Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Unveiled Threats

Ramesh Ponnuru proving a point:
One of the chief arguments against Governor Walker’s proposal — maybe the chief argument — is that strong public-sector unions are necessary to offset the political power of plutocratic elites and thus achieve sensible, balanced public policies. This is the argument of Paul Krugman, for example. I find it a little odd. The argument can only be persuasive to someone who is already committed to contemporary-liberal economic policies. The vast majority of liberals already are. So is this an argument directed solely at those few liberals who have reservations about the power of these unions, the Richard Cohens of the world?
Is it me or is it a weird omission to just gloss over the "political power of plutocratic elites" bit? I mean, that's honest, but I thought Ramesh was supposed to pretend such power was an expression of the will of the people, however bullshitty.

I've chopped off his answer, so let's let him explain further:
And it’s also odd because the argument is so often made by people who think there is something objectionable in Governor Walker’s support for legislation that will weaken his political opponents and thus strengthen his allies. The countervailing-power argument is precisely that the law should boost the power of one side of the political debate. (Again: Nobody who makes this argument can expect Walker’s supporters to respond, “Well now that you point it out I suppose our conservative agenda is destructive and it would be good to throw up obstacles to it by strengthening our opposition.”)
Again: plutocratic elites? Hello?

7 comments:

Another Kiwi said...

something objectionable in Governor Walker’s support for legislation that will weaken his political opponents
So Ramesh, how's your man Ghaddafi doing?

Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

Hey, ever since Bush, Jr. removed Qaddafi from persona non grata status, I'll bet he was Ramesh's man.

Substance McGravitas said...

One good way to weaken your political opponents is to make a woman's vote worth less.

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

So is this an argument directed solely at those few liberals who have reservations about the power of these unions, the Richard Cohens of the world?

RICHIE FUCKIN' COHEN????? LIBERAL???

That is the most odious part of this slug-slime-licking whore's post, as far as I'm concerned.
~

Substance McGravitas said...

RICHIE FUCKIN' COHEN????? LIBERAL???

The tell is that the liberal elite got easy access to Cipro.

fish said...

Smut explained this already.

Smut Clyde said...

The argument can only be persuasive to someone who is already committed to contemporary-liberal economic policies.

Apparently "contemporary-liberal economists" are the only kind who recognise that businesspeople are a lobby group.