Lots of people I disapprove of have large positive VAR. I thought that the point of my original piece was: show me the money. Where is the VAR in Wilson, Banfield, Huntington, and Mansfield—and if there was VAR was it because or in spite of their conservatism?
The score so far on the "where is the VAR" question: Yes for Wilson (and I real…
Lots of people I disapprove of have large positive VAR. I thought that the point of my original piece was: show me the money. Where is the VAR in Wilson, Banfield, Huntington, and Mansfield—and if there was VAR was it because or in spite of their conservatism?
The score so far on the "where is the VAR" question: Yes for Wilson (and I really should not have forgotten his "Bureaucracy"). IMHO, a very strong HELL NO!! for Mansfield. For Banfield and Huntington, I may be convinceable but so far I have not convinced myself and nobody has convinced me.
The score so far on the "was it because they were conservative?" question is, I think, probably not. The VAR claimed is collinear with the VAR for Glazer and Moynihan, who were definitely not conservatives but liberals. Brad
I appreciate the speed and courtesy of your response, if not its "accuracy". First of all, you began your piece by ridiculing "conservatism" in general, in very lazy terms--"the inerrancy of the King James bible", for example. Many conservatives are Catholic, who certainly don't believe in the inerrancy of the King James, because they believe that it was the Vulgate that had the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, and because few Catholics take the bible with evangelical literalness. (I have always been an atheist, by the way.) As for "VAR", how are you supposed to judge what a scholar is "going to do" ahead of time? I recall you giving high praise to some European thinker who started far left (you disapproved) and ended far right (you also disapproved), but admired what he said in between. A lot of people, like Francis Fukuyama, who I guess you are OK with, liked "early Huntington", before he decided that only Europeans and Asians were capable of civilization. Also, if Glenn Loury was "wrong" about Wilson, why couldn't he have been wrong about the other people he trashed? Loury thinks that because he's black he's always right when it comes to anything having to do with race, a pose that I find unconvincing.
"Conservatism" as a philosophy scarcely exists today. The fact that Russell Kirk is considered a thinker at all (I find him laughable) tells you almost all you need to know. The most influential thinkers "on the right" tend to be libertarians like Friedman and Hayek, who tend to be disqualified because they're atheists. Also, to my own mind, "strict" libertarianism was effectively "refuted" by the Great Recession.
The thing is, the "liberalism" isn't doing all that well either. California is about as liberal as a state can get. Do you think it's well governed? What do government housing programs do other than provide jobs for bureaucrats? For 19 years, I wrote about the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In 2022, NAEP reading scores for grade 4 black students showed the following scale score results: New York (202) and California (201) were lower than Florida (215) and Mississippi (212). These are "statistically significant results", as we say in the biz. In the past, state officials used to say "thank God for Mississippi", because compared to Ole Miss, any state looked good. Today, they can say that about California.
Yathink "conservatives [who] are Catholic... certainly don't believe in the inerrancy of the King James, because they believe that it was the Vulgate that had the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit" is any better? A Dark-Age Papal power move that "we will not listen to corrections of St. Anselm from people who understand the original Greek" well is really not a good look at all. Indeed, in general pretending in public that you and yours have special access and insight to the 𝚨 & 𝛀, and that others should shut up is really not a good look.
Lots of people I disapprove of have large positive VAR. I thought that the point of my original piece was: show me the money. Where is the VAR in Wilson, Banfield, Huntington, and Mansfield—and if there was VAR was it because or in spite of their conservatism?
The score so far on the "where is the VAR" question: Yes for Wilson (and I really should not have forgotten his "Bureaucracy"). IMHO, a very strong HELL NO!! for Mansfield. For Banfield and Huntington, I may be convinceable but so far I have not convinced myself and nobody has convinced me.
The score so far on the "was it because they were conservative?" question is, I think, probably not. The VAR claimed is collinear with the VAR for Glazer and Moynihan, who were definitely not conservatives but liberals. Brad
I appreciate the speed and courtesy of your response, if not its "accuracy". First of all, you began your piece by ridiculing "conservatism" in general, in very lazy terms--"the inerrancy of the King James bible", for example. Many conservatives are Catholic, who certainly don't believe in the inerrancy of the King James, because they believe that it was the Vulgate that had the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit, and because few Catholics take the bible with evangelical literalness. (I have always been an atheist, by the way.) As for "VAR", how are you supposed to judge what a scholar is "going to do" ahead of time? I recall you giving high praise to some European thinker who started far left (you disapproved) and ended far right (you also disapproved), but admired what he said in between. A lot of people, like Francis Fukuyama, who I guess you are OK with, liked "early Huntington", before he decided that only Europeans and Asians were capable of civilization. Also, if Glenn Loury was "wrong" about Wilson, why couldn't he have been wrong about the other people he trashed? Loury thinks that because he's black he's always right when it comes to anything having to do with race, a pose that I find unconvincing.
"Conservatism" as a philosophy scarcely exists today. The fact that Russell Kirk is considered a thinker at all (I find him laughable) tells you almost all you need to know. The most influential thinkers "on the right" tend to be libertarians like Friedman and Hayek, who tend to be disqualified because they're atheists. Also, to my own mind, "strict" libertarianism was effectively "refuted" by the Great Recession.
The thing is, the "liberalism" isn't doing all that well either. California is about as liberal as a state can get. Do you think it's well governed? What do government housing programs do other than provide jobs for bureaucrats? For 19 years, I wrote about the National Assessment of Educational Progress. In 2022, NAEP reading scores for grade 4 black students showed the following scale score results: New York (202) and California (201) were lower than Florida (215) and Mississippi (212). These are "statistically significant results", as we say in the biz. In the past, state officials used to say "thank God for Mississippi", because compared to Ole Miss, any state looked good. Today, they can say that about California.
Yathink "conservatives [who] are Catholic... certainly don't believe in the inerrancy of the King James, because they believe that it was the Vulgate that had the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit" is any better? A Dark-Age Papal power move that "we will not listen to corrections of St. Anselm from people who understand the original Greek" well is really not a good look at all. Indeed, in general pretending in public that you and yours have special access and insight to the 𝚨 & 𝛀, and that others should shut up is really not a good look.