The Other McCain

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

Matthew Yglesias Asserts That Dale Peterson Is A Dessert Thief!

Posted on | May 19, 2010 | 32 Comments

by Smitty

OK, that is the literal value of Matthew Yglesias’s summary of Ben Smith on Peterson’s AgCom ad. Of course, Yglesias meant ‘takes the cake’ in a figurative sense.

Yglesias, an Ivy League graduate, and thus my intellectual superior goes on to opine (emphasis mine):

special interests (i.e., “thugs and criminals”) benefit from the fact that people generally don’t understand what it is that the Agriculture Commissioner does. The solution to this, however, isn’t to vote for Dale Peterson, it’s for Alabama to have fewer statewide elected officials. Right now, according to this list, a responsible citizen of Alabama is supposed to form separate opinions about a Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General, a Secretary of State, a Treasurer, a State Auditor, and an Agriculture Commissioner. That’s just way too many elections. It guarantees an uninformed electorate and special interest control.

Democracy should be about accountability, not holding lots of elections. Too many independently elected officials makes lines of responsibility murky and makes it impossible for citizens to monitor their agents.

  • Is Yglesias conflating electoral activity with government transparency?
  • How would a lower electoral frequency affect the problem?
  • What if the people voted on whether to have the office at all, and then what body to plant therein?
  • What if the people are smarter than Yglesias, and have no difficulty managing the slate?

Salon, the original source for this post, adds:

The first thing to note is that if that’s all citizens in Alabama had to do, that would be one thing — but of course in fact they also have to vote for U.S. senator, and U.S. House of Representatives, and the Alabama Legislature, and county government, and local government. At least. In many states (and I’m not going to look up Alabama), there are also elections for special districts, local and statewide ballot questions, and judicial elections.

The most obvious things to get rid of, in my opinion, are judicial elections, statewide ballot questions, and statewide elected officials other than governor. Do that, and have partisan elections for as many other things as possible, and the electorate will at least have a fighting chance — the remaining big challenge would be primary elections, which I’m OK with even though they present a puzzle for most voters.

Granted, most of my exposure to the minor candidates is the voter booklet, but the harm done is unclear. Are these Lefty geniuses worried that the Tea in the electorate may become more fully steeped?

What about the Federal Reserve? How has an un-elected cabal of bankers worked for us? It seems to have enabled theft on a grand scale, AFAICT.

The un-elected SCOTUS has also been a problem, since the doctrine of “Judicial deference” has turned them into the extra-Congressional Mental Gymnastics Committee, deriving fresh back-flips to justify Federal over-reach.

Maybe, in a RealityTV-cum-Constitution moment, we could vote one justice off the court every Presidential election! New blood! An assured pick for every president!

But then, to the chagrin of Yglesias, people would be burdened with caring about the SCOTUS, too.

We really should thank Matty boy for agitating to make our lives easier.

Category: Neutral Objective Journalism

Comments

32 Responses to “Matthew Yglesias Asserts That Dale Peterson Is A Dessert Thief!”

  1. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 3:13 pm

    Yglesias is a doughy little lump of a boy man, who while perceived as a book smart wunder-kind, really does not bring any practical insight to the table. Seriously, why does anyone give a rip what he has to say about the Alabama AG commissioner election or Dale Peterson?

  2. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 10:13 am

    Yglesias is a doughy little lump of a boy man, who while perceived as a book smart wunder-kind, really does not bring any practical insight to the table. Seriously, why does anyone give a rip what he has to say about the Alabama AG commissioner election or Dale Peterson?

  3. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 3:15 pm

    Yglesias? How can you take seriously a child pundit who needs an instruction manual to masterbate?

  4. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 10:15 am

    Yglesias? How can you take seriously a child pundit who needs an instruction manual to masterbate?

  5. ak4mc
    May 19th, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

    The most obvious things to get rid of, in my opinion, are … statewide elected officials other than governor.

    I wonder if the author realizes he’s advocating that every state adopt the structure that gave the world Sarah Palin — for although the lite-gubnor of Alaska is also elected, it’s on an inseparable ticket with the gubnor-torial candidate of his party. All other executive positions are filled by the gubnor, just as is done at the federal level.

    At any rate, the idea that one fixes the problem of voter confusion by concentrating political accountability in the person of one officeholder, strikes me as profoundly anti-democratic. Yggy and this other guy at Salon may disagree, but that’s their privilege — at least until political speech is completely regulated by the Kagan SCOTUS.

