Saturday, June 8, 2013

Snakes in the grass

Do you ever have names of public figures - in any realm that interests you; it could be sports, film, or business, but here we're talking about public policy thinkers - that are filed away in some corner of your mind because they've come to your attention once or twice, and then one day occupy a position front and center?

Such is the case for me of one Josh Barro.  I'd seen his byline and/or mentions of him for a while, but then today I had to check out a provocatively titled piece by him at Real Clear Politics ("I'm Not a Conservative and You Shouldn't Be Either").  It only took a few paragraphs to get the odor of his basic worldview.  He's one of those David Frum-esque types who maintain their Republican affiliation so as to try to legitimize their put-down of core conservative principles.  You can read the piece I'm talking about if you want to.  He calls himself a "utilitarian," defining that as an advocacy of "whatever works for the largest number of people."  Says the fact that conservatives don't take climate change or some perceived need to address health care on a macro level seriously means they themselves can't be taken seriously.  Goes on to address the question of whether this wouldn't move the two parties to a state of a fair amount of similarity by saying, Sure it would, and that's what you have in most other Western representative democracies, and it's a good thing.

Did a little poking around to get some background on the guy.  Former real estate banker and Manhattan Institute fellow.  His departure from that think tank was over ideology.  Now he writes for Business Insider and Bloomberg.

I found a recent Red State post by Erik Erikson about him that I think gets to the heart of what Barro represents within our current landscape.  Guys like Barro are so completely removed from the way flyover-country people who still have traditional families and ways of making a living - and maybe even go to church - that it has rendered them unable to grasp basic principles at work in economics and human affairs.

In short, guys like Barro don't know how to stand for anything, much less have anything they stand for.  In a sane world, that would be enough to discredit them from participation in our national conversation.

5 comments:

  1. Can't one stand for living and letting live? "We live and let live, and assume that things are jogging on fairly well elsewhere, and that the ordinary plain man may be trusted to look after his own affairs."--Howards End by Forster, E. M.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascalemmanuelgobry/2013/06/07/josh-barro-exists-deal-with-it/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Live-and-let-live is tantamount to standing for nothing and having no sense of right and wrong.

    Saw the Forbes piece in the course of my research on Barro. Look for me to have more to say about these postmodern young east coast eunuchs soon here at LITD.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hell is other people standing for something different than you stand for, even if it is live and let live. A man named Francis, who some call a saint once implied in his famous Peace Prayer that it is more important to seek to understand than to be understood. All that crap flies in the face of kicking ass, taking prisoners or no, as does seeking to love rather than to be loved. It also suggests that in giving we receive and in pardoning we are pardoned, but that was a long long time ago, at least to human thinking (11th Century), we've aged a bit since then, gotta fight the big one to end all big ones now, right, be a man and take a stand? Certainly more than a hair of a dog that has viciously bitten mankind many terrible times before.

    "The quest for certainty blocks the search for meaning. Uncertainty is the very condition to impel man to unfold his powers."
    Erich Fromm

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why you are so eager to see your freedom taken away is beyond me.

    ReplyDelete