A friend forwards me this lengthy article by Bruce Bartlett, a Reagan-Bush conservative whose adherence to reality has alienated him from the Republican Party. He refers to "epistemic closure," the willingness of Republicans to live in a bubble that excludes all logical arguments or evidence that contradicts their preferred views.
Bartlett hasn't sealed off his epistemology; through conscientious study of history and current policy, he's concluded that George W. Bush was incompetent, Barack Obama is not a leftist, Keynesian economics works, and Paul Krugman is more correct about the economy's problems and prospective solutions than any other prominent observer. Such reality-based conclusions have lost Bartlett friends. Those former friends just can't talk to someone who disagrees with them. But Bartlett says such epistemic closure is costing Republicans elections and relevance:
So here we are, post-election 2012. All the stupidity and closed-mindedness that right-wingers have displayed over the last 10 years has come back to haunt them. It is now widely understood that the nation may be center-left after all, not center-right as conservatives thought. Overwhelming losses by Republicans to all the nation’s nonwhite voters have created a Democratic coalition that will govern the nation for the foreseeable future.
At least a few conservatives now recognize that Republicans suffer for epistemic closure. They were genuinely shocked at Romney’s loss because they ignored every poll not produced by a right-wing pollster such as Rasmussen or approved by right-wing pundits such as the perpetually wrong Dick Morris. Living in the Fox News cocoon, most Republicans had no clue that they were losing or that their ideas were both stupid and politically unpopular [Bruce Bartlett, "Revenge of the Reality-Based Community," The American Conservative, 2012.11.26].
Yesterday Fox News interviewed author Thomas Ricks. Anchor Jon Scott asked Ricks about the Benghazi, Libya, terror attacks. Ricks accused Fox News of hyping the terror attacks and operating as "a wing of the Republican Party." Fox abruptly ended the interview.
Pop.
Update 21:51 MST: Krugman responds: Bartlett is a mensch.
A mensch, at least as I was taught the term, is someone who takes responsibility for his actions, including his mistakes. Alas, menschlichkeit is a rare virtue in modern America, certainly in the political sphere, where nobody ever admits being wrong about anything.
So all hail Bruce Bartlett, who writes movingly about how he came to realize that movement conservatism and its economic doctrine weren’t what he imagined them to be, and in particular how he came to realize that Keynesian analysis had a point [Paul Krugman, "Bruce Bartlett Is a Mensch," New York Times, 2012.11.27].
Krugman wonders, as ought we, about the meschlichkeit of prominent economists and other conservatives who backed Romneynomics when they knew the numbers didn't add up.
Wow. So this guy is a complete idiot obviously, since Krugman is always wrong. In fact, Krugman is wrong so consistently I wonder if his incompetence is purposeful.
Thomas Ricks. Forever banned from Fox News, where the truth hurts a little too much.
This Presidential campaign really brought home how many Republicans are living in an alternative universe. Michele Bachman - frontrunner? Herman "Black Walnut" Cain - frontrunner? Rick "*****head" Perry - frontrunner? Newt Gingrich - frontrunner? Rick Santorum - frontrunner? Mitt Romney, stricken with a more severe case of silver foot in mouth disease than George HW Bush, who takes all sides of all issues - nominee? There was more craziness in this one GOP primary than there should be in a whole century of politics. The only thing missing was Sarah half-term governor Palin.
Folks like Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty, who are at least grounded in the real world have no chance in the present GOP among the birthers, the racists, the secessionists, the religious fanatics, the conspiracy theorists, the teabaggers, and the simply certifiably insane.
Interlude for Bree: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtkP5gTX6Hc
I've taken that ride, Bill. Have you?
Oh yeah, R. I've been on a lot of rides. LOL ...none lately, but but back in the day... Whew.
On a side note Bill, what kind of organ/keyboard is that? One of the great rock keyboard riffs.