  6. ak4mc
    May 19th, 2010 @ 10:24 am

    The most obvious things to get rid of, in my opinion, are … statewide elected officials other than governor.

    I wonder if the author realizes he’s advocating that every state adopt the structure that gave the world Sarah Palin — for although the lite-gubnor of Alaska is also elected, it’s on an inseparable ticket with the gubnor-torial candidate of his party. All other executive positions are filled by the gubnor, just as is done at the federal level.

    At any rate, the idea that one fixes the problem of voter confusion by concentrating political accountability in the person of one officeholder, strikes me as profoundly anti-democratic. Yggy and this other guy at Salon may disagree, but that’s their privilege — at least until political speech is completely regulated by the Kagan SCOTUS.

  7. ak4mc
    May 19th, 2010 @ 3:26 pm

    Seriously, why does anyone give a rip what he has to say about the Alabama AG commissioner election or Dale Peterson?

    I’m curious why Yggy’s diapers are in such a wad over the Alabama Ag Commissioner election. He doesn’t live there, does he?

  8. ak4mc
    May 19th, 2010 @ 10:26 am

    Seriously, why does anyone give a rip what he has to say about the Alabama AG commissioner election or Dale Peterson?

    I’m curious why Yggy’s diapers are in such a wad over the Alabama Ag Commissioner election. He doesn’t live there, does he?

  9. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

    Let’s forget about the small boy hamster Yggy for a while.

    There is some pretty good analysis with Geraghty and others over at National Review. Sobering but not depressing (frankly the GOP should treat some set backs now as a warning to take November far more seriously).

    Let me ask, does Burns have a chance of winning in November (he is still running then, correct?). If he does, great. If not, there are bigger fish out there. Like the Senate.

    What about Connetticut? Do conservatives and libertarians split votes between McMahon and Simmons–allowing Richard “Semper fibus” Blumenthal to win that race? How do we get around that? I prefer Simmons by far, but I prefer McMahon to Blumenthal. Just sayin.

    What about Toomey winning Pennsylvania? While taking Murtha’s seat would be fun, taking a Senate seat is far more important. There is a whole bunch of races we should be talking about. Nevada, Indiana, Illinois, Delaware, Arkansas… How about Dino Rossi taking on Patty Murphy in Washington (long shot, perhaps, but not that long a shot)?

    Look at the RCP Senate map. GOP could pick up nine seats, maybe more if everything goes right, but they could lose big (there are five GOP seats noted as toss ups). Anything short of the GOP having a big night is very bad.

    It is not like Michael Steele and the RNC are going to be any help. This only happens at the grass root level–along with voters and potential candidates not allowing vote splitting to throw these opportunities away.

  10. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 12:35 pm

    Let’s forget about the small boy hamster Yggy for a while.

    There is some pretty good analysis with Geraghty and others over at National Review. Sobering but not depressing (frankly the GOP should treat some set backs now as a warning to take November far more seriously).

    Let me ask, does Burns have a chance of winning in November (he is still running then, correct?). If he does, great. If not, there are bigger fish out there. Like the Senate.

    What about Connetticut? Do conservatives and libertarians split votes between McMahon and Simmons–allowing Richard “Semper fibus” Blumenthal to win that race? How do we get around that? I prefer Simmons by far, but I prefer McMahon to Blumenthal. Just sayin.

    What about Toomey winning Pennsylvania? While taking Murtha’s seat would be fun, taking a Senate seat is far more important. There is a whole bunch of races we should be talking about. Nevada, Indiana, Illinois, Delaware, Arkansas… How about Dino Rossi taking on Patty Murphy in Washington (long shot, perhaps, but not that long a shot)?

    Look at the RCP Senate map. GOP could pick up nine seats, maybe more if everything goes right, but they could lose big (there are five GOP seats noted as toss ups). Anything short of the GOP having a big night is very bad.

    It is not like Michael Steele and the RNC are going to be any help. This only happens at the grass root level–along with voters and potential candidates not allowing vote splitting to throw these opportunities away.

  11. wallamaarif
    May 19th, 2010 @ 5:40 pm

    “Seriously, why does anyone give a rip what he has to say about the Alabama AG commissioner election or Dale Peterson?”

