For a long time I wanted to work for TechCentral Station. But it seemed that I could never find an in, while the writers they did publish all seemed, well, inferior.
Seriously, Dana, did you ever think about asking me?. I would have gladly introduced you to the editor. I hope you can back up your accusation with some evidence, such as an article you submitted that got rejected. I'd hate to think you started out a piece on integrity with a lie.
He also writes,
Now that you know that TechCentral Station is a DCI shop, and now that you know what DCI is, just remember it whenever you see:1. A TechCentral Station "story"
2. A TechCentral Station "reporter"
3. Anyone with TechCentral Station on their "resume."
TCS is not a newspaper. It does not report stories, so you will never see (1) or (2). It publishes personal opinions.
I have TCS on my resume. As I said, I'd prefer the New York Times, but those are the breaks.
Then he says,
What you'll have across from you, simply, is a liar, a fraud, a phony who will say and do anything for money.
That's what you're calling me, Dana. I have written close to 100 essays for TCS, and my total take is less than what Paul Krugman gets for one column. It's far less than what I give to charity every year.
Every word in my essays comes from my heart. I put my soul into my writing, Dana, just as much as you do. And I have at least as much right as you do to have my work evaluated on its merits.
The best thing that could happen to you, Dana, is for someone to write a piece sliming you because you blog for the same organization that I do. Then maybe you would understand what this ad hominem "gotcha" stuff is all about.
I have been following the comments on several blogs, particularly on Brad DeLong's site. For example, Julian Elson asked these interesting questions:
1. Do m-arguments help liberals in winning against conservatives?2. If liberals rely on m-arguments, will they be able to maintain their honesty in general ...
3. If liberals rely on m-arguments, and they *don't* win the country back, what will the reliance on m-arguments do to the conservatives who do have power? Will it keep them more honest, for example, since m-arguments are more blunt in pointing out corruption, deceit, etc.?
My view is that type M arguments tend to have bad consequences. Incidentally, I think that they have bad consequences when they are used by conservatives. I am upset with Paul Krugman for using them because he is an economist, not because he is a liberal. I hold economists to a higher standard.
I do not think that type M arguments win over the other side. I do not think they keep the other side honest. I think that they make the other side angry.
Perhaps type M arguments help to win by "rallying the troops." If this is true, then I think that there are costs in terms of the ability to effect rational policies later on. But I tend to doubt that it is true, since people in the center are not rallied, and probably are turned off.
That brings me to what I call the catch-22 of type M arguments. They are most compelling when they are least needed. That is, the people who are convinced by your type C arguments don't need your type M arguments in order to be won over. But the people who are not convinced by your type C arguments are unlikely to buy your type M arguments.
Suppose that I am open minded or undecided. I see X and Y having an argument. X's type C arguments do not convince me. At that point, am I likely to accept X's type M arguments about Y? I doubt it.
Yes, I care about other people's motives. But I believe that when you debate public policy, the best approach is to take your opponent's motives at face value and argue over consequences. If you fail to convince me on those grounds, shifting over to motives will not help you.
The least convincing rationale for making type M arguments is "The other side does it to us." A lot of people have made type M arguments agains me, both on this topic and on others. I have never felt that it would help me to respond in kind. Instead, if they make type C arguments, I address them. If someone makes only type M arguments, then I do not waste my time on that person.
Responding to my criticism of Paul Krugman for using arguments that focus on the alleged motives of one's opponents, Brad DeLong cites an instance in which he says that Lawrence Lindsey (a former economic adviser to President Bush) made a case for steel tariffs as an alternative to "unilateral disarmament" on trade issues. As Brad points out, this argument is a crock.
It is such an obvious crock that Brad finds it incredible that Lindsey actually believes it. Brad writes,
So what is the right response? Is it to stick to making only "C" arguments, and to pretend to take Larry seriously as he momentarily throws off all his analytical commitments and beliefs and channels the mercantilist arguments of early Ira Magaziner? Or is the right response to make the "C" arguments, but also make the "M" argument that Larry is being a sock puppet for Karl Rove because he wants to keep his White House mess privileges?
I think that the right response is to make the "C" arguments. I would explain, for anyone who needs to be taught, why Larry's argument is a crock.
I would not make the "M" argument. I do not care whether Larry knew his argument was a crock or not. Either way, he is not to be trusted in the future. If he makes a statement that is not obviously right or wrong, I will not give him the benefit of the doubt.
Just as I believe that there is a strong case for making unilateral reductions in trade barriers, I believe that there is a strong case for making unilateral reductions in angry rhetoric and attacks on motives. Like tariffs, expressions of anger and suspicion may inflict some damage on the targets of one's rhetoric, but perhaps even more damage on oneself.
Rush Limbaugh was fired at ESPN for making what I call a type M argument--attacking the motives of someone with whom one disagrees. I have that problem with Paul Krugman.
You could express your point of view using type C arguments and still take strong stands for what you believe is right. In fact, you might find that doing so would make you more effective. Even if that is not the case, even if there is a sort of media version of Gresham's Law in which specious reasoning drives out careful analysis, then that is a challenge for all of us who are trained as economists. I believe that we have a professional duty to try to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
