By Jonah Goldberg
Friday, May 15, 2020
So yesterday Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and I got into a
brief Twitter spat. She tweeted:
If only there were some public fund
billionaires could pay into along with everyone else that helps fund our
infrastructure, hospitals, and public systems all at once.
It could even be a modest % of what
they earn every year. We could have an agency collect it and everything
I responded:
Man this is so dumb and dishonest.
You could confiscate every penny held by every billionaire and multimillionaire
in America and it wouldn't cover a fraction of your Green New Deal fantasy.
And she replied:
@JonahDispatch Hey there! Totally
get it if you’ve never bothered to read the legislation you’re commenting so
authoritatively on.
The Green New Deal is a non-binding
resolution of values. It does not have a price tag or CBO score and costs us $0
if passed.
You might recall we recently discussed the Motte &
Bailey style of arguing here. Make a sweeping statement—“people named Todd
smell like cabbage” —and when challenged, retreat to a more defensible
claim—“all I’m saying is that Todd from accounting smells like cabbage.”
Ocasio-Cortez insinuates that billionaires don’t pay
taxes, when in fact the top 1 percent pays roughly 37.3 percent of all
individual income taxes, which is more than the bottom 90 percent (30.5
percent).
She was responding to a report that Bill Gates, who has
promised to spend billions on the coronavirus and has paid an estimated $10
billion in taxes, is trying to get other billionaires to spend more on it.
Under his existing “Giving Pledge” initiative, he’s corralled a half-trillion
dollars in charitable giving. And Ocasio-Cortez’s immediate thought isn’t “Wow,
thanks!” but it’s to mock Gates and people like him as free-riders.
Her response wasn’t technically a Motte & Bailey
argument but more of a non sequitur that contained one. She claimed that I
didn’t read the Green New Deal “legislation” she proposed and then claimed it
wasn’t really legislation—as in, a law—at all, just a “non-binding resolution
of values” that would cost nothing if passed.
Now, that’s a motte bigger than the Twinkie that Egon
Spengler describes in Ghostbusters. I happen to remember when she first
unveiled her version of the Green New Deal pretty well. I wrote
about it quite a bit at the time. In interview after interview, she was asked
how she would pay for her proposal. I remember plenty of times her explaining
how we could do it through taxing, borrowing, or printing trillions of dollars.
She also said that it would pay for itself by creating jobs. But if she ever
said, “Oh, it won’t cost anything at all because this is entirely non-binding
and merely an expression of our values,” I missed it.
Here she is on NPR
in what I believe was her first interview on the subject, saying all of these
things—except for the part that it wouldn’t cost anything.
Now, I should say that my claim that you could take every
penny from the entire 1 percent and not pay for the Green New Deal is
debatable; I just think I’d win that debate. I was talking about money the 1
percent basically has on hand. But it’s true: If you forced the top 1 percent
to liquidate their companies, sell their houses and stocks, you could theoretically
raise the $50 trillion to $100 trillion that the full Green New Deal would
undoubtedly cost—even if you included Medicare for All, which alone would run
about $32 trillion. So yeah, if you want to go Full Bane and kick the 1 percent
out of their homes and seize their companies, the GND might be affordable.
Of course, any effort along those lines wouldn’t raise
anything close to the paper-valuation of existing assets, because people have
this funny tendency to avoid having all of their wealth confiscated. But you
get the point.
Science!
Over at The Bulwark, Richard North Patterson
offers a fairly pristine example of a
genre of left-wing anti-conservative scolding when it comes to science. Now
before I go on, I should say upfront that I agree with the gist of many of his
criticisms of some right-wingers and their response to the pandemic. For
instance, I think the surge in anti-vaccine talk in some fevered corners of the
right is dangerous, disappointing, and embarrassing.
But on the whole, I detest this sort of argument because
it takes a natural human (or even American) phenomenon and turns it into a
partisan cudgel. Polls
and studies
have consistently showed
that anti-vaxxers exist
on both sides of the political divide. But ask yourself, who has more cache
with the mainstream media and elites: Robert Kennedy Jr. or Michelle Malkin?
Who did more in the last two decades to promote anti-vaccine theories?
It’s true that in recent years—as the issue has changed
from safety to parental rights—the numbers have shifted, with conservatives
being somewhat more opposed to mandatory vaccinations than liberals.
And that’s sort of my point. One’s attitude toward a
specific scientific issue is often determined by other ideological
considerations. Patterson cites polling that shows conservatives are more
anti-evolution. I am not going to claim that those polls aren’t reflective of
real attitudes out there. But some of that is people understandably reading the
question as an assault on religious beliefs and refusing to play along. This is
a phenomenon that is well established in survey research. Some Republicans tell
pollsters things they don’t believe because they infer—correctly—that the
finding will be weaponized by people they can’t stand.
A large majority of women say they disagree with the
proposition that life begins at conception. I am sure that some percentage
don’t actually believe that while still saying they do, because they understand
that saying otherwise gives support to those who would restrict abortion. Just
as some Republicans question the science behind epidemiology because they care
about parental rights, some Democrats question the science of reproduction
because they care about abortion rights. Science has been a boon to the pro-life
cause, but we never hear that pro-choicers are “anti-science.”
Pretty much every major Democratic candidate said during
the primaries that climate change is an “existential threat” to humanity (It’s
not, if you take the plain meaning of the term “existential threat” literally,
or even seriously.). But nearly all of them insisted that we can’t expand—or
even use—nuclear power because nuclear power is “super-icky.” (I paraphrase).
That sounds pretty anti-science to me.
You can do this all day. The notion that men can get
pregnant or have periods is not driven by fidelity to science but to politics,
and fidelity to politics often requires a lack of fidelity to science. When
research into sex differences yields results the left doesn’t like, it’s
“pseudoscience.” When it yields information that empowers women or makes dudes
look bad, science is awesome again. For years, the left led the charge on
opposing genetically modified crops and it still considers geoengineering (see:
using science to fix the climate) to be a moral horror. When you only like
science when it confirms your priors, you aren’t really aren’t the
science-worshipper you claim to be.
On the latest episode of The Remnant I talked with
Paul Matzko a bit about the “Paranoid Style in American Politics”—an argument
first put forward by the political historian Richard Hofstadter. I firmly
believe there’s a paranoid style in American politics. I also believe there’s a
paranoid style in every other country’s politics—and we’re pikers compared to
the Turks, the Iranians, the Russians, and even the French when it comes to
crazy conspiracy theories. But I also believe there’s a paranoid style in human
politics, because we’re pattern-seeking animals and sometimes that steers us in
bad directions. Sometimes the paranoid style is anti-science, sometimes it’s
anti-capitalist or anti-government.
Sometimes this tendency manifests itself more on one side
of the ideological spectrum than the other. But no side owns it.
No comments:
Post a Comment