What I Really Said at Heritage

lol, thats what you get for insulting Him.

I actually think this goes to David Henderson’s point that maybe we are getting to them. Your (AK’s) voice since the very begining of the financial correction has been one of clarity, sanity, and unimpeachable logic. It seems that your opponents tried to ignore you, as they had no other response, but as soon as they saw an opening to disparage and trash you, they took it. Even if they had to expose their own politically correct and racial oversensitivities to do it.

Get used to it. It has become virtually impossible to present a coherent critique of liberalism and its public policies without someone calling you racist. That only indicates how empty (and dangerous) modern liberalism has become.

Keep the good stuff coming!

To me, “thug” means a hooligan or some kind of a brutish criminal. If someone hears “thug” and immediately assumes that the speaker means a hooligan or a brutish criminal of a particular race, doesn’t that speak more to the bias of the listener?

Then again, maybe they really meant that referring to Paulson and his cronies as thugs besmirches the good name of the robbers and murderers of the Thuggee Cult in India. . .

So you didn’t say that your daughter’s heritage was being stolen by Obama?

It’s pretty obvious who makes race the issue here.

Anyone reading your posts (and presumably listening to your talk) fully would know that you referenced World War I when it came to reparations – possibly because you had been reading about the subject recently?

When any uber-thesaurus-clinging blogger from a distant website, and even further ideology, takes potentially incindiary words completely out of context to confirm their own warped biases – You know you have arrived Mr. Kling!

I’m sorry this writer is sullying this debate by pointless racial diversion. I have been reading your contributions (and listening, for example on Econtalk) and it does not even seem within your character or philosophy to level the coy criticism for which you are accused.

It isn’t fair. You won’t get an apology.

These are ugly political times and I admire your courage in being an active spokesperson in the midst of them. Let me add my voice to the side that sees your behavior as vindicated throughout this kerfuffle.

Here’s the quote from Heritage…

Kling begins somberly: “I think about the stimulus as an economist but I feel it as a father. … [The Obama Administration] is destroying my daughters’ future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs. That’s how I feel, now back to how I think.”

Seems to me you’re a decent guy with an unfortunate quote now being pimped by NRO – so t’would seem the ball’s in your court to correct the record and clarify your position vis-a-vis Bush/Obama, both stimuli packages and the relevancy of your feelings.

I blame the Esquimeaux.

Thank you for addressing one of two points that Wolcott made. The other, more damning, accusation referred to your describing the stimulus plan as “reparations in disguise.”

Care to clarify?

Perhaps my earlier comment is somehow disappearing because I’ve been including a link to the URL for Conn Carroll’s Foundry blog post over at the Heritage Foundation site, which was the source for Sullivan’s and Wolcott’s remarks. I’ll omit it here.

I simply wanted to argue that your problem seems to be with Conn Carroll, not Andrew Sullivan or James Wolcott. If Carroll misquoted you as badly as you’re implying, he owes everyone a prominent apology. If he quoted you accurately, then I believe that the censure you’ve received for those ill-chosen and strangely subjective words was justifiable and deserved.

Just when I thought I might try reading Andrew Sullivan again…

The blog at Heritage quotes Kling as saying:

“I think about the stimulus as an economist but I feel it as a father. … [The Obama Administration] is destroying my daughters’ future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs. That’s how I feel, now back to how I think.”

While Wolcott quotes:

“Barack Obama is destroying my daughter’s future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs.”

Intuitively to me there is a big difference between calling Obama out by name as a thug and merely referring to the Obama Administration, and from the sounds of it, it is Wolcott who is out of order here.

I’m sorry, you can’t call a politician a thug because he’s black?

Watch me.

And mind you, if you criticize me for criticizing the Obamessiah, I will call you sexist.

Touchy lot, ain’t they. I guess if I were demanding a brazillion* dollars worth of taxpayer money before the Earth explodes into a hundred thousand pieces! I’d be a little on edge too.

*From an old joke about George W Bush, in which he is informed that two Brazilian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, and bursts into tears, and then at some length inquires of the messenger: and how many in a brazillion, exactly?

Mussolini was black.

you guys seem to be going over the top defending any racist charges thrown at AK.
The main point of the articles that I read were talking about AK’s hypocrisy on the merits of Keynesian stimulus of today compared to AK circa 2000.

the mis-quoting was unfortunate (and it sounded bad because of the insinuation that bad things were happening to his daughter caused by Obama, not the specific thug comment) but not the meat of the argument.

