« *A Happy Marriage* | Main | The trip so far »
The next generation of conservative (broadly) thinkers
Who are the up-and-comings? Drake Bennett has the answers. He covers Luigi Zingales, W. Bradford Wilcox, Megan McArdle, and Reihan Salam.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on July 12, 2009 at 09:53 AM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
Mark Steyn, Stephen F. Hayes, Matt Labash, perhaps Matthew Continetti.
Joseph Bottum is the new editor of First Things, so there is always a possibility he could have an impact in the near future.
Posted by: Lance at Jul 12, 2009 10:30:50 AM
Roissy?
Posted by: josh at Jul 12, 2009 10:39:55 AM
Megan McArdle.... really?
Posted by: Patrick at Jul 12, 2009 11:25:07 AM
I don't know who Luigi Zingales, W. Bradford Wilcox, or Reihan Salam are, but if Megan McArdle is on that list, the future of conservatism is certainly quite dire.
Posted by: libert at Jul 12, 2009 12:00:00 PM
I for one think Megan McArdle's blog is always worth reading. Megan, if you're reading these comments, don't let the bastards get you down! You well deserve your spot on the list.
Posted by: Richard S at Jul 12, 2009 12:11:00 PM
It won't be anyone with a blog. People like Douthat and Salam are getting promoted and promoting themselves before they have settled views or anything interesting to say.
Posted by: bjk at Jul 12, 2009 1:18:03 PM
If people only read Tyler's blog, they might get the (wrong) impression that puffin aren't worthy of a daily post.
On the one hand, bloggers are at the mercy of the current discussion, which being controlled by Washington is usually stupid.
On the other hand, she thought the gold standard was the pertinent issue with Ron Paul's run. On the third hand, the second hand and the one hand are not necessarily separate.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 12, 2009 1:18:06 PM
McArdle is an alright read but she isn't a "thinker".
Posted by: JRA at Jul 12, 2009 1:48:27 PM
I think highly of Luigi Zingales' book and his attempt to frame the free-market debate against corporatism. Not only are many of his assertions correct (or seemingly correct), but it's an argument that could strike a chord with the independent voting block that still believes in economic conservatism but has become disillusioned with Wall St. and big business.
Wilcox doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation, so he's out. The data suggesting single-parent homes resulting in unsuccessful children is an issue about financing care, not about keeping a nuclear family structure. Children from single-parent homes do just fine when coming from the economic middle class or higher. Resources (or more appropriately, the lack thereof) are still the issue, it's not about having two parents under the same roof.
McArdle, while producing some decent blog entries, isn't really shaping any arguments or evolving the conservative philosophy. She's providing a place to suss out the arguments made by others. Valuable to the debate, sure. A leader of new conservatism, no.
I don't know much about Mr. Salam, but from searching around, it doesn't seem as though he has a position or primary argument yet, so much as a couple ideas that demand further exploration.
Posted by: cchjd at Jul 12, 2009 2:02:42 PM
cchjd wrote
"Wilcox doesn't understand the difference between correlation and causation, so he's out. The data suggesting single-parent homes resulting in unsuccessful children is an issue about financing care, not about keeping a nuclear family structure."
But one efficient route to "financing care" IS having a nuclear family structure - it allows for maximum flexibility - one or two parents working - one or two jobs for one or both parents.
The liberal alternative is to "ask" [current favored way avoiding using the T word] you and I to finance the care.
I hope that is not what you are suggesting...
Posted by: Lonely Libertarian at Jul 12, 2009 2:18:22 PM
Zingales and maybe McArdle strike me as a good development. The others are the next generation of big government social engineers.
Posted by: shecky at Jul 12, 2009 2:23:23 PM
McArdle? She doesn't seem to understand things very well. Of maybe she is in training for the WSJ editorial page.
Posted by: gorobei at Jul 12, 2009 3:11:40 PM
"But one efficient route to "financing care" IS having a nuclear family structure - it allows for maximum flexibility - one or two parents working - one or two jobs for one or both parents.
The liberal alternative is to "ask" [current favored way avoiding using the T word] you and I to finance the care.
I hope that is not what you are suggesting..."
It depends. If it's the case that at least one of the parents is employable in a field where their income is commiserate with supporting a child and all their financial demands, sure.
But more so, it's an issue of personal responsibility and choosing to avoid procreation until one's finances are in order. Unpacking the data, many of these cases prove nothing more than two unskilled laborer parents making barely a living wage for themselves, let alone the income to support a child (or children). So, one or two parents, the financial dynamic hasn't changed, they still can't afford to provide for adequate child-rearing.
