Matt Yglesias

Washington Post to the Rescue

Some newspapers in America are really crappy. In The New York Times, for example, not only are the news pages always in hoc to to so-called “scientists” and their talk of “global warming” but even on the paper’s opinion pages conservative columnists like David Brooks and Ross Douthat never take on the “facts” and “science” that constitute “reality.” Thank God, then, for The Washington Post where their editors have no ethics or conscience and they’ve decided, out of contempt for their audience, that an appropriate use for their pages is to give George Will a forum in which to mislead the Post’s readers. Thus in today’s column he quotes noted climate scientist (and ethnic cleansing advocate) Mark Steyn “If you’re 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life.”

Here’s some nonsense chart I read in the NYT one time:

A bunch of good people work at the Post, but all things considered it continues to seem to me that the Washington Post Company would be well-advised to focus on its core competency in standardized test preparation services.

The Conservative Discovery of Racial Discrimination

Via Ed Kilgore, George Will on the Ricci case:

The nation shall slog on, litigating through a fog of euphemisms and blurry categories (e.g., “race-conscious” actions that somehow are not racial discrimination because they “remedy” discrimination that no one has intended). This is the predictable price of failing to simply insist that government cannot take cognizance of race.

Obviously, this kind of sentiment from a leading light of the conservative movement would be more credible had the conservative movement taken the side of racial justice during the civil rights era. Instead, we got things like National Review’s memorable denunciation of the weak-tea Civil Rights Act of 1957:

The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by meerely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced ace. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.

Dwight Eisenhower could see that this was wrong and backed the ‘57 bill. But Ike was a RINO, the kind of person George Will would despise.

But that’s the past, of course, and we can’t hold Will personally responsible for the things his predecessors were saying fifty years ago. But here’s the question—how is it that I can’t recall an instance of Will waxing indignant about some instance of racism directed against an African-American or Latino in the United States? I don’t believe it’s my faulty memory. Instead, I believe it’s that the new “color blind” American right is not dramatically different from the old “black people shouldn’t be allowed to vote” American right from fifty years ago. It’s a movement that’s basically indifferent to the interests of non-whites and totally uninterested in the question of whether or not there’s unfair discrimination against minority groups in the United States.

George Will Calls Right-Wing Iran Attacks on Obama “Foolish”

George Will may not know much about climate change or bicycle commuting but I think he’s mostly been a voice of reason on foreign policy issues relative to most conservative pundits. Today was no exception as he called out his colleagues for “foolish criticism” of the President’s approach to Iran:

The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people on the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is. And they don’t need that reinforced.

Rep Blumenauer Challenges George Will to a Debate on Portland

Hot in my inbox, a statement from Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), who represents Portland in Congress and is one of the main leaders on transportation policy in the House, responding to George Will’s cranky anti-Portland column:

“In his article, Mr. Will proves that he is mired in a one-dimensional past, one that the city of Portland has successfully overcome. He opposes policies that will provide Americans with more choices while saving them money, creating jobs and protecting the environment. In Portland we have been able to increase productivity, boost our economy, and invest in our city’s resources by taking a well-rounded approach to transportation. Secretary LaHood shares this comprehensive view on transportation options for our nation—its not about behavior modification its about giving Americans the freedom to choose more than just the highway or byway.

Rather than pontificate about practicality from a far, I challenge Mr. Will to come experience Portland, and then debate the facts, the future and the visions we offer. I am proud to defend the Portland model so painstakingly developed and implemented over the last 1/3 of a century. Maybe he will understand why young well educated people move here without jobs and older, well established business and professional people won’t leave for jobs that pay more. We will be happy to buy his plane ticket and give him a bottle of Oregon pinot to die for.

I’m mostly wondering what Newsweek intends to do about the large, material factual error in Will’s column. When Will penned an error-ridden Washington Post column on climate change, the Post steadfastly refused to issue a correction and key Post personnel defended Will’s right to lie in the Post’s pages. Strangely, during the weeks of ensuing controversy the Post ran several opinion pieces that, accurately, pointed out that Will was misleading people and some of the Post’s news personnel offered similar comments. Still, Will’s editors and the Post opinion section continued to stand solidly behind the principle that accuracy isn’t important to them—at least as long as George Will is the author.

Newsweek is an editorially separate entity, but also owned by The Washington Post Company. Perhaps the Post’s decision to greenlight lying led Will to believe he could get away with similar misrepresentations in Newsweek. I’ll be interested to see if that proves to be the case.

George Will’s Irritable Mental Gestures

It’s probably not fair to say that conservatives have no idea, but this entire George Will column is basically the same as the column he wrote about how he hates jeans, except this time it’s about how he hates Portland. But now he wants national policy to be driven by his hatred for Portland:

LaHood, however, has been transformed. Indeed, about three bites into lunch, the T word lands with a thump: He says he has joined a “transformational” administration: “I think we can change people’s behavior.” Government “promoted driving” by building the Interstate Highway System—”you talk about changing behavior.” He says, “People are getting out of their cars, they are biking to work.” High-speed intercity rail, such as the proposed bullet train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, is “the wave of the future.” And then, predictably, comes the P word: Look, he says, at Portland, Ore. [...]

Where to start? Does LaHood really think Americans were not avid drivers before a government highway program “promoted” driving? Does he think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work? Intercity high-speed rail probably always will be the wave of the future, for cities more than 300 miles apart.

Where to start? LaHood didn’t say that Americans didn’t drive before we built the interstate system. He said that building the interstate system promoted driving. I don’t see how you could possibly deny this. Had we spent less money on highway construction and more on mass transit or intercity rail, then there would be less driving. That seems obvious. In a different context, completing WMATA’s Green Line promoted use of Metro. And this is true even though Washingtonians were avid Metro riders even before the Green Line was complete. A seven year-old ought to be able to master this.

Will claims to find it unbelievable that as many as 0.01 percent of Americans would ever bike to work regularly. But rather than tossing off ridicule, he might have looked up the Census Bureau’s statistics on commuting patterns and seen that right now 0.4 percent of commuters normally get to work on bicycles. Now that’s a small percentage. But it’s forty times larger than a percentage that Will deems unrealistically utopian. This would be like saying Dwight Howard is 2 feet tall.

As for high-speed rail, San Francisco and Los Angeles aren’t that much more than 300 miles apart. Indeed, they’re about as far apart as Barcelona and Madrid, which are currently served by a very successful high speed rail link. What’s more, while metropolitan San Francisco is about the same size as metro Barcelona (4.2 million people, give or take), metropolitan Los Angeles’s 12.8 million residents is a much larger city than Madrid with its 5.3 million.

But even if you accept Will’s idea that LA-SF HSR can’t succeed because it’s over the magic 300 miles line, the United States has plenty of city-pairs closer than that. For example, there’s Seattle and the dread Portland, Oregon. And Vancouver’s less than 300 miles from Seattle. Milwaukee to Chicago, Chicago to Indianapolis, Chicago to Saint Louis, Miami to Orlando and Orlando to Tampa, and Houston to Dallas—all fitting under the Will line.

Why does Newsweek want to offer its audience a columnist who wants to write about transportation polic but can’t be bothered to bring any facts or logic to the table?