I would be interested in knowing why AK thinks that stimulus was ok in 2000 but is suddenly stealing from future generations in 2009 and a horrible idea?

Arnold,

Just don’t say the Republican stimulus package is niggardly.

@daniel rotter

Referring to forceful government takings (i.e. a huge arbitrary bill that puts future generations into greater debt) as “thuggish” is very common amongst libertarian circles.

You are correct that someone can pay taxes while also living off them. However, Arnold was talking about a general trend/correlation–not a logically exclusive condition, as you errantly suggest.

@misread

There is nothing in Sullivan’s nor Wolcott’s post about the year 2000. You must be reading completely different articles.

@Arnold

There’s probably a strong confirmation bias going on with your words. People will read into them whatever they want. Personally, I wouldn’t take seriously a man who accuses you of “[i]diotically hyperbolic and baseless” caricatures in the same post in which he writes this passage: “No wonder so many would-be Wolverines in the right blogs are talking about stocking up on assault rifles and ammo–they’ve got ransackers running wild in their imaginations too. I urge these people to confront their racial fears, think of Scarlet Johansson and strawberry snowflakes and the musical numbers in Rent”

As for Sullivan…well, he’s been a great blogger for a very long time and probably will continue to be one. Since “discovering” Obama, however, he loves the man like his own child and will defend him from almost any criticism. I’m just surprised he didn’t nominate you for a Malkin Award.

When I read Arnold’s original “reparations” comment, I figured it would make someone cringe. But you’d really have to be lunatic fringe to be that someone, thinking that the only historical meaning of the word was “40 acres and a mule”.

I think what Arnold is getting at with the thug comment is the old football maxim, “when you get to the end zone, act like you’ve been there before”. Obama isn’t acting like he’s been there.

I still think Henry Paulson should have his name attached to the “Paulson Panic” in all of the history books. What he did was absolutely inexcusable.

Barack Obama is following through with more completely stupid ideas. I think that “group of thugs” pretty well covers what they are doing. Like Arnold, I feel violated because they are stealing my money and I can do nothing about it. Actually they are taking the money from my grandkids and that makes me even more angry.

To be safe, never criticize President Obama.

I just read the Wolcott piece. Wow. Unbelievable. He claims to be an editor and he doesn’t know what the word reparation means?

As someone previously wrote, Wolcott is the one who is bringing race into it.

This post is called “What I really said at Heritage,” but you don’t include what you really said. I read your post before I read Walcott’s and I didn’t think it was fair to call what you said race-baiting.

And then I read Walcott’s post. You said: “Barack Obama is destroying my daughter’s future. It is like sitting there watching my house ransacked by a gang of thugs.” That’s National Review’s account. So why not admit to what you actually said, if there was nothing wrong with it?

Steve Sailer on 02-12-09 @ 1:19 AM

“To be safe, never criticize President Obama.”

I am surprised this edict has not been signed into law. :’)

Arnold,

Your reputation precedes you. I know these allegations are false. I stand behind you (for what that is worth).

On Cato unbound, there is a discussion of the virtues of partisanship. Right…

It is always shocking to me to discover how many people are so team oriented that they project their attitudes to their “opponents.” They apear to believe that everyone who criticizes the Obama administration must be willng to defend the Bush administration.

Even more troubling, many people are simply unaware of the real disgust that many fiscal conservatives, and especially free market economists, felt regarding out of control Republican spending over the last eight years, and especially about the Bush/Paulson response to fiscal crises during the Fall.

Suddenly, we see posts claiming that Cheney is Kling’s hero. Or asking where was Kling regarding the Paulson bailout or even the Iraq war.

Of course, Kling was here. But somehow, his criticism of the Bush administration were off the radar screen of these critics.

In this situation, we appear to see that a Republican partisan quoted Kling selectively–leaving off Kling’s criticisms of Paulson–and only leaving in criticism of the Obama administration.

Anyway, for any pro-Obama partisans who bother to read these comments– I supported some of the Bush tax cuts in 2001, but opposed his spending plans. I favored cutting spending to balance the budget. I opposed going to war in Irag, and, I confess, soon came to hate Cheney, especially, and later Bush, because of this matter. As spending raced out of control year after year, my disgust with Republicans in Congress, and with the administration grew. Cheney and Bush’s theory of unlimited executive authority were horrible. I opposed the Paulson bailout and considered Bush and Paulson’s behavior last fall to be abysmal.

