BTW, his last couple of paragraphs are what always make me cringe about his approach to argument on his blog. he knows that he shouldn't imply that they are hypocrites. So, he tells us that "we" aren't implying they are hypocrits, even after he does point and laugh at Sanchez, implying he's a hypocrit, with the phrase, "It never seems to dawn on Sanchez...." This is just another way of saying, what a hypocrit. Robin implies with "it never seems to occur" that Sanchez either lies to himself or is so ideologically blinded, he doesn't realize he's a hypocrit/inconsistent.
" It never seems to dawn on Sanchez that the very same money power that would lead hima fairly independent minded writer, who feels free enough from economic constraints that he can quit a well-paying, enjoyable gig merely on suspicion that he might be forced to hold his tongue in the futureto second-guess himself at Cato might have equal if not more effect upon others. When the Kochs wield their money at Cato, that's hegemony. But when they do it in Wisconsin, that's democracy.
So when leftists smirk at Sanchez's cri de coeur, it's not because we think he's being hypocritical or inconsistent. It's because we think he's telling the truth. Exactly as he sees it.
Which is what is wrong with that approach to smirking chimpery. The fact is, Sanchez's libertarianism could explain to his audience precisely why he thinks the way he does - why he's not a hypocrit. Which is to say, the reason why you shouldn't bother pointing out hypocrisy, aside from the logical fallacy, is that the better way to deal with "hypocrisy" when you find it is to ask yourself, "Well, in the best light possible, what *does* this guy mean? why *is* he arguing this? How would he explain himself."
It's in that answer that you will find the argument that you *should* go after.
As it is, all Robin wants to do is go after low hanging fruit. But, hey, it's a blog and he's a journalist. Low hanging fruit is the name of the game.
At 07:21 PM 3/7/2012, Michael Pollak wrote:
>In response to Julian Sanchez's recent cri de coeur over at the Cato
>institute, Corey Robins just wrote a post that I think is a precise
>summary of his core argument in _The Reactionary Mind_:
>
>http://coreyrobin.com/2012/03/07/when-libertarians-go-to-work/
>
>To wit, why when conservatives say freedom is their first principle, they
>really mean freedom for the few, not for the many. And how that can
>be what they mean when they vehemently deny it.
>
>I think the extremely limited scope here (not all of conservatism in every
>possible manifestation, but just this one guy's argument in this one post,
>measured against his very clear principles) makes clear the form of
>Corey's argument. It's not an imputation of unconscious motives, and it's
>not a conspiracy theory. The argument is rather that this is necessarily
>implied by the propositions and empirical observations that they
>explicitly hold. (And that this necessarily implied conclusion is
>systematically misrecognized.)
>
>So if anyone who didn't have time to read Corey's book, but hated it,
>would like to have a clear argument over it nonetheless, I think this
>offers an excellent opportunity. I will be glad to fight Corey's corner
>as well as I am able. Perhaps with this clear focus you'll be able to
>make clear to me what is inherently wrong with such an argument, or I'll
>be able to convince you that he's got Sanchez's number.
>
>Game rules: all argument must be focused on this article alone. And you
>have to read it first.
>
>Michael
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)