I've noticed that his writings on National Review, even on the Corner, are better thought-out than on PJMedia.com. The latter seems to be a forum for emoting and tossing red meat, very stale red meat, to the hyper-conservative echo chamber there. Hence this piece on charges of hypocrisy against the left that no doubt everyone has heard about a million times. Note that most of it isn't even real hypocrisy. One can discuss whether carbon credits are genuine, but the concept of cleaning up after oneself by planting trees to soak up carbon to offset what you emit isn't invalid. It does put millionaires like Gore in an "easy for you to say" position, since most of us can't afford carbon credits, but then aren't the Republicans in the "easy for you to say" camp on almost everything?
Likewise there's no hypocrisy in wanting to tighten the tax code so that there's less avoidance while taking advantage what's legal now. It may undercut your moral authority a bit to not lead by example, but saying "I believe in gun control, but if everyone around me is packing heat you bet I'm going to do it too." It's living in the system you're in while trying to change it. Hypocrisy comes in when you do something like the Maryland politician who was found to have an unregistered gun when he himself voted for tougher gun registration laws, or when someone hides the fact that he's not leading by example. Besides, if Warren Buffet made his corporations fail to engage in legal tax sheltering, he'd be doing a disservice to his investors for not maximizing the value of their investment as the law would allow.
As for foundations, has Buffet actually come out against outlawing them? It's relevant because there are two reasons to have an inheritance tax: 1) to break up family dynasties and 2) to raise money for the government. Inherited wealth is what produces the idle rich which Hanson himself has so criticized. Bill Gates, by funneling his money into a charitable foundation, is fulfilling the first goal admirably. Every advocate of inheritance taxes should have no problem with that.
He almost has a point on Obama's war on terror policies. It's probably more a matter of growing in office, in a way many progressives see as being partly in a twisted way. Some of it is bowing to political reality combined with having to deal with an inherited problem. Guantanimo springs to mind: if people and state governments, aided and whipped into a frenzy by congress, are unwilling to allow trials for detainees, closing Guantanimo is impossible.
I'll grant the point about teachers in colleges. I've personally known teachers who were being exploited in that way. Considering how academia's internal politics are, I have no doubt the tenured class aren't too eager to bring equality and put themselves on the chopping block. Nor is it terribly difficult to see that liberals aren't inclined to attack academia and give more excuse for budget cuts, union-busting, tenure-busting, etc.
One more point of note: everyone in American politics protects their own. Accusing anyone of hypocrisy on that score may have some legitimacy, but it's almost like saying water is wet. Of course both sides make the accusations too, so I guess the best response is to yawn and shrug and move on.
No comments:
Post a Comment