    “I’m curious why Yggy’s diapers are in such a wad over the Alabama Ag Commissioner election. He doesn’t live there, does he?”

    Where do you get the idea that Yggy cares about the election itself? He’s making a larger point about the absurdity of holding elections for every damn office in the state. His point (because reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit) is that it’s not reasonable to expect people to be informed about every candidate when there are so races for so many positions.

    If you can’t genuinely expect the average voter to be capable of making an informed decision (show me the regular voter who claims to have never cast an uninformed vote for Judge or State Commissioner of X, and I’ll show you either a liar or an idiot-savant), then your “democratic process” is undermining the whole reason why you hold government accountable to the people in the first place.

    That was Matt’s point, anyway. If you think it’s fine and dandy that every voter is expected to make an informed decision in two separate elections every two years (with special and local elections often in between) about more than a dozen different offices, then make that case. If not, you’ll just have to deal with the fact that you agree with Matt Yglesias on something.

  12. wallamaarif
    May 19th, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

    “Seriously, why does anyone give a rip what he has to say about the Alabama AG commissioner election or Dale Peterson?”

    “I’m curious why Yggy’s diapers are in such a wad over the Alabama Ag Commissioner election. He doesn’t live there, does he?”

    Where do you get the idea that Yggy cares about the election itself? He’s making a larger point about the absurdity of holding elections for every damn office in the state. His point (because reading comprehension is obviously not your strong suit) is that it’s not reasonable to expect people to be informed about every candidate when there are so races for so many positions.

    If you can’t genuinely expect the average voter to be capable of making an informed decision (show me the regular voter who claims to have never cast an uninformed vote for Judge or State Commissioner of X, and I’ll show you either a liar or an idiot-savant), then your “democratic process” is undermining the whole reason why you hold government accountable to the people in the first place.

    That was Matt’s point, anyway. If you think it’s fine and dandy that every voter is expected to make an informed decision in two separate elections every two years (with special and local elections often in between) about more than a dozen different offices, then make that case. If not, you’ll just have to deal with the fact that you agree with Matt Yglesias on something.

  13. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 5:45 pm

    I agree not every seat should be a general referendum, but I like states where major offices are not tied into the Governor.

  14. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 12:45 pm

    I agree not every seat should be a general referendum, but I like states where major offices are not tied into the Governor.

  15. smitty
    May 19th, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

    @wallamaarif,
    In the spirit of complete analysis, do you think the stress of standing for election at some frequency does anything positive for the office holder?

  16. smitty
    May 19th, 2010 @ 1:22 pm

    @wallamaarif,
    In the spirit of complete analysis, do you think the stress of standing for election at some frequency does anything positive for the office holder?

  17. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 8:06 pm

    While there are plenty of voters who just look with confusion at certain state election positions (especially if they are non-partisan like judges so you do not even have the benefit of a (D) or (R) to go by, I would still prefer to be able to have a vote to support a Dale Peterson over some dweeb Yggy or wallamaarif would have the Democratic Party appoint.

  18. Joe
    May 19th, 2010 @ 3:06 pm

    While there are plenty of voters who just look with confusion at certain state election positions (especially if they are non-partisan like judges so you do not even have the benefit of a (D) or (R) to go by, I would still prefer to be able to have a vote to support a Dale Peterson over some dweeb Yggy or wallamaarif would have the Democratic Party appoint.

  19. ak4mc
    May 19th, 2010 @ 10:03 pm

    Anyone who doesn’t think he can make an intelligent voting decision on a statewide office is certainly free — absent mandatory voting laws as are occasionally promoted by “good government” goobers — to refrain from voting in that election, leaving high-information voters to make the appropriate choice in their place.

    If the low-information voter doesn’t trust other people to make that choice, he’s also free to learn more about the office and the candidates.

    It’s not like the state ag commissioner is going to dispatch armed paramilitary troops into someone’s home to repatriate a five-year-old boy to Cuba.

  20. ak4mc
    May 19th, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

    Anyone who doesn’t think he can make an intelligent voting decision on a statewide office is certainly free — absent mandatory voting laws as are occasionally promoted by “good government” goobers — to refrain from voting in that election, leaving high-information voters to make the appropriate choice in their place.

    If the low-information voter doesn’t trust other people to make that choice, he’s also free to learn more about the office and the candidates.

