I'm still of the mind that there is some sort of difference between lying about a war and trying to convince folks to buy health insurance.
Will Wilkinson
· 1 year ago
The difference is you think buying health insurance is a good idea. And lot of people think we're all good an truly fucked unless we fight and win this war.
talboito
· 1 year ago
Exactly. I think its admirable to use the political process for beneficial aims and despicable to do otherwise.
Christopher Monnier
· 1 year ago
This is what governments do. Republican governments. Democratic governments. They spend their subjects’ money shaping their subjects’ opinions, so that they can spend more of their subjects’ money.
Exactly, it's inevitable. But it's also always true that the "architecture" of available choices will always have some influence on the profile of selected choices. The combination of these two inevitabilities tells seems to me an obvious reason for why government power must be strictly limited. Left unchecked, it will grow, and will frame the choice available to its citizens in a manner that further encourages government growth.
steve herman
· 1 year ago
You seem a little glib in assuming that both political parties are equally guilty. When have the Democrats paid political hacks to appear as independent journalists to hype their program, even after this has been ruled illegal in courts? What other modern administration has rivaled this one in disinformation and denial of rights to information?
John Thacker
· 1 year ago
You seem a little glib in assuming that both political parties are equally guilty.
There are an impressive number of examples of, e.g., federal agencies giving grants to NGOs that then lobby for federal spending on those agencies to be increased. There are also some good examples of federal agencies (esp. the EPA) asking to be sued by friendly activist groups so that they can expand their reach.
And I certainly don't see any difference between the parties on ridiculous Drug War propaganda. The Clinton Administration certainly helped pioneered paying entertainment folks to put anti-drug messages in their works, not as separate ads; sometimes the payments were directly revealed, sometimes not. (And generally not stated during works themselves.)
What other modern administration has rivaled this one in disinformation and denial of rights to information?
Pretty much all other modern administrations have sought to seal notes and memos and information, and to keep track of political supporters and opponents; e.g., the Health Care Task Force Memos.
A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism. Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”
Lu
· 1 year ago
The last paragraph of the blog posting (starting "No doubt") must be one of the most sarcastic commentaries I've read online. If it's not sarcastic (and surely it is, right?), then you're endorsing a corrupt partisan policy that violates key principles of the Cato Institute. Let's hope that libertarian-minded folks will demand a criminal investigation of this abusive policy, which would appear to violate numerous federal contracting statutes and regulations.
Your posting mistakenly (or again sarcastically?) suggests that all governments engage in this unethical (and un-American) behavior. Such a cynical statement seems to be based on an underlying view that all governments are full of dishonest lawbreakers bent on gaining support for spending more money.
Furthermore, why assume that this was done for the purpose of spending more money? Is it not possible (likely!) that, at least in part, it was done for ideological reasons? If you truly believe that this was all about the money, then that suggests you believe that the primary function of government (and people working in it) is to spend more money (regardless of need or purpose). Perhaps this supports a belief that all government should be abolished?
Your apparent (sarcastic?) endorsement of the worst sort of military-industrial-complex corruption seems unlikely given many of your other blog postings. Wonder what your family, and colleagues would think of this apparent (sarcastic?) approval of lying and non-disclosure to generate personal financial gain and without regard for the overwhelming burdens placed on others (as to finances, liberty, and even life).
All Comments
Exactly, it's inevitable. But it's also always true that the "architecture" of available choices will always have some influence on the profile of selected choices. The combination of these two inevitabilities tells seems to me an obvious reason for why government power must be strictly limited. Left unchecked, it will grow, and will frame the choice available to its citizens in a manner that further encourages government growth.
There are an impressive number of examples of, e.g., federal agencies giving grants to NGOs that then lobby for federal spending on those agencies to be increased. There are also some good examples of federal agencies (esp. the EPA) asking to be sued by friendly activist groups so that they can expand their reach.
And I certainly don't see any difference between the parties on ridiculous Drug War propaganda. The Clinton Administration certainly helped pioneered paying entertainment folks to put anti-drug messages in their works, not as separate ads; sometimes the payments were directly revealed, sometimes not. (And generally not stated during works themselves.)
What other modern administration has rivaled this one in disinformation and denial of rights to information?
Pretty much all other modern administrations have sought to seal notes and memos and information, and to keep track of political supporters and opponents; e.g., the Health Care Task Force Memos.
Your posting mistakenly (or again sarcastically?) suggests that all governments engage in this unethical (and un-American) behavior. Such a cynical statement seems to be based on an underlying view that all governments are full of dishonest lawbreakers bent on gaining support for spending more money.
Furthermore, why assume that this was done for the purpose of spending more money? Is it not possible (likely!) that, at least in part, it was done for ideological reasons? If you truly believe that this was all about the money, then that suggests you believe that the primary function of government (and people working in it) is to spend more money (regardless of need or purpose). Perhaps this supports a belief that all government should be abolished?
Your apparent (sarcastic?) endorsement of the worst sort of military-industrial-complex corruption seems unlikely given many of your other blog postings. Wonder what your family, and colleagues would think of this apparent (sarcastic?) approval of lying and non-disclosure to generate personal financial gain and without regard for the overwhelming burdens placed on others (as to finances, liberty, and even life).