who asked:

Wait – Medicare is now a “safety net” program? I thought that,like Social Security, it was an earned benefit – we all paid our taxes, and we are all eligible.  Medicaid is means-tested; Medicare is not.

Now, the distinction he appears to be making is that only non-universal programs are “safety net” programs.  However, this is not the case.

First, I would counter his assertion by stating just because a program is universal does not mean that it does not constitute part of the safety net.  A key rationale for both Social Security and Medicare was to prevent the occurrence of poverty amongst the elderly.  Indeed, as I noted not that long ago, there is a correlation between Social Security and the diminution of poverty amongst the elderly.  As such, these programs are very clearly part of the safety net, even if not all partakers of the policies use them to avoid poverty.  Indeed, one suspects that the vast majority of recipients would be risking poverty without these programs (and certainly a substantial number would not have anywhere near to adequate medical coverage—a situation leading either to an earlier death and/or bankruptcy).

Second, the article is about the fact that many persons who are not poor rely on various social programs despite the fact that they are political inclined to inveigh against government spending.  The issue is, therefore, about contradictory politics regardless of whether the programs are universal or targeted in some way.

Third, even if the policies in question are universal, this does not mean that each recipient received back simply what was paid in.  Quite the contrary:  even people well ensconced in the middle class will receive more in benefits than they paid in.

Maguire also asserts “the Democrats have long wanted to deliver middle-class entitlements paid for by “the rich”, because that is where the votes are” ( a point he hopes to return to).  This is, of course, a central theme of many who criticize these program and who call for limited government in general (it also asserts a political conspiracy of a sort that makes the situation sound like some sort of master plan to ensnare the public).  However, I would note, that the examples in the NYT undercut that assertion.  And yes, anecdotes are not data.   However, we know from survey research that there are a large number of people who both support these programs yet vote for politicians who seek to either cut and/or underfund said programs.  In other words, if voting was really about material benefits, we would see very different voting patterns than we do.

Indeed, the NYT piece addresses this issue to a degree:

One of the oldest criticisms of democracy is that the people will inevitably drain the treasury by demanding more spending than taxes. The theory is that citizens who get more than they pay for will vote for politicians who promise to increase spending.

This is correct:  the ancient Greeks criticized democracy (as they defined it**) as nothing more than rule by the poor who would eventually tear done society.  However, reality ends up being a lot more complicated.  As noted, voting preferences end up being more complex than this notion suggests.  One simple fact illustrates this:  citizens do not vote solely on class lines.

Further, ss the article notes:

Dean P. Lacy, a professor of political science at Dartmouth College, has identified a twist on that theme in American politics over the last generation. Support for Republican candidates, who generally promise to cut government spending, has increased since 1980 in states where the federal government spends more than it collects. The greater the dependence, the greater the support for Republican candidates.

Conversely, states that pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits tend to support Democratic candidates. And Professor Lacy found that the pattern could not be explained by demographics or social issues.

Now, granted, the red state/blue state dichotomy is problematic from an analytical point of view because it makes it sound as if states contain only one type of person, which is not the case.  Still, there is a disconnect here that is rather profound.  For example:  deep red southern states often contain a lot of people decrying the federal government and federal spending but seem to ignore the degree to which their own state economies rely upon and benefit from federal spending.

To be clear:  I think that there is a legitimate debate to be had over these policies.   However, I don’t think that an honest, legitimate debate can be had until there is a real understanding of what government actually does.  This has been an ongoing theme for me, and probably is, to me, the most significant fundamental issue for the improvement of our political debate. So,we can debate about the appropriate scope of government: what it should do and how it should be paid for, but to do so we have to fundamentally honest about what government does in reality right now as well as the ramifications of specific changes.  And yet, it does not seem that, in the main, we are anywhere near this kind of conversation.  Instead we get silly maker/taker, 53%/47%, etc. dichotomizations or simplistic appeals to “rugged individualism” that utterly eschew reality.

A side note:  this also gets mixed up in a simplistic dependency/liberty dichotomy (as exemplified by Heritage’s Index of Dependence and that is the hallmark of Ron Paul speeches).  Much could be said on this, but I would suggest that sometimes “dependence” (if defined solely as receiving a government benefit of some kind) can lead to the ability to have more personal liberty.  If I am a retiree who receives Social Security and Medicare to a sufficient level that I can afford to live on my own rather than having to turn to the charity of family, do I not have more liberty than I otherwise would have had?  If I am a parent of school age children, do I not, ultimately have more personal liberty if I have public schools where I can send my children to be educated?  Indeed, as an individual, is not a substantial amount of my personal liberty shaped heavily by the education I received, which is often the result of depending on government in multiple ways?  That is:  public K-12 (free to me) and then public university (subsidized) and perhaps paid for in some way via federal programs, e.g., Pell Grants, the GI Bill, student loans, etc.).  Without those things to depend upon, how much control over my life (i.e., liberty) would I have had?