    It’s not like the state ag commissioner is going to dispatch armed paramilitary troops into someone’s home to repatriate a five-year-old boy to Cuba.

  21. Adobe Walls
    May 19th, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

    The fact that many Americans would rather spend their free time discussing who’s next on American Idol rather than learning about a couple dozen local and state elected officials says more about us than our system of choosing officials. For those too lazy or busy to do some minimum research there are usually voting guides such as conservative guide given out for free at my poling place here in NC. Also don’t most States still allow voters to straight party ticket. Doing the minimum research isn’t that hard. Simply procure the local paper for a week or two prior to the election. For national candidates a few excerpts can give enough info. For instance during Obama’s campaign, hearing the phrases “spread the wealth” and “make card check the law of the land” would convince any reasonable person that Obama is a Bolshevik.
    As for Mr Yglesias I believe his major objection is that candidates for AG in Alabama are comfortable making political ads depicting them casually and I might ad comfortable handling firearms. If I lived in Alabama that’d get my vote. Similar to the Sheriff in my county who apparently made some insensitive remarks. When I read that the local ALCU was looking into the matter that sheriff got my full support.

  22. Adobe Walls
    May 19th, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

    The fact that many Americans would rather spend their free time discussing who’s next on American Idol rather than learning about a couple dozen local and state elected officials says more about us than our system of choosing officials. For those too lazy or busy to do some minimum research there are usually voting guides such as conservative guide given out for free at my poling place here in NC. Also don’t most States still allow voters to straight party ticket. Doing the minimum research isn’t that hard. Simply procure the local paper for a week or two prior to the election. For national candidates a few excerpts can give enough info. For instance during Obama’s campaign, hearing the phrases “spread the wealth” and “make card check the law of the land” would convince any reasonable person that Obama is a Bolshevik.
    As for Mr Yglesias I believe his major objection is that candidates for AG in Alabama are comfortable making political ads depicting them casually and I might ad comfortable handling firearms. If I lived in Alabama that’d get my vote. Similar to the Sheriff in my county who apparently made some insensitive remarks. When I read that the local ALCU was looking into the matter that sheriff got my full support.

  23. CGHill
    May 20th, 2010 @ 1:45 am

    Let Yggie and the stooges argue that “Senator” should not be an elective office – as it wasn’t, before the 17th Amendment – and they’ll actually be on the fringe of making sense. Until then, I will continue to believe that they’re still dreaming of a Benevolent Despot and don’t want any of those pesky non-Ivy people getting in the way.

  24. CGHill
    May 19th, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

    Let Yggie and the stooges argue that “Senator” should not be an elective office – as it wasn’t, before the 17th Amendment – and they’ll actually be on the fringe of making sense. Until then, I will continue to believe that they’re still dreaming of a Benevolent Despot and don’t want any of those pesky non-Ivy people getting in the way.

  25. wallamaarif
    May 20th, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

    @Smitty,

    I didn’t mean to imply that elections provide no accountability; just not necessarily enough, when there are so many candidates vying for the voter’s attention.

    @ak4mc,

    No one ever suggested that people aren’t free to educate themselves or refrain from voting, so wtf are you talking about?

    @Adobe Walls,

    Thank you for clarifying your “voting without thinking” method.

    @CGHill,

    That’s an interesting, arbitrary standard to insist upon, but it does get to where I think everyone on this thread (except for myself, of course) has completely missed the obvious point: the answer isn’t “vote for almost no office” or “vote for everything from Fire Chief to HHS Secretary.” It’s somewhere in the middle.

    Which is all Yglesias ever said, and all I ever said. It’s a practical concern, that doesn’t fit neatly into a left-right box, despite the gallant efforts of some here to wedge it into one anyway.

  26. wallamaarif
    May 20th, 2010 @ 10:54 am

    @Smitty,

    I didn’t mean to imply that elections provide no accountability; just not necessarily enough, when there are so many candidates vying for the voter’s attention.

    @ak4mc,

    No one ever suggested that people aren’t free to educate themselves or refrain from voting, so wtf are you talking about?

    @Adobe Walls,

    Thank you for clarifying your “voting without thinking” method.

    @CGHill,

    That’s an interesting, arbitrary standard to insist upon, but it does get to where I think everyone on this thread (except for myself, of course) has completely missed the obvious point: the answer isn’t “vote for almost no office” or “vote for everything from Fire Chief to HHS Secretary.” It’s somewhere in the middle.

