Why did Kevin Martin break ranks with Michael Powell on the issue of whether the Baby Bells should be forced to lease their wires to other companies at government-mandated rates? Washington Monthly's Nicholas Confessore thinks he has the answer. He believes that it is the work of lobbyist-sponsored TechCentralStation and its founder, James Glassman.

Glassman certainly has impact. Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission considered whether regional Bell companies should continue to fully share their wires with competitors like AT&T--the position Democrats favored. The tiebreaking vote was cast by a conservative Bush appointee, Kevin Martin. Martin sided with his Democratic colleagues, a surprising position, but one made easier, say observers, by the fact that a few prominent conservative pundits, chief among them Glassman, had taken AT&T's side in the argument. "Glassman's clueless," opines an economist who specializes in telecom and supports relaxed regulations on both cable and phone systems. "But he gives good cover."

Who was the anonymous economist? It wasn't me. Although I disagree with Glassman, I do not think that he is clueless. I first heard Glassman give an anti-Baby-Bell rap at a seminar in 1998 or 1999. At that same seminar series, Bob Metcalfe gave an even stronger anti-Baby-Bell rap. No one disputes Metcalfe's knowledge of telecom, and he is no Democrat.

My head is spinning here. Michael Powell and the Republican who voted with him on the FCC were public-spirited angels, in Confessore's account. Glassman and Martin are corrupt, with their opinions bought and paid for. (Who bought the Democrats?)

Suppose that Martin had voted with Powell. I think that the chances are reasonably good that Washington Monthly or some similar publication would have been all over the Republicans for being bought and paid for by the Baby Bells.

My position on this is that I want both AT&T and the Baby Bells to lose. I think that the government's propensity to bail them out will be proportionate to its regulatory involvement, so I would not want to implement the price control regime needed to generate "competition" over local phone wires. So I would have voted with Powell. But it's a hold-your-nose, lesser-of-two-evils kind of position for me.

What troubles me is that Confessore's piece--muckraking or mudslinging, depending on one's point of view I suppose--is being used by Brad Delong and others to suggest that it is morally wrong to write for (or perhaps even to read) TCS. As someone who has written close to 100 essays for TCS over the past year-and-a-half, I have to disagree. Click on the "continue reading" for my thoughts.

I have been writing essays on technology, economics, and public policy since late 1997. TCS began to pick up my writing in 2002. Nick Schulz, the editor, is my contact with TCS.

As I said above, I saw Glassman speak in 1998 or 1999, but we did not meet. A couple of months ago, I went to a talk by Virginia Postrel, and Glassman introduced her. I introduced myself to him, and he said something like "Oh. I've seen your picture on articles on TCS." That is the extent of my personal contact with him.

I have opinions on a number of issues relevant to TCS sponsors. I take the Bjorn Lomborg view of the environment, which is congenial to TCS sponsors. I tend to defend Microsoft, which is a TCS sponsor, but almost everything I wrote on the subject was in my early, pre-TCS essays. I write about what interests me, and the Microsoft controversies interested me a lot more in 1998 than they do now.

My strongest sponsor-friendly essay was probably Quack Economic Prescription, which was a response to a physician's op-ed piece in The Washington Post in favor of drug price controls. I wrote the piece because I was outraged at the economic ignorance of the physician, and I wanted to expose it. My guess is that it pleased the drug company trade group that helps sponsor TCS, but that is certainly not why I wrote it. Which is worse--TCS publishing mainstream economic analysis because their sponsors agree with it, or the Post passing off economic nonsense as if it were informed opinion?

The impetus for writing "Quack Economic Prescription" was the Post. Nick Schulz never asked for the essay. I would have written it even if the only publication outlet had been my personal web site. If you want me to stop defending the drug companies, then tell the Post to stop running crappy, ignorant op-ed pieces attacking them. An intelligent, well-reasoned article would not have set me off.

If there is one essay on TCS that I wish other people would take to heart, it is my essay on Type M vs. type C arguments. There, I suggest that arguments should be evaluated on their merits, not on the basis of speculation about the motives of the person making them.

Confessore never looks at the merits of Glassman's position on telecom. Bloggers who disagree with TCS authors are jumping for joy at the excuse to ignore the substance of what we write, based on Confessore's "exposé."

God, does that tick me off. I have a hard enough time promoting my work as it is. I sincerely believe that it is much better than other economic writing that you see in the press. It is certainly ironic that a vicious type M hit piece is being used to discredit all my effort.

Email this entry to a friend
Email this entry to:
Your email address:
Message (optional):

Related Entries
› Taking a Break - 03/18/2004 › Moore's Law and Military Technology - 03/15/2004 › Biotech and Sports - 03/12/2004 › I'll take Ohio - 03/10/2004 › Email Innovation? - 03/10/2004 › 99-cent rip-off - 03/10/2004 › If Brad DeLong called me stupid - 03/09/2004 › Red Sox Technologies - 03/09/2004