I was willing to give Obama a chance. I don’t favor fiscal stimulus and believe that monetary policy can still maintain aggregate spending. Still, I had hoped that the administration would generate a fiscal stimulous program like that suggested by Alice Rivlin. But, that didn’t happened. We got the plan from Pelosi. And after Obama gave his crisis mongering speech. (Don’t think, we need to pass every Democrat initiative from the last decade now or we wil have a great Depression,) Obama sank in my estimation to something like Bush and Cheney’s level.

There are plenty of free market economists who look at things more or less as I do. Not all of us put on blinders, pick one of the two teams, and then root or boo.

@Mike: “But it has become clear to me from much forum-lurking over the last couple of years that “thug” has become a common descriptive term aimed at male black criminals or accusees by presumably white posters, while it is seldom used when describing white males in the same position.”

Clearly you’ve never been anywhere near Charlestown, Somerville, Dorchester, or the set of any other Mark Wahlberg movie.

Arnold, I think it is safe to safe to say, while remaining civil, that such accusations are silly and that even responding to such criticisms is beneath you.

No serious person could possibly think your remarks had anything to do with Obama’s race, and anyone making such a claim forfeits their right to be taken seriously.

“Wolcott’s strongest point is that this “thug” imagery was never employed when Republicans were raiding the treasury, horribly mismanaging our finances, and flushing US taxpayer money down the toilet in Iraq.”

I believe that Arnold has previously compared Hank Paulson to Mussolini, so this complaint appears to be off target. Additionally, I believe Arnold has said that he isn’t intellectually opposed to a stimulus package, but he doesn’t believe this bill is a stimulus package. It’s a payoff to a bunch of interest groups. It’s not a very complicated point.

Reading the comments is always interesting. I think the problem here is the Republican “southern strategy”, pioneered in Nixon’s days. Now the south is reasonably solid for the GOP. Yet white people in the south voted for Obama at a significantly lesser rate than white people in the north and west. Could you characterize this as being related to his race? I’m sorry to say that I certainly think so. I’ve been to Mississippi quite a bit these last few years of my life, and the racism there is far more obvious than it is here in Illinois (though there is plenty of racism white v. black and vice versa here too). I am afraid it is the republican party’s history of deliberately appealing to whites over blacks in the south that is creating this uber sensitivity. It seems to me an easy enough thing to deal with in your posts. Simply define your terms better. Say what you think a thug is and then characterize those you see as thugs. I often think of that word when reading the NRO’s Corner site. They seem quite “brutish” to me. Brutish in the sense that they deliberately overstate for emotional reasons the way a “brute” throws his weight behind his anger. Was that so tough?

And seriously, all these tiny arguments over how people write their arguments without actuallydealing with the argument is making me bummed out. Quibbling and using the little stuff to denigrate things you don’t agree with. Reminds me of the sds’ers I knew in the sixties. Yech.

Arnold, as a black person and a conservative, I don’t think either post is racist. However, the average person, at first blush, is more likely to associate the word “reparations” in its modern public policy context — regardless of the race of the current president. I know a little bit about history, and the World War II connection wouldn’t have immediately came to mind.

At the same time, your main point is true: the stimulus package is being used to satisfy many outstanding items on the Democrats policy shelf — partly overturning welfare reform, initiating health care overhaul. One would think that these big-ticket issues would have been better targets for the GOP minority rather than the various “pork” items that they focused on.

Yet white people in the south voted for Obama at a significantly lesser rate than white people in the north and west. Could you characterize this as being related to his race?

Sure it can. Up here in the Northeast I know lots of people who were eager to vote for Obama because he’s black and it would be a historic event that would regain America respect from European countries (who would never ever elect a minority to such a high office, of course). So, yeah, I think lots of people in the North and West voted for obama because of his race – which we are to accept as good. NOT voting for him because of his race is “bad”. I think both are pathetic.

You imply that the only reason more people didn’t vote for Obama in the South is because they’re racist. Because, obviously, that’s the only thing on anyone’s mind during an election. The fact that the man is the most left-leaning candidate the Dems have produced in recent memory obviously had nothing to do with the decision to not vote for him? I lived in the South for many years before moving to the Northeast. In my experience, people are far more racist in the Northeast than in the South and in the most insidious way – rich whites treat black people and their “problems” as their pets. How imperious.

With all this outrage over anything that could possibly be perceived as racist toward blacks, why is there no similar outrage over the anti-semitism among blacks and comments like racist slurs like “cracker” and “honkey”? Are we upset about racism or are blacks the just a protected group like a species on the endangered list?

I think Bob Murphy has said the smartest thing in this entire comment thread. As is so often the case, a little humor can carry a lot of truth.

