Who are the up-and-comings? Drake Bennett has the answers. He covers Luigi Zingales, W. Bradford Wilcox, Megan McArdle, and Reihan Salam.
The next generation of conservative (broadly) thinkers
Previous post: *A Happy Marriage*
Next post: The trip so far
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.
Megan McArdle…. really?
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.
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.
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.
Zingales and maybe McArdle strike me as a good development. The others are the next generation of big government social engineers.
“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.
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.
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.
Libertarian thinker–seems like an oxymoron. I mean their opinions are so predictable.
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.
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.
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!
The article lost my interest early on by fingering Milton Friedman as a conservative.
Comments on this entry are closed.