The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Special Report

Pundit Fallacies

Who needs the Libertarian vote? Anyone? Anyone?

(Page 2 of 2)

JONATHAN CHAIT RESPONDS BY SAYING that Lindsey has painted a false picture of himself and Ponnuru as vicious partisans. They really agree with each other about our current political situation, not because they want to but because they are forced to by the evidence.

He asks for a show of hands. How many people in the audience thought expanding Medicare to cover prescription drugs was a good idea "on moral grounds"?

Not one person raises a hand. Chait tells us that on the eve of the vote, according to one survey, over 86 percent of Americans agreed with the statement. Only 7 percent disagreed.

That 7 percent, he says, represents the upper limit of the libertarian vote, and even that might be too high. He talks us through Bill Clinton's successes in the 1990s, when he convinced voters that Republicans were threatening "Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment."

Chait says that the American people's "operational liberalism" hasn't always translated into Democratic victories for three reasons. One, the Republicans have a well-oiled "machine" to convince voters that the Dems have bad character. Two, Democrats have allowed themselves to be painted as wimps on defense issues. Three, "Social issues are a bit of a problem."

Given the disposition of the average American voter, Chait speaks for liberals in saying that a liberal-libertarian alliance is "not an offer I feel like I can't refuse."

EVERYBODY EXCEPT FOR DAVID BOAZ has run long on their opening statements, so Kirby cuts down the response time, and that further crimps the time available for the audience to ask questions.

Boaz counters Chait's 7 percent figure by posing the question, How many Americans would say that they were undertaxed? It would likely produce a similarly lopsided result, which would not be terribly meaningful for political operatives.

"I think all [poll] numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. Numbers from Washington should be taken with an extra grain of salt," Boaz says, in response to a question from the audience.

One other fun conflict comes between Lindsey and Boaz. D.C. Examiner columnist Tim Carney asks how they can consider government-funded embryonic stem cell research a libertarian position. Boaz says that, properly speaking, it isn't. Lindsey counters that if the government is going to fund scientific research then it ought to fund this. The prohibition can only be based on sectarian religious considerations. Boaz jokingly denounces him as a squish.

At least... I think he was joking.

(*Full disclosure: Once upon a time, I was employed by the Cato Institute. I also donated money to America's Future Foundation, which organized the event.)

Page:   12

topics:
Taxes, Education, Bill Clinton, Medicaid, Environment, Conservatism, Oil, Medicare

About the Author

Jeremy Lott is editor of RealClearBooks.com and RealClearReligion.org and associate editor of RealClearScience.com.

Letter to the Editor Leave a comment

Leave a Comment

N.B. We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

Related Articles

More Articles by Jeremy Lott

More Articles From Special Report

http://spectator.org/archives/2007/01/29/pundit-fallacies
ADVERTISEMENT

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

Who Castrated Ann Coulter?

David Catron | 2.6.12

Bigoted Barack, Red in Tooth and Clause

George Neumayr | 2.10.12

Unsafe at Any Smoke

Eric Peters | 2.10.12

Access This

Ross Kaminsky | 2.10.12

The Delousing of a Movement

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. | 2.9.12

The Show Me State's No Show Primary

Andrew B. Wilson | 2.10.12

Justice Ginsburg Should Resign

William Tucker | 2.8.12

No Double Play

Peter Hannaford | 2.10.12

ADVERTISEMENT