The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Yglesias Is As Unimpressive As Brooks

Posted on | March 6, 2010 | 4 Comments

by Smitty

Here is Matthew Yglesias at Think Knucklehead arguing against Judd Gregg. Yglesias, whose literacy seems challenged, appears to misread deliberately what he quoted from Gregg:

The Senate was structured to be the place where bills which rushed through the House because they have a lot of rules that limit debate and allow people to pass bills quickly, but they don’t have any rule in the House called the filibuster which allows people to slow things down.

The Founding Fathers realized when they structured this they wanted checks and balances. They didn’t want things rushed through. They saw the parliamentary system. They knew it didn’t work.

Sure, in a brief passage, Gregg did not enumerate the various nuances of the State constitutions which, along with the Articles of Confederation, informed the Constitution. Yglesias’s attention is drawn to Amar’s book.  Here one important point: the Constitution was written, among other motives, to minimize the likelihood of the dreck peddled by the 111th Congress and this Administration having a chance to succeed.

Yglesias then piles on:

Meanwhile, just to point out that Gregg is an idiot, where on earth has he gotten the idea that the Founding Fathers “saw the parliamentary system” and “knew it didn’t work?” There were no countries operating on a modern parliamentary system when the constitution was written.

Wow.  If he dared entertain a bit of history, would discover that the British Parliament passed, for example, the Stamp Act of 1765, which was as offensive to Americans then as this non-argument is to Americans now. He throws up this “modern parliamentary system” distinction as if, by offering a difference that makes no difference, he now has the ground to call Gregg an idiot. He doesn’t, and has successfully painted himself as such in the process.  Unless, of course, there is some meaningful distinction other than a nearly ~300 year temporal separation to be drawn.  Maybe there is.

Context-free arguments such as this seem a staple of Lefty propaganda. It’s quite easy to reference the relevant passage in the Constitution. Sure, Gregg might choose to polish the phrasing of his point, given the chance. But what is the point of such when an attacker is more intent on hair-splitting, mis-placed literalism, and weasel-wording than they are in seeking to grasp the point? Oh, yes: Gregg’s point is both

  • valid, and
  • torpedoes the Leftist agenda.

Oops.

As far as I can tell, Mr. Yglesias, far from achieving the noble liberal goal of trying to understand the opposing view, give credit where due, and offer some sort of compromise position on an issue, is more intent on ad hominem attacks, and calling attention away from the principles at stake, in favor of an agenda.

Looking at Wikipedia, I see that this chap graduated from Hahvud. Way to make your alma mater look good there, buddy.

(Via Memeorandum)

Update: Director Blue is excellent on the topic, as usual.

Category: Matthew Yglesias, Politics, Senate

Comments

4 Responses to “Yglesias Is As Unimpressive As Brooks”

  1. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 7th, 2010 @ 2:05 am

    Back when I taught logic, I would use examples like Yglesias’s statement to demonstrate logical fallacies. Gregg mentioned the parliamentary system; Yglesias tried to rebut that by mentioning a (purportedy) different animal, the modern parliamentary system.

    Furthermore, Art. I, Sec. 5, provides the sole description of how the House and the Senate are to do business:

    Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

    Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

    Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

    No where in that am I seeing anything about how, in Yglesias’s words,

    But since the Founding Fathers did specify supermajorities to override a Presidential veto and to ratify a treaty, presumably there would have written a supermajority rule into the ordinary legislative process if that’s what they’d wanted to do.

    Um, the second clause sort of seems to answer that: if the Senate has a filibuster rule, then it passes Constitutional muster; moreover, as Gregg points out, that particular rule advances the desires of the Framers to have some deliberation.

    So Harvard-educated Yglesias gets smacked down by his own inability to google “Article I”. Then again, it’s always entertaining to see liberals who are so wrapped up in their intellect and genius that they fail to see that they are, in fact, acting like idiots.

  2. Roxeanne de Luca
    March 6th, 2010 @ 9:05 pm

    Back when I taught logic, I would use examples like Yglesias’s statement to demonstrate logical fallacies. Gregg mentioned the parliamentary system; Yglesias tried to rebut that by mentioning a (purportedy) different animal, the modern parliamentary system.

    Furthermore, Art. I, Sec. 5, provides the sole description of how the House and the Senate are to do business:

    Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

    Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

    Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

    No where in that am I seeing anything about how, in Yglesias’s words,

    But since the Founding Fathers did specify supermajorities to override a Presidential veto and to ratify a treaty, presumably there would have written a supermajority rule into the ordinary legislative process if that’s what they’d wanted to do.

    Um, the second clause sort of seems to answer that: if the Senate has a filibuster rule, then it passes Constitutional muster; moreover, as Gregg points out, that particular rule advances the desires of the Framers to have some deliberation.

    So Harvard-educated Yglesias gets smacked down by his own inability to google “Article I”. Then again, it’s always entertaining to see liberals who are so wrapped up in their intellect and genius that they fail to see that they are, in fact, acting like idiots.

  3. Adam
    March 28th, 2010 @ 11:08 pm

    Yglesias is a smart guy and the irony is this article is an ad hominem attack.

  4. Adam
    March 28th, 2010 @ 6:08 pm

    Yglesias is a smart guy and the irony is this article is an ad hominem attack.