    Which is all Yglesias ever said, and all I ever said. It’s a practical concern, that doesn’t fit neatly into a left-right box, despite the gallant efforts of some here to wedge it into one anyway.

  27. wallamaarif
    May 20th, 2010 @ 3:58 pm

    “As for Mr Yglesias I believe his major objection is that candidates for AG in Alabama are comfortable making political ads depicting them casually and I might ad comfortable handling firearms. If I lived in Alabama that’d get my vote. Similar to the Sheriff in my county who apparently made some insensitive remarks. When I read that the local ALCU was looking into the matter that sheriff got my full support.”

    Your assumptions are wrong (Yglesias knows that guns poll well in Alabama, and isn’t known for being anti-gun) and your willingness to vote for someone because they carry a gun on TV makes you look like an idiot, and an irresponsible one at that.

  28. wallamaarif
    May 20th, 2010 @ 10:58 am

    “As for Mr Yglesias I believe his major objection is that candidates for AG in Alabama are comfortable making political ads depicting them casually and I might ad comfortable handling firearms. If I lived in Alabama that’d get my vote. Similar to the Sheriff in my county who apparently made some insensitive remarks. When I read that the local ALCU was looking into the matter that sheriff got my full support.”

    Your assumptions are wrong (Yglesias knows that guns poll well in Alabama, and isn’t known for being anti-gun) and your willingness to vote for someone because they carry a gun on TV makes you look like an idiot, and an irresponsible one at that.

  29. Adobe Walls
    May 20th, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

    Mr wallamaarif while somewhat articulate your writing only demonstrate how incredibly dense you are. That you are hopelessly liberal to some extent explains this. Might I suggest that before responding to someone else’s comments that you read them several times. As conservative ways of thinking apparently completely baffles you to the point of negatively impacting your comprehension skills. I’ll not bother going over my reasoning point by point as I’ve no reason to believe you’d comprehend.

  30. Adobe Walls
    May 20th, 2010 @ 11:28 am

    Mr wallamaarif while somewhat articulate your writing only demonstrate how incredibly dense you are. That you are hopelessly liberal to some extent explains this. Might I suggest that before responding to someone else’s comments that you read them several times. As conservative ways of thinking apparently completely baffles you to the point of negatively impacting your comprehension skills. I’ll not bother going over my reasoning point by point as I’ve no reason to believe you’d comprehend.

  31. wallamaarif
    May 21st, 2010 @ 9:00 am

    Adobe,

    I love how conservatives so often assume liberals are unfamiliar with their ideas, or are incapable of grasping them.

    By the time I graduated high school I had read The Law, The Conscience of a Conservative, The Roots of American Order, Economics in One Lesson, The Road to Serfdom and Our Enemy: The State. I really started reading the stuff when I got to college, and when I worked at a right-wing thinktank in DC.

    Can’t comprehend? Shit, I’ve been paid by both the Claremont Institute and the American Enterprise Institute for my pearls of wisdom! (Admittedly, I’ve had a change of mind since then.)

    I’m a liberal because, after decades of reading and advocating conservative ideas, I found them too often wanting when tested against objective evidence. Also, I read through the Western Canon in grad school, which got me questioning my assurances about nearly everything, and honed my critical thinking skills.

    Which is a roundabout way of saying: you’re a jackass. Don’t make assumtions about that which you know nothing.

  32. wallamaarif
    May 21st, 2010 @ 4:00 am

    Adobe,

    I love how conservatives so often assume liberals are unfamiliar with their ideas, or are incapable of grasping them.

    By the time I graduated high school I had read The Law, The Conscience of a Conservative, The Roots of American Order, Economics in One Lesson, The Road to Serfdom and Our Enemy: The State. I really started reading the stuff when I got to college, and when I worked at a right-wing thinktank in DC.

    Can’t comprehend? Shit, I’ve been paid by both the Claremont Institute and the American Enterprise Institute for my pearls of wisdom! (Admittedly, I’ve had a change of mind since then.)

    I’m a liberal because, after decades of reading and advocating conservative ideas, I found them too often wanting when tested against objective evidence. Also, I read through the Western Canon in grad school, which got me questioning my assurances about nearly everything, and honed my critical thinking skills.

    Which is a roundabout way of saying: you’re a jackass. Don’t make assumtions about that which you know nothing.