And I'm certainly not asking for the government to provide the resources.
Posted by: cchjd at Jul 12, 2009 4:52:44 PM
Intriguing. Although I would call myself a liberal, I would never stop reading thoughtful conservatives as there are too many people (on both sides) who have stuck themselves into an intellectual cul-de-sac. I enjoy McArdle's columns and have read with interest (and broadly disagreed with) some of Zingales' work; I'll check the other two out.
I realised recently my twitter account is following a couple of people I'd regard as - frankly and reluctantly - nutters, in the Republican camp. But rather than unfollowing I would rather keep an eye on them both to keep my mind open and to understand the terms of the debate from both sides. I hope that fellow left-wing readers here will not ignore these four writers just because they happen to disagree. If you do, that's a fair step towards letting the other side win the debate.
Posted by: Leigh Caldwell at Jul 12, 2009 4:58:20 PM
Writing in defense of McArdle. Her blog is one of the ones I most look forward to reading during the day. Whether or not you agree with her positions (and I disagree with many of them), she is unfailingly clear and honest in her conveyance of them.
Posted by: DavidJones at Jul 12, 2009 6:31:38 PM
On the other hand, she thought the gold standard was the pertinent issue with Ron Paul's run.
She used to throw temper tantrums over Ron Paul's support of Gold Standard. Funny when you think of it, especially since she used to blog under the pseudonym - Jane Galt. LOL.
Posted by: S Andrews at Jul 12, 2009 6:51:33 PM
This is a sample of Luigi Zingales' writing from
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2807
The fact that the interest of banks does not necessarily coincide with the interest of the country can be appreciated from the first phase of TARP. After an initial surprise (they could not believe their ears) bankers were delighted to receive the government money. Without it Vikram Pandit would no longer be the CEO of Citigroup and former Secretary of Treasury Rubin would have faced the risk of seeing the more than $115 million earned at Citigroup clawed back in a bankruptcy proceeding. So it is clear they like it and they want more. But what is in it for taxpayers? The first round of equity infusion and debt guarantees transferred to banks’ investors $108 billion. This is not the cost of the investment, it is the size of the gift taxpayers made to banks’ investors, as a reward for the good job done running their firms and monitoring their managers.
What have taxpayers received in exchange? Nothing.
Posted by: Richard A. at Jul 12, 2009 7:21:31 PM
"On the other hand, she thought the gold standard was the pertinent issue with Ron Paul's run."
Whereas actually, there simply was no pertinent issue with Ron Paul's run. It was just a cartoon sideshow.
Posted by: David Wright at Jul 12, 2009 7:45:32 PM
Libertarian thinker--seems like an oxymoron. I mean their opinions are so predictable.
Posted by: Tom at Jul 13, 2009 7:35:00 AM
Tom makes a good point. Libertarian thinkers are quite predictable. However, left wing thinkers, now there is a crowd with great range-insert masturbation hand gesture.
Posted by: John Pertz at Jul 13, 2009 9:00:11 AM
Liberals keep you on your toes by flipping a coin every Monday on such things as deciding whether the great satan this week will be red-lining or predatory lending.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 13, 2009 10:12:12 AM
Actually, the pertinent issue with Paul's run was that he was proven right about the big picture on debt and war, while everyone else was dicking with sideshows.
Posted by: Andrew at Jul 13, 2009 10:24:30 AM
I don't know how anyone can consider Megan a conservative. When I was following her, I did not see one issue where she took the conservative side.
Posted by: Right Wing-nut at Jul 13, 2009 11:10:23 AM
Megan does a pretty good job (sometimes very good job) of critiquing liberal proposals from a broadly libertarian perspective. Of course there are better places to get that - i.e., here - but I imagine here traffic is quite a bit higher than the traffic of this blog, more's the pity.
Her faults include missing the forest for the trees, and a tendency to jump on her opponents' weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger ones. She also isn't a thinker by any means. She doesn't have much a positive policy program herself, which may nnot really be a weakness, as perhaps she correctly realizes that it is not ere strength. Finally, and I don't know if this is a weakness per se but it can be annoying, while her throw-away comments regarding the Bush administration and movement conservatism make it clear that she is (understatement) not a fan of either, she spends almost all of her time critiging those to her left.
Posted by: LarryM at Jul 13, 2009 11:34:40 AM
Liberals keep you on your toes by flipping a coin every Monday on such things as deciding whether
the great satan this week will be red-lining or predatory lending.
Brilliant!
Posted by: Phil at Jul 13, 2009 12:58:58 PM