Look, like it or not, people hear and read a lot of meaning into words. I almost never use niggardly because too many people misunderstand it. It’s really not the end of the world for me, and it’s not hurting my back to bend a little backwards to show some sensitivity, even if they’re wrong and I’m right to use it as a synonym for cheap.

Similarly, it is disingenuous to pretend that no one should hear thug without some people hearing a racist codeword. The fact is, the word has been used for exactly that purpose for at least a couple of decades now. Not by everybody, not always, but not never, either.

I grant that there is some hysteria among Obama supporters, being rabbit-eared for racist speech. But there’s an obvious reason why that is so, and why it’s entirely understandable, even if it’s not always correct.

It really isn’t the end of the world to restrict oneself from using thug in connection with Obama. To show this extra bit of sensitivity and awareness does not at all mean that you’re forbidden from criticizing him. Be your age, Steve Sailer and others.

I’ll tell you one more thing for free: it has been my experience throughout my entire life that those who howl the loudest when being chastised for using a problematic word tend overwhelmingly to be the ones most likely to want to slip in some real racist sentiments with their words. If this does not describe you, then just calm yourself, realize that there are half a million words in the English language alone, and find some other ones to use to express your disagreements with our first black president.

@Brendan Keefe

If “thug” is now not acceptable what is an acceptable replacement? Or is it the case of “Could the last politically correct word switch off the light”.

mike:

I can assure you that most people probably don’t know who this Wolcott fellow was. Before yesterday I’d never heard of him, and I read alot of blogs.

And do explain how Kling was a Bush enabler.

Mr.King I feel the same way. Who the hell are any of these politicians/thugs/thieves to sign my 3 year old daughter’s name to an IOU for how ever much money. The same with the WW2 generation signing my name on to pay for their bloated pensions and pay for government employees and programs. But if I protest that I never signed a promissory not or voted for anyone who supported these programs, men with guns will come kill me and take all my belongings.

The funny thing is that Wolcott actually links to AK’s “reparations” post in which AK references reparations in the context of WWI Germany. So now AK has to factor in other people’s ignorance of history when writing a blog entry? Welcome to the lowest-common-denominator society, folks.

I suppose, clay m, that a libertarian would respond first that it is not the job of the government to dictate personal beliefs, and second that true equality will not be achieved by treating people differently based on their race. Indeed, failure to apply different standards to different people based on race, gender, etc. would seem to be the new racism.

Is there a list somewhere of words that we are permitted to use? Perhaps the new administration will help us regulate the content of our speech. That would surely be a doctrine of fairness. . .

“Look, libertarians have been positively snotty regarding racism since forever. Libertarians have claimed the problems don’t exist, ignored the problems, or blamed the state for it.

If you want people to stop assuming you’re all a bunch of racists, maybe you should stop sniping at black Americans and start talking about making constructive steps. ”

There’s a reason they were called Jim Crow Laws. They weren’t Jim Crow suggestions. Libertarians don’t argue that government caused racism (read Zinn for that argument) but that government facilitated it by violating property rights through discriminatory laws. And sorry; laws that say who one has to allow onto one’s property is a violation of property rights as well.

Change is the responsibility of society, not of government.

Someone please explain to me why a group that has been so constantly screwed by the government doesn’t have more libertarians.

So what are libertarians going to do about racism in society? Saying “not government” isn’t enough. How are you going to improve society then?

I moved here from the Soviet Union to get away from a government imposing its “society improvements” on me. You only have control over yourself. If you want to improve society so badly stop being a sanctimonious twit who wrongly believes that he is in possession of a monopoly on morality with the only copy of a key to the ideal society. That would be a great start.

No, I’m serious. Government = bad. I get it.

Now tell me how you’re going to confront racism in society. I can tell you a hundred non-governmental ways. It’s not hard. Just say it. Show you care about people more than you hate government. Make libertarianism about a living better world for everybody.

Here is a link to the Denver Post article published last year which quotes a Bill Clinton associate as saying that Clinton thought Obama has the political instincts of a “Chicago thug”.

I’m sure Clinton himself would never say anything like that when the microphone was hot, though…

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_10302512

@Kit:

If “thug” is now not acceptable what is an acceptable replacement?

In the context that AK used it, how about thieves, robbers, or crooks?

Or is it the case of “Could the last politically correct word switch off the light”.

As I observed earlier, there are something like half a million words in the English language alone. Don’t blame others for your own limited vocabulary, especially when thesauruses are available online for free.