Amazing that John Kay was still alive and healthy to blast that one out. Thanks for sharing, Bill.
It's a Hammond B3, Nick. Yeah, killer, huh?
You're welcome Dougal.
It's a small comfort that a court can't declare me legally insane and therefore incapable of testifying in anyone's defense due to a number of "Magic Carpet Rides." How about Bill? Still legally sane? I know Larry isn't.
Sane? Such a loaded word, Bree! I prefer "rational" and "reality based" if you don't mind. More measurable. And then, yeah, I know when I'm acting half nuts, if that's what you're getting at. ;^)
Well I liked the article itself in regards to political analysis. However, over the years the author's brain must have built up neural plaques in the brain's economic lobe which would explain his support of Krugman.
Bill, I was wondering if that was one of the famed Hammond B3s. Thanks for the confirmation and a great blast from my youth.
Yup, Nick. The thing that really makes the sound you like, I bet is the combination of the organ and the "Leslie" speakers that go with them (see wiki link). Our guitar player used to run his Telecaster through our keyboard guy's leslies sometimes and it sounded great as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_speaker
Half nuts? Sane? Well ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpba4WCBOC0
Woman singer on bass is wonderful. Nice track Dougal.
She is cool. That's Me'Shell Ndegeocello. You saw her sing and play bass on John Mellencamp's version of Van Morrison's "Wild Night." Here it is for your edification and entertainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aoywIHLqbs
Abortion bans incompatible with women's health:
http://www.thenation.com/article/171398/remember-savita-halappanavar
Cory, which Republican do you see as the clear frontrunner for 2016?
No idea, Michael. The party has broken twice for the moderate in race, who in response breaks right and loses the election. If they stay in the bubble, they'll nominate Rick Santorum, who will pick Stace Nelson for VP. If they pop the bubble, they'll nominate Jon Huntsman, who will nod country by picking John Thune (whose presidential run will end after he fails to break 20% in the Arizona and Michigan primaries) for VP.
What...no Palin?!
I doubt Thune's wife wants to move to D.C. I like Stace Nelson for VP though. Too bad Mitch Daniels won't run. With Mitch for Pres and Stace for VP they'll look just like Twins.
I was worried that the GOP would play a bait and switch game to attract female and minority voters. I guess I didn't need to worry, the House GOP is still run by all white males.
http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/boehner-statement-gop-steering-committee-recommendations-committee-chairmanships-113th
Good to know...
Do we know what committee Kristi hopes to be on? Might want to keep her away from that grumpy guy who makes fun of her for playing with her cell phone.
Cory, watch out the aliens are coming because Paul Krugman says they and the Carter administration provided that Keynesian economics does not work. Feel free to checkout the fake space alien attack Paul Krugman is advocating for to boost the economy and yes he got this great plan from a Twilight Zone episode. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-2rFhL6Dw
Good night, Daniel, you Libertarians just won't let that go, will you? Paul Krugman didn't see we should lie about an alien invasion to gin up the economy. He said it could produce benefits. I can say that South Dakota could save $300 million by liquidating all of its public schools; that's doesn't mean I think we should.
And even if Krugman drops by tonight and says, "Actually, yes, we should fake an invasion to stimulate the economy," that would not negate one word of Bartlett's repudiation of the Republican Party's bubble-headed thinking or his acknowledgment that Krugman's observations on the recession, the stimulus, and Keynesian economics are on target.
I thought it was great when Krugman came out of the closet on national news in support of death panels.
Come on Bree, death panels? Another figment of the head in the sand Republican mind blown completely out of proportion by so called conservatives in an effort to scare low information voters. Call it what you want but there needs to be some sort of process to hold the line on costs and determine which procedures will be approved and how much they will cost.
