If my memory is correct, Matt said something dumb about libraries last year and we all jumped on him, so he's still salty about that, and definitely the type to allow a personal grievance against a professional class outweigh his stated morals. Anyway, speaking as a librarian, Matt Yglesias can get fucked.
There was a time I considered myself an actual fan of Matt Y, because he really seemed genuinely invested in evaluating the impact of public policy and demystifying the impenetrable parts of politics. Turns out he's just not interested in any facet of public life where he can't be the Smartest Boy
Matt Yglesias strikes me as one of those pundits who is constantly looking for a weak or unpopular minority group to throw under the bus. Whether it’s sex workers, trans people, librarians or others, he breezily advocates policies that would make their lives miserable with no thought to whether they’re real people.
And when you think about it, he’s much like a long list of other centrist Democrats we know.
“... stop using ‘open debate’ as a shield against criticism and simply defend ideas on their merits.” Nice fantasy. These people don’t do anything in good faith and they’re certainly not gonna do that. Alas.
"You don’t get to pretend to be a champion for free speech, pointing to it as an issue that must be fought for, as an issue that can’t wait… while also referring to book bans as 'identity politics for librarians'."
Right. Although... Presumably Matt didn't take part in writing the Harpers Letter. Maybe he just yada-yada'ed all the portentous language about how this was an issue that must be fought for, an issue that can't wait, an issue on which our very survival, yada yada, and what it came down to for him was, "yeah, I think campuses are too censorious, the rest is boilerplate, I'll sign it."
Like many bad ideas in politics, I trace this one back to James Carville, who gave us "It's the economy, stupid." The idea that successful "strategy" always means picking the ONE issue that Democratic candidates will be allowed to talk about, to the exclusion of everything else. Then the focus-fetishists waste our time with pointless arguments about which issue should be the ONE, when reasonable people could probably all agree on a top five. Funny how Republicans can campaign on a whole grab-bag of issues, from hating trans people to electric stoves, but Democrats only get one issue, sorry, I don't make the rules.
We've reached the point where liberals can't simply say "I don't care that much about trans people" or "I don't care that much about Black people", so indifference or outright bigotry always has to come disguised as "strategery."
"Oh, sure, LGBTQ books being banned, not good, but I'm just offering my objective strategic advice to the Democrats to de-emphasize this issue because I don't see it as a big vote-getter, nothing personal!"
Jamelle Bouie has a good column today on Trans rights, the comments [shudder} were full of armchair "strategists" saying "Sorry, trans folk, but your issues don't focus-group well, so please go away and stop hurting the Democrats, thanks."
If my memory is correct, Matt said something dumb about libraries last year and we all jumped on him, so he's still salty about that, and definitely the type to allow a personal grievance against a professional class outweigh his stated morals. Anyway, speaking as a librarian, Matt Yglesias can get fucked.
There was a time I considered myself an actual fan of Matt Y, because he really seemed genuinely invested in evaluating the impact of public policy and demystifying the impenetrable parts of politics. Turns out he's just not interested in any facet of public life where he can't be the Smartest Boy
Glenn and Matt both ranting about how "Democrats are trying to silence you" while ignoring Republicans actually doing it will never cease to amaze me.
Matt Yglesias strikes me as one of those pundits who is constantly looking for a weak or unpopular minority group to throw under the bus. Whether it’s sex workers, trans people, librarians or others, he breezily advocates policies that would make their lives miserable with no thought to whether they’re real people.
And when you think about it, he’s much like a long list of other centrist Democrats we know.
I don’t know how, but Matt manages to be a bigger hypocrite than Conor Friedersdorf.
It's hard to speak freely when your state is actively working to erase your existence, Matt.
“... stop using ‘open debate’ as a shield against criticism and simply defend ideas on their merits.” Nice fantasy. These people don’t do anything in good faith and they’re certainly not gonna do that. Alas.
"You don’t get to pretend to be a champion for free speech, pointing to it as an issue that must be fought for, as an issue that can’t wait… while also referring to book bans as 'identity politics for librarians'."
Right. Although... Presumably Matt didn't take part in writing the Harpers Letter. Maybe he just yada-yada'ed all the portentous language about how this was an issue that must be fought for, an issue that can't wait, an issue on which our very survival, yada yada, and what it came down to for him was, "yeah, I think campuses are too censorious, the rest is boilerplate, I'll sign it."
Which maybe isn't much of a defense.
Like many bad ideas in politics, I trace this one back to James Carville, who gave us "It's the economy, stupid." The idea that successful "strategy" always means picking the ONE issue that Democratic candidates will be allowed to talk about, to the exclusion of everything else. Then the focus-fetishists waste our time with pointless arguments about which issue should be the ONE, when reasonable people could probably all agree on a top five. Funny how Republicans can campaign on a whole grab-bag of issues, from hating trans people to electric stoves, but Democrats only get one issue, sorry, I don't make the rules.
It's mostly a bunch of right wing creeps pretending to be democrats.
I mean how many leftist/extremely liberal gay men can there BE that are repulsed by drag and/or consider men in drag a threat to children?
Surely there are some but this is one of the motifs they *always* roll out.
I realize gay men and lesbians, etc. can be fusty and uptight and prone to conspiracy theory just like anybody else.
But the 'I always voted Democrat '...I am a liberal/leftist etc. is pretty much a chestnut at this point.
New York Times commenters are not generally this reactionary and dumb en masse or Ross D. would get very different comments on his columns, etc.
We've reached the point where liberals can't simply say "I don't care that much about trans people" or "I don't care that much about Black people", so indifference or outright bigotry always has to come disguised as "strategery."
"Oh, sure, LGBTQ books being banned, not good, but I'm just offering my objective strategic advice to the Democrats to de-emphasize this issue because I don't see it as a big vote-getter, nothing personal!"
Jamelle Bouie has a good column today on Trans rights, the comments [shudder} were full of armchair "strategists" saying "Sorry, trans folk, but your issues don't focus-group well, so please go away and stop hurting the Democrats, thanks."