I am not saying that this programs are perfect, that they must maintain their current funding levels, or that there is no room for alternatives.   I am saying, however, that we have a choice to make before we can have efficacious discourse.  That choice is between ideology/propaganda and reality.  And the reality has to reflective not just the downside of government, but the upside as well (and, indeed, it is an upside that we all enjoy more than we seem willing to admit).

*For anyone unclear on why I am using this specific language, please see the linked post and the Glenn Reynolds column I was discussing.

**Which isn’t really how we define in the modern era, but that’s a whole other conversation.

The Marine Corps on Thursday once again did damage control after a photograph surfaced of a sniper team in Afghanistan posing in front of a flag with a logo resembling that of the notorious Nazi SS — a special unit that murdered millions of Jews, gypsies and others.

The Corps said in a statement that using the symbol was not acceptable, but the Marines in the photograph taken in September 2010 will not be disciplined because investigators determined it was a naïve mistake.

The Marines believed the SS symbol was meant to represent sniper scouts and never intended to be associated with a racist organization, said Maj. Gabrielle Chapin, a spokeswoman at Camp Pendleton, where the Marines were based.

“Sniper scouts?”  That’s a new one. 

Here’s the photo, that apparently first appeared in a blog entry (url not cited) at the Knight’s Armament website:

It is impossible to know, just from the photo, what the deal is.  One thing is for sure:  it is a pretty shocking (and indeed, jarring) image.   At best is an example of howling ignorance and at worst is suggesting something more sinister (at least in terms of one or more of the individuals in this photo).  To wit:  where in the world would the flag have come from in the first place?  It would seem that someone would have had to have brought it with them to Afghanistan (as I can’t imagine that there is a local branch of “Neo-Nazis R Us” out in rural Afghanistan).  This is suggestive that someone in this group has unsavory political leanings.  It is bad enough to own such a flag and several quanta worse to think that it was sufficiently important to a person that it was something that they would have brought with them to a combat zone in the middle of nowhere.

As a general proposition, I have decided that we use the word “conservative” (and, for that matter, “liberal”) rather imprecisely (this includes my own colloquial usage of the term over time).  I think that we are at an especially odd place at the moment in terms of what the word means in the American context.  Such facts forward my interest in better definitions, especially in terms of public discourse.

Having said that, this post looks first at a basic, fundamentally academic, definition of “conservative” and then looks at what I think qualifies as a pretty good example of truly conservative thinking in this sense by Maggie Gallagher on the question of same-sex marriage.

A basic definition of “conservative” from an academic (and historical) point of view is one which the status quo is seen as having been arrived at through a long series of trial and error which leads to some degree of stability.  As such, tinkering with the status quo should be undertaken only with extreme care because it is largely impossible to know the full consequences of choices.  In other words, unintended consequences are certain and the ability of the human mind to fully understand the ramifications of change is quite limited.  As such, if change is to be undertaken it should only be done in small, incremental steps so as to decrease the chances that seriously damaging moves are made.  Now it should be noted clearly that conservatives in this sense do not oppose all change, but rather they a) oppose rapid or large change, and b) sincerely believe human reason to be a limited tool.

On change, for example, Edmund Burke wrote: “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.” But to him, as one would expect of the patron saint of classic conservatism, change was an issue not of innovation, but rather one of “correction.”  The aim of this correction was conservation of the good and functioning aspects of the existing order.

When one considers that the foundation of classic conservative thinking is that the current socio-political order has evolved slowly through a long, slow process of testing what works and what does not, one can understand both the basic conservative resistance to change and, moreover, why classic conservatism is appealing to those who benefit the most from a given existing status quo.

Of course, by this measure, not all self-professed “conservatives” in the colloquial sense are, indeed, conservatives in the proper sense of the term.  Many are reactionary seeking to turn the clock back to the past (e.g., Rick Santorum and birth control) and others are liberal (if not progressive) in the sense that they think that the application of reason leads to a better life for all (i.e., any number of Gingrich’s ideas—I mean for goodness’ sake, whatever else Gingrich’s moon base idea might be, it is hardly the stuff of a conservative worldview, regardless of how one defines the term).

All of that was preface, but perhaps needed (even useful?) before getting to the basic inspiration for this post.  I was reading the Salon profile of Maggie Gallagher, the conservative writer (mostly at NRO) and anti-same sex marriage advocate (The making of gay marriage’s top foe).  The piece is interesting, and while I am bit uncomfortable with the straight line that it draws between Gallagher’s college pregnancy (and subsequent single-parenthood) and her views on gay marriage, a compelling case is made.  However, the pop psychology of it all isn’t something I am adequately equipped to comment upon.  Instead, I was especially struck by the following passages:

“The questions began by talking about what people think about homosexuality,” Gallagher recalls. “And I said that’s a perfectly legitimate question, but that’s not my concern. My concern is that marriage really matters because children need a mom and a dad, and after gay marriage, I can’t say that anymore. I won’t be allowed to say it. Marriage will not be about that anymore. We will not have an institution dedicated to putting together mothers and fathers and children.”

[...]

Reading Gallagher’s portion of “Debating Same-Sex Marriage” and watching numerous clips of her debates, what surprises me is how little Gallagher talks about gay people, or even gayness. Gallagher’s opposition to gay marriage seems to have very little to do with gay people, indeed with people at all. What really excites her is a depersonalized idea of Marriage: its essence, its purity, its supposedly immutable definition. If properly supported by the right laws and the right customs, Gallagher’s heroic Marriage is good for women, children and society. For Gallagher, gay people are the enemy only insofar as their desire to marry is yet another attack on Marriage: Like no-fault divorce, the welfare state and the normalization of single parenting, same-sex marriage challenges the idea that every child should be with its biological mother and father.

[...]

In her forthcoming book, she writes that “including same-sex unions in the legal category of ‘marriage’ will necessarily change the public meaning of marriage for the entire society in ways that must make it harder for marriage to perform its core civil functions over time.” How do we know? We just do.

And even if somehow the evidence showed, conclusively, that same-sex marriage were good for children? Gallagher would still be dissatisfied: “Nothing could make me call a same-sex couple a marriage, because that’s not what I believe a marriage is.”

In short:  marriage is defined by human nature, no more, no less and this is not a thing to be reasoned about, per se, because it simply is.  Further, this is immutably true to the point that nature will win out over supposed reason:

But for Gallagher these facts are temporal, contingent and ultimately meaningless. They just appear to be facts. In an email two months after our first conversation, she explains why her opponents are mistaken: “One of the lessons I learned as a young woman from the collapse of Communism is this: Trying to build a society around a fundamental lie about human nature can be done, for a while, with intense energy (and often at great cost); but it cannot hold.” Same-sex marriage is just a big lie, she believes, like Communism. It is weak at its foundations, like the Iron Curtain. It may get built, she seems to concede — in 10 years, or 20, there may be more states that recognize same-sex marriage, more shiny, happy couples raising rosy-cheeked, well-adjusted children, children who play with dogs and go to school and fall from jungle gyms and break their arms, children often adopted after being abandoned by the heterosexuals who did not want them or could not care for them — but in time (big time, geological time, God time) the curtain will be pulled back, or it will fall. Because it has to. It cannot be otherwise. Because a son, as Maggie Gallagher will tell you, needs a dad.

That which has been is proof that it ought to be preserved and there is no room for the possibility that this key institution has been socially constructed over time.  (I have written on the question of whether or not the definition of marriage is immutable here:  Redefining Marriage).

On thing that the piece makes clear, and deserves underscoring:  Gallagher does not appear to be a homophobe nor does she appear motivated by any particular concern about homosexuality in general.  Rather, she is dedicated to her view of marriage.**

This strikes me as rather useful example of classic conservative thinking:  human beings have developed an ideal institution, based on practice and human nature called marriage and when properly followed (man+woman=children) this is best and there is no argument to be made in opposition to this notion.  It is not a thing of reason, but of tradition and nature (and likely the divine).*  Further, if we muck about with what nature has ordained, the ultimate result will be a negative one for society at large.  Same-sex marriage, therefore, is highly misguided social engineering that will a) cause harm and b) ultimately be doomed to failure.

A side note (which does touch on the pop psychology part after all).  The piece quotes Gallagher’s early writings and the following is striking, especially in context of her biography:

“Sometimes they [men] prefer a hotel room to a house in the suburbs, or beg us to exchange bodily fluids without ever exchanging phone numbers. Sometimes they do not appreciate that making a baby is making a long-term commitment you cannot just walk out on when you’re feeling unfulfilled.” Because men are so different, society developed norms to pressure men to take responsibility they might wish to avoid.

While there clearly are men of the type described above (and, one presumes, some women), may add a few data points of my own here?  As I frequently point out, I am been married for going on 22 years and have three children.  I actually very much prefer a house in the suburbs to a hotel room.  And most of the males I have known over the years are just as interested in long-term relationships as the women I have known.

Now, granted, I cannot credibly extrapolate an empirically comprehensive view of human nature from simply my own personal observations.  But then again, neither an Maggie Gallagher, but it seems as if that is precisely what she has done.  It is certainly quite difficult to read that quoted passage and not see the connection between her early unhappiness in life and her subsequent views of the universe.

To bring this to contemporary domestic politics in a general sense, I think it is worth noting that part of why social conservatives and their opponents have such conflicts is that social conservatives tend to base their views on positions that are not amenable to reasoned argument.  By that I mean:  it is difficult to have an argument with immutable truth, yes?  This is why, by the way, the culture wars are not only back, but they never actually left and never will.

*I use the phrase “likely the divine” because while on the one hand it seems quite clear that Gallagher is heavily influence by conservative Catholicism, on the other she does not seem to predicate her arguments on theology.

**BTW, I do find her definition problematic insofar as it precludes a non-procreative marriage as being a real marriage.  It is a formulation that is problematic for obvious reasons, I should think.  I shan’t go into this as I am more interested in this post as to the nature of her reasoning that I am in criticizing her position, per se. (Although, I will grant, not all social conservatives approach all issues in this manner).

Greek PM Lucas Papademos has failed to secure the support of his coalition for a raft of new austerity measures, after more than seven hours of talks.

[...]

A statement issued by the prime minister’s office said the aim of the meeting with the troika – representatives from the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund – was to "conclude the agreement" before Thursday’s meeting of eurozone finance ministers.

This is all part of the ongoing Greek crisis and the ball is now moving to the EU level.

The proximate cause of the current attempts at action is a pending March 20th debt payment deadline.

More on the subject here:  Why Greece won’t go away.

Via Gallup:  Congress’ Job Approval at New Low of 10%

Not only was the Missouri vote a "beauty contest," binding no delegates, but the turnout there was less than 6 percent of the voting-age population — a paltry number for a statewide primary. Moreover, Missouri’s results were a bit askew because Gingrich did not get on the ballot.

In Minnesota, a state of about the same population, the party caucuses drew just over 50,000 participants (about a fifth as many as in Missouri). That was a little over 1 percent of the voting-age population. Again, no commitment of delegates.

In Colorado, again a state of roughly 5 million people, about 65,000 turned out, but that was still well below 2 percent of the voting-age population.

This, my dear commenters to James Joyner’s post on this subject, is why one cannot draw substantial conclusions from yesterday’s contest.

As Elving notes (and correctly, in my view):

That’s not much of a plebiscite. And it could be a poor indicator of the sentiment of most Republicans and independents. What it measures instead is the ardor of that fraction of the GOP vote that is willing to turn out for a nighttime caucus where no delegates are actually being decided.

Yes, this gives Santorum a boost, but it does not demonstrate some massive Santorum surge nor does it mean that Romney is on the rocks.

And  by the way, lest anyone think that I am arguing this position because I am in the tank for Romney and therefore am motivated to downplay non-Romney victories, let me note that this is not the case.  I am simply calling it like I see it.

I have been meaning to write a post testing Newt Gingirch’s claim that if Santorum would drop out that Newt could then lead a unified conservative attack against Mitt Romney.  Some early polling that I had seen seemed to indicate, however, that Romney was a fairly consistent second place choice for the bulk of GOP voters.  That would mean, therefore, that while a Santorum exit might increase Newt’s support base, it would also help Romney’s.

Patience (or procrastination/busyness/whatever) can be a virtue, because instead of looking at cross tabs, I can now look at poll that has specifically tested this proposition.

Rasmussen’s latest poll shows the following at the national level:

Gingrich remains Romney’s strongest rival, even when the race is reduced to a two-candidate faceoff. When it’s Romney versus the former House speaker with no other candidates in the contest, it’s Romney 46% to Gingrich’s 40%.

Pitted against Santorum, Romney leads 50% to 38%.

The frontrunner holds a nearly two-to-one lead – 58% to 30% – over Paul in their one-to-one matchup.

The poll shows that at the moment (in the multi-candidate race), Mitt’s lead is seven points nationally.  As such, Newt’s theory of an anti-Romney coalition isproblematic, since the Newy v. Mitt number only improves Newt’s position vis-a-vis Mitt by a single percentage point.

Granted:  Newt is clearly the strongest of the challengers, but we knew that already.

(A Condorcet winner is one who, when paired in head-to-head contests in a pool of candidates wins all such pairwise contests.  Such a candidate may not be the plurality winner, however.  The only reason I provide a question mark in the title is that this is one poll-I am actually pretty sure that Romney is the Condorcet candidate in this pool–as well as the plurality favorite for that matter).

Doug linked to some photographic evidence that contradicted that claim.  For those who prefer moving pictures, I give you Glenn Kessler.

Why are so many American so insecure that they have to create a world in their own minds wherein America is exceptional in every way? And that’s not snark:  I find it to be an exceptionally (pardon the word) interesting question both sociologically and politically.

Let me highlight a quote from the book that Frum noted in his review, but that I want to quote in full (from page 234):

The economic John Maynard Keynes, accused of changing his mind about monetary policy, famously replied, “When the facts change, I change my mind.  What to you do, sir?”  The honest answer to Keynes’s question is “Often, nothing.”  Data can bear on policy issues, but many of our opinions about policy are grounded on premises about the nature of human life and human society that are beyond the reach of data. Try to think of any new data that would change your position on abortion, the death penalty, legalization of marijuana, same-sex marriage or the inheritance tax. If you cannot, you are not necessarily being unreasonable.

This is a stunning statement because, yes, you are by definition being “unreasonable” because you are saying that some categories of policy are beyond reason.  If one has views that one will not change even in the face of the best case scenario for new data against those views, then one cannot claim to be an analyst.  One might be an extremely conservative theologian** if one holds such views, but more specifically one is an ideologue (or a zealot) if one is unwilling to change views in the face of evidence.

I would also note that this is an odd collection of policies for Murray to choose.   Abortion and the death penalty are in the same moral category as the inheritance tax?  Legalization of marijuana is the type of issue that is so linked to Deep Truths that no data could be provided to change Murray’s mind on the subject?  This is just a list of policy preferences held by most conservatives and they are not all of the same category of morality nor are they similar in terms of their consequences.  To wit:  abortion and the death penalty are vested in issues of life and death, but same sex marriage, not so much.

Curiously, while the book is being touted as being by a “libertarian” (he is so described in his AEI bio) and he comes across (such as in his interview yesterday with All Things Considered and with the list of policy preferences listed above) like a standard issue social conservative.

From the aforementioned interview:

Murray calls for more interaction between the classes; specifically, he’d like upper-middle-class Americans to “drop their nonjudgmentalism and start preaching what they’re practicing.”

They “are getting married and staying married. They work like crazy. They do better going to church. [They should] just say that, ‘These are not choices we’ve made for ourselves. … These are rich, rewarding ways of living.’ “

Now, I have been married for going on 22 years, attend church regularly, and despite what some commenters may think, worked hard to get my Ph.D. and continue to work hard every day (and am endeavoring mightily to instill the value of hard work in my sons).  As such, I have no problem with the basic components of his formulation, I am just wholly unconvinced that they are sufficient to explain reality.  To simply say that the solution to our various difficulties is simply to stay married, go to church, and to work hard is to offer up platitudes, not real policy analysis.  Interestingly (to me, anyway) It sounds a lot like the typical social conservative admonitions that I have heard my entire life, but it does not sound especially libertarian (certainly not specifically or uniquely so save perhaps a simplistic Randian assertion about the value of individual hard work).  This focus on basic the socon line was striking to me, because it was clearly what Murray wanted to focus on in the interview.

The feeling that the books is oriented towards basic values is reinforced, by the way, when one looks at the table of contents and finds chapters entitled “Marriage,” “Industriousness,” Honesty,” and “Religiosity” in the section on “The Formation of the New Lower Classes.”

Now, I will readily grant that I have not read this book, but what I have read and heard to this point (including from the author himself) make me think that this is far less a book about serious policy analysis and more one about platitudes that will only make certain ideologues happy.

In even if we stipulate that marriage, church, and hard work are good things, how do these issues address the structural changes in the global economy since 1960? What does it have to do with any number of social, economic, and political changes within the US during that time? To ask a simple question: if people stay married, go to church, and work hard will that create the kind of life-long manufacturing jobs that were the hallmark of the post-WWII economy?  To get back to the intro of this post:  the data would suggest no, but I guess that that will not influence Murray’s arguments.  The rest of, however, might think about the data.

Side Note:  I also noticed in listening to Murray yesterday that a lot of what he is arguing in terms of social cohesion sounds a lot like Robert Putnam’s basic thesis in Bowling Alone.  I did a search of the book and Putnam’s work is cited in numerous places in the text.  Just an observation that I found passingly interesting (to me, at least–and what is a blog for but for the bloggers to make note of the passingly interesting?).

*Or, a least, the type of theologian who continues to accept the geocentric model of the universe because of various biblical passages.  In fairness, many theologians do change their minds on things, although clearly not on all things.