I much prefer government death panels to corporate death panels. And you better believe corporate death panels exist. My wife has been a nurse in the healthcare industry since she was 19 and one of her many jobs was working as a one woman death panel for Aetna Insurance high in an office building in downtown Minneapolis. They called it "cost containment" but her job was to refuse payment for treatment of sick people. " We don't allow X for that procedure we only allow Y. That procedure isn't on the list of approved procedures. You aren't sick enough for that treatment from Column A you can only have one of the treatments from Column B.
If you don't like the answer the 20 something nurse gives you can always appeal to the middle aged doctor at the desk in the corner of the office high in a building in downtown Minneapolis who has been trying to ogle her for the last two weeks without being caught. She'll even carry the paperwork over to him and tell him "this is bullshit we shouldn't pay for it". He'll nod wisely, appear to study the appeal, and approve the 20 something nurse's initial rejection.
So yeah, I prefer government death panels to corporate death panels.
There goes Nick, popping more bubbles with reality. Yay!
Meanwhile, with health information exchanges, the PPACA is simply pushing the states to catch up with an inevitable trend of the marketplace.
Krugman's recommendations to balance the budget:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=tDnvmOQDkkw&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtDnvmOQDkkw
Libertardians would balance the budget with death panels for the Earth.
Why do you insist on wearing the 'idiot' badge, Bree? You strike me as being smarter than that.: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2010/03/30/no-krugman-doesnt-think-there-are-death-panels/162467
Bill, if you watch the original link I provided you can see the seriousness and sincerity in Krugman's expression when he speaks of death panels. Yes Bill, I am smarter than lame after the fact excuses. All you have to say is you don't agree with Krugman.
But are you smart enough to eschew setting your hair on fire over things you read in the right-wing echo chamber, Bree?
Why is the right wing always trying cut funding for the Human Experiment?
Yes Bill, I prefer my coiffure at room temperature and my corset not laced too tightly. I also don't like the hoop of my gown too close to the ground.
I didn't realize that Krugman had a personified Echo capable of appearing on national television for him. Well, that is a neat trick.
Bree no offense, but that corset and gown-hoop stuff is a little umm...TMI. Some of us Dems, believe it or not, are manly-men who still think ladies' unmentionables are best left unmentioned. (...not sure if that includes Kurtz or not. LOL.)
I noticed that you have not disavowed Krugman's statements, Bill.
Larry probably thinks we all should be dressed in tree leaves, since animal skins would be off limits.
Krugman did not get a Nobel prize by being an idiot.
He has been consistently right on many issues while boneheads like Romney, George Will, Sen. McCain, et al have been almost consistently wrong on dozens of issues.
Planet Bree must have some dense clouds toxic to reality and actual thought.
Krugman got a Nobel Prize by being friends with the extreme liberals who give out Nobel Prizes. Of course Obama deserved his - because he saved Planet Bree from alien bug invaders and I will be forever grateful.
You love Milton Friedman too right Wiken? You know Krugman and Friedman were best buds and used to have cook outs together because they both won Nobel prizes.. oh no wait. There I go again off on a trip to Planet Bree! That's right - Friedman got his Nobel Prize before the change of the guard.
Meanwhile corporate death panels continue their work unimpeded.
Apparently, Bree thinks only her own jokes are funny.
I'm sorry Bill did you make a joke? lol.
Krugman was making the joke, Bree. Most of us got it.
Bill, I can tell when someone is joking and when they are not. Krugman was DEAD serious. False claims from a pro-life centrist don't change the truth that is right before our eyes.
Oh.
Look Bill, don't take it so personally. Does Krugman's opinion on death panels really matter now that the ACA has passed and Democrats retained control of the Presidency and the Senate? I understand that you are a warm and fuzzy leftist and you think that the USA can become some not-quite-Socialist utopia where the government provides for most of the people's wants and the birds sing and peace, love, and harmony prevail... Krugman on the other hand is an Evil Commie Bastard and I detest him. I only brought up his public support for death panels offhand. But it doesn't really matter at this point now does it?
The singular possessive pronoun recurs prolifically in BS's soliloquies. Can you say: narcissistic personality disorder?
I could talk about myself in the third person from now on if you prefer Larry. Or how about a nice Royal "We" lol.
you and bill janklow.
Notice how much of all of our minds mind Bree understands intimately, Larry?
But, um... don't take it personally.
LOL.
Perfect.
"MindBree" hmmm...it started out as a typo, but I kind of like it.
Maybe use that instead if I, me, mine, mindbree.
(Larry, Bob Dole used to do that 3rd person thing also, as does IP. :)
We wouldn't say "intimately" Bill.
Mercer says, "this scribe:" moving to this interested party tends to restrict the use of the first-person singular nominative case personal pronoun separate from the story.
Rastafarian (from the wiki):
I replaces "me", which is much more commonly used in Jamaican English than in the more conventional forms. Me is felt to turn the person into an object whereas I emphasises the subjectivity of an individual.
I and I is a complex term, referring to the oneness of Jah (God) and every human. Rastafari scholar E. E. Cashmore: "I and I is an expression to totalize the concept of oneness, the oneness of two persons. So God is within all of us and we're one people in fact. The bond of Ras Tafari is the bond of God, of man. But man itself needs a head and the head of man is His Imperial Majesty Haile Selassie I (always pronounced as the letter 'I', never as the number one or 'the first') of Ethiopia." The term is often used in place of "you and I" or "we" among Rastafari, implying that both persons are united under the love of Jah.
I, and I and I, Bree. Get it. Love it. Live it.
Bree's contention is based on a video clip from which she divines intent by the look in the man's eye. Bill's response is based on text, words Krugman has put on the record making clear his position on death panels. When I am asked to take wishful and absurd interpretation over what the man actually says in full context, I say no. Bill wins that round. Again, epistemic closure loses, as Bree lets in just enough light to illuminate the point she wants to maintain but shuts the curtains to the full glare of truth.
See also Krugman, 2010.11.14, explaining the comments in question. (Sorry, Bree—no video for eye contact available on that response.)
Cory, body language is a very important part of communication. Which is how poker players make money and investigators can tell who is lying.
For you to read Krugman's recant or ("clarification") of his death panel statement and find it anything but absurd, flies in the face of Nobel material Corey, for either of you.
Paul has spoken to us on several occasions in the past, and then as now, Paul says what he means as his clarification proves, he cannot tell a lie. "Willing to pay for, not really death panels". Not really Paul? Have ya been naughty or nice ............
Many years ago, I heard Milton Friedman speak and answer questions at the U of Rochester. He was interesting and engaging, but much of what he said has since been shown to be just so much humbug. Reality bites. Seems to me he was in a kind of Randian mode similar to Lyin' Ryan.
Take Douglas's point, Bree. I can say any number of satirical comments with great passion and confident body language. That doesn't make my satire true. And I while I may critique students on body language and paralanguage, I judge on verbal language. I judge on the words on the record, not the impression I wish I formulate to refute them. And I certainly don't hang onto one cocked eyebrow from a debate round two years ago and use it to refute everything that debater said before or since.
And there's the big point here: Krugman's sly use of Sarah Palin's "death panel" term did not disprove either what he said in that Nov. 2010 interview or any of the statements about the recession and Keynesian economics that Bruce Bartlett has realized are more accurate than what Republicans have been saying about the economics of the past few years.
And Les, let's be clear: he did not recant. He explained the obvious joke that Bree can't admit getting.
There is no joke in Paul's explanation Corey. Explain how his answer does anything but confirm his panel intent!
The average Fox 'News' consumer is 65:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/blogs/live-feed/fox-news-oldest-cable-audience-54230
People opposed to progressive causes are dying:
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/12/09/1306251/matalin-unwed-marriage/
Larry, I'd rather change minds and win now. But if we have to just wait them out... well... o.k.
I am ten years older than PP is, Cory.