@Christopher Witmer:

… I had never equated black people with thugs until I read your post …

Sorry. I don’t find an argument from incredulity very compelling. You might think about getting out more, or at least look to broaden your reading habits. This use has been a common codeword since at least the days when hip-hop was called rap and white people were starting to fret about the lyrics. In the meantime, I accept your implied thanks for increasing your awareness just a little bit.

To repeat what I said before, it’s not a question of whether “thug is a racist codeword” is an objectively true statement or not. What matters is that a non-trivial fraction of the population hears thug that way, so it should not be a surprise when use of that word produces blowback, particularly as AK did, in conjunction with his (white) daughter and the image of home invasion. It’s up to you whether you think being sensitive to others is worth anything or not, but to my mind, insisting on one’s “right” to say thug is no different from insisting that one means nothing untoward by using lynch, colored, or uppity.

@Christopher Witmer and @kit:

Just to let you know, I responded at some length to both of your comments a few hours ago, but it appears that (1) the spam filter didn’t like what I had to say and (2) nobody’s looking in the spam folder for false alarms.

This comment is also intended to see whether the spam filter is being triggered by my name, or whether it was just the content (links, maybe?) of my previous comment.

[Hi, Brendan. The comments are posted now–6 a.m. The problem was one of the links–in this case, skepticwiki.org. The settings on the spam filter have to be strong enough to keep out the worst of the spam when I’m not available. Even I have to step away from the computer now and then! I’m experimenting with some solutions, and I hope you’ll see an improvement soon. As for filtering on names–we email people to discuss matters before banning them, so you’d have known if it was that.–Econlib Ed.]

Thanks for digging my earlier comment out of the spam folder, AK.

This use has been a common codeword since at least the days when hip-hop was called rap and white people were starting to fret about the lyrics. In the meantime, I accept your implied thanks for increasing your awareness just a little bit.

Wow. What an ego. Has it ever occurred to you that some of us weren’t as into gangster rap as you were back in the day and that we won’t allow language to be kidnapped by one subculture?

If all negative words are somehow related to black people for you, you really shouldn’t foist that on the rest of the population. When I think of a thug, I think of government and the mafia. That’s the problem with the thought police, different words have different meanings to different people.

If we can’t criticize the Obama administration using the English language because he is black, then that’s a pretty sound argument against electing black people. If you treat Obama differently from any other president because he’s black, then you’re racist. It probably never occurred to Arnold – as it wouldn’t occur to me – to filter his thoughts through your racist filter because Obama’s skin colour is the last thing on his mind.

but to my mind, insisting on one’s “right” to say thug is no different from insisting that one means nothing untoward by using lynch, colored, or uppity.

There is a significant difference, as the latter words have a history of being used against that subculture, while the first word was voluntarily adopted by the subculture for its own uses.

If Jews decide start calling each other “boomers” does that mean that Gentiles cannot use that word any more, because it’s become some kind of anti-Semitic codeword?

Yo, Brendan, ain’t nobody on the fainting couch but you. George posted the actual comments and ‘eagerness and hysteria’ only describes those on a pc racist witchhunt to find what is clearly not there. Of course, you and yours are on the high horse and in the saddle now cloaked with the righteous mantle of ‘racial justice’, but things will change.

In the meantime, the majority of Americans had to put up with Lowery’s racist comments at the inaugural. Regardless, what I really want to know is why all the guilty white liberals voted for the suave, bland and debonair American mulatto copy of the real thing. After all, Robt. Mugabe is 100% black, 100% African, 100% socialist, 100% marxist, 100% racist and 100% experienced at ruining an economy. And as soon as the IMF/WF/UN pointy heads and blue helmets get it together, Roberto will be available and we can get rid of that token white boy Geithner at Treasury.

Of course, maybe the GWL’s haven’t figured it out yet. The dollar is green. That’s the real color issue. The only way the govt. gets any money, is by taxing, borrowing or printing it out of thin air. IOW the govt. doesn’t have any money of its own. Anybody who thinks that they can get more money from the govt.- “stimulus” or otherwise – than they pay in taxes, still believes in the tooth fairy. (Translation: it’s ok to steal from other taxpayers as long as the govt. does it for you.)

The only real economic stimulus, besides what the market would have taken care of itself – and we have not had a genuine free market economy since the fascist controls and regulations of the New Deal in the 1930’s – is bolstering the production of wheelbarrows and toilet paper. The first to carry all the inflated currency and the second for the Fed. Reserve to print all the money on.

IOW the stimulus (ripoff) pkg. is, in W. