Sadly, You Guys Are Total Assholes
If you’re sympathetic with Sadly, No!’s seemingly never ending war on Megan McArdle, then maybe you don’t want to go below the fold. To put it lightly, I disagree with it. And here’s why.
Sadly, No’s jihad against Megan McArdle continues. Sure, all of us liberals disagree with a lot of what Megan says about economic issues, but this highly personal and derogatory campaign against her is just baffling. I mean, of all the “wingnuts” out there, Megan is probably the least nutty or objectionable. Her favorite candidate at the moment is Obama! Not exactly Glenn Reynolds level battiness.
Another tack of Sadly No’s war on Megan is that she often appears to change her mind on certain issues. This is a rather bizarre line of crticism. Shouldn’t chanign and revising arguments be expected over the course of heavy back and forth with smart, diligent bloggers. Wouldn’t the blogosphere, and debates in general, be better if people were more willing to change their minds and be flexible with their ideas? Isn’t the advantage to doing all this arguing in a highly public, real-time manner, that we can change our ideas or revise them in a public, open manner? Surely since Sadly No! never actually engages in detailed arguments about policy, they wouldn’t know what changing your mind or clarifying your thoughts is like. When the purpose of your blog is making fun of people, revision and correction isn’t really necessary.
It also doesn’t speak well for some parts of the leftie blogosphere (emphasis on the some) that anyone who argues that tax cuts can be a good idea, even when eschewing extreme supply side logic, is some kind of extremist that we shouldn’t listen to at all. Of course, Megan, being a sensible person, says ” supply siders are fun to refute, because they are so easy to refute, because they make such extravagant claims.” The scope of the disagreement is to what degree is “tax cuts raise revenue” the driving force behind GOP tax policy. Megan thinks their influence is less extreme than what Jon Chait thinks, thus she’s some sort of “wingnut,” and instead of engaging her argument, we should just call her an “elf who loves discussing things.”
Sadly No!’s behavior vis a vis Megan begs some other disturbing questions. What happens if there’s some massive debate over capital gains taxes? Megan’s an advocate for lowering them, and that’s not an extremist or explicitly crazy position, yet what will Sadly No contribute to the debate? My guess is that they’ll probably call her a drunken elf whore or some other tasteless epithet. Meanwhile, the wonkier liberal bloggers would offer stirring, well reasoned defenses of current or even higher taxes on capital. I wonder who I’d rather read?
Of all the pettiness and tastelessness in the Sadly, No! jihad, the most baffling is the criticism of Ezra Klein and Matt Yglesias for daring to link to and even *gasp* be friends with someone with they political disagreements. Scandalous! Since Ezra and Matt are two smart, intellectually honest guys, they like to link to articulate statements of ideas they disagree with — so they can refute them in a fair, thorough manner. You know, basically the opposite of what Sadly, No! does. God forbid we ever get into any debates about tax policy — let’s just call people who disagree with us over a fairly limited range of issues crazy! Maybe the fact that Ezra, Matt and Mark Kleiman link to and respect Megan’s writing is a sign that she isn’t some crazy wingnut who should be institutionalized. Remember that Ezra is pretty far to the left on economic issues (relatively — compared to most of the country) and if he thinks that Megan is someone worth arguing with, then maybe these punks at Sadly, No should take the clue.
On the larger issue they bring up — is the implication of Sadly, No’s relentless criticism of Megan and her liberal friends that us on the left shouldn’t be friends with people we disagree with on some issues politically? Should I not love my dad because we disagree about health care and capital gains taxes? Isn’t it just a wee bit imperious to judge people for the friendships they make? Are the Sadly, No! crew so (I’m probably breaking some derivative of Godwin’s Law here) Stalinist in their thinking that, in their minds, to be a proper liberal blogger you can only associate with and link to people who agree with some Left Blogistan™ approved list of policy positions? I apologize for the ranting, but Sadly No’s monomaniacal, petty criticism of a smart, kind, intellectually honest and talented fellow blogger is just the worst type of disreputable, superficial bullshit that gives the liberal blogosphere a bad name.
Ah. Well, another fellow blogger whom you might appreciate is Michelle Malkin.
As we know, attractive females are a priori intellectually honest, smart, kind, and talented — although sometimes cruelly misunderstood!
Sadly, No! Investor Relations
September 6, 2007 at 11:07 pm
By the by, we ‘monomaniacally criticize’ about three dozen right-wing pundits in shifting succession. Isn’t it time that a Zeitlin — any Zeitlin — stood up for Adam Yoshida?
I mean really now.
Sadly, No! Investor Relations
September 6, 2007 at 11:16 pm
matt,
well-put. the comments section at mcardle’s blog have become unreadable lately with all the “why must you persist in denying that you suck” business.
Gabriel
September 7, 2007 at 2:53 am
I think an interesting contrast is how Matt Y has responded to Megan in the most recent thread on supply side economics. He is certainly pulling no punches, but he is not a priori dismissive of her claims– he goes to viciously countering her arguments as she writes them, without going after her (except, I think, in the roughly acceptable method of trying to assess her reasons for writing certain statements).
Dean
September 7, 2007 at 3:43 am
As we know, attractive females are a priori intellectually honest, smart, kind, and talented — although sometimes cruelly misunderstood!
Wow, because that’s exactly what MZ said. Fuck off, douchebag.
John Cain
September 7, 2007 at 6:15 am
Uh-huh. Thanks for clearing that up.
McArdle is also a sloppy thinker and a poor writer who’ll take extreme right-wing positions to stir up controversy, and will then backpedal when criticized, pretending that she was really saying something else all along. E.g., her recent claim that health insurance is immoral because it forces young, healthy rich people (i.e. McArdle) to subsidize old, sick lower-income people, who got that way because they made bad lifestyle choices.
She’s been doing this for years now, but amazingly, some people are still fooled by it.
You know, another attractive young female with right-wing views is Mary Katherine Ham. Maybe someone is criticizing her; you should go find out and rush to her rescue.
Sadly, No! Investor Relations
September 7, 2007 at 6:52 am
You seem to be the only one focusing on her attractiveness, buddy. Let me guess, crush from afar? Jilted lover?
The obvious response, then, is to blog about her all the time, constantly calling her an elf. Intellectual riposte at it’s finest.
John Cain
September 7, 2007 at 8:49 am
But if I stop reading Sadly, No where will I go for snark in the blogosphere? WHERE WILL I GO?!
And since when did they become the equivalent of The New Republic’s mediocre liberal commentary hitsquad? Beware! Libertarians! They sometimes agree with liberals–and sometimes they agree with conservatives!
Engaging with their arguments, linking to them, or looking directly into their eyes will cause all your hair to fall out and you’ll recite nothing but terrible Ayn Rand dialog.
Also, I hear libertarians eat babies and beat hobos for fun.
paxamericana
September 7, 2007 at 9:21 am
The ‘giant elf’ line is hers. Also the ‘I look good in these pants’ line, and many others.
It’s interesting that you’re sidestepping every substantive point in order to make clumsy ad hominem zingers. I thought people who did that were bad and lame, but I’m happy to meet you halfway.
(ahem)
Haw haw! I bet you have a lot of FREE TIME to be typing on the Internet!
Whoah, touché.
Sadly, No! Investor Relations
September 7, 2007 at 9:45 am
Well, considering your opening volley here was “OMGMZluvsMalkinWTFLOL”, I figured that was about as high as the discourse was going to go. Especially since Matt addressed your arguments and you responded with witty zingers.
If you want seriousness, here it goes. I guess I just don’t understand why the internets have gone crazy over McArdle, who as far as I can tell doesn’t really deserve either the effusive praise or heaps of scorn she’s getting. Why her over the numerous others who have stupider points and worse views? And why in such large volume? I just don’t get it.
John Cain
September 7, 2007 at 11:54 am
Megan McArdle = Michelle Malkin
A brilliant, counterintuitive analogy! (perhaps some of that gilbertarianism is wearing off, eh?)
Other potential future comparisons from Sadly, No!:
-Tyler Cowen = A man who steals candy from babies (after purchasing them–”markets in everything”!)
-The American Prospect = Frontpage Mag
-Paul Krugman = teh lame
-Christopher Hitchens = our patron saint and model for political criticism
Ha Ha! Intellectual honesty is for pussies. Take that, Zeitlin.
paxamericana
September 7, 2007 at 11:57 am
She’s been around for quite awhile. It might look like this is all erupting over her move to the Atlantic, but she’s been polarizing people since the ‘beat war protesters with 2×4s’ incident in ‘03. Nobody paid much attention to her at the Economist, but the Atlantic is a lot more personality-driven, and it makes her a bigger target, for better and worse.
I don’t think she’s stupid at all, but I also don’t think there’s anyone else at that level who’s willing to make stupider points — i.e., who’s as comfortable just saying random stuff without bothering to think it through or look anything up. The overall impression is that this is someone who’s used to being rewarded for things other than her intellectual efforts, who believes that her opinions are important simply because they’re hers.
The irony is that when people act that way, they tend to be treated with extra deference, such as in Matt’s post above. That, more than anything else, is what’s drawn our attention to her lately. Her Atlantic posts are a really fascinating combination of her usual intellectual dilettantism with a sort of assumed gravitas.
Sadly, No! Investor Relations
September 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Wait, Tyler Cowen purchases babies? Only to then steal candy from them?
Quixote
September 7, 2007 at 12:52 pm
While I have no ax to grind against Megan McCardle and, think the personal invective directed against her is wrong and uncalled for, I find her reasoning to be profoundly sophmoric and simplistic, a sort of warmed over middle of road Ayn Randianism (She was after all Jane Galt).
I like being intellectually challenged. I like engaging in intellectual dialogue with people I disagree with. That’s why I read and enjoy people like Ross Douthat, Rod Dreher, Julian Sanchez and Radley Balko.
I profoundly disagree with libertarian and conservative view points, but I openly acknowledge that there are reasonable positions to take and good arguments to be made from them.
However, McCardle is most definitely not one of those people. When her arguments aren’t horribly shoddy and childish they are banalities dressed up as profound insights (a favorite of Rand coincidentally). I don’t find that kind of writing worth my time and effort. Now I don’t have a personal ax to grind against McCardle but as a polemicist and a writer go she should definitely find a different occupation.
And saying that Anne Coulter is worse than McCardle is nothing but the bigotry of low expectations.
Joseph
September 7, 2007 at 4:49 pm
[...] by Matt Zeitlin on September 10th, 2007 For anyone who followed the drama in the comments section after I lambasted Sadly, No! for the substance-free, petty jihad against [...]
Monomaniacal? Petty? I think so. « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper
September 10, 2007 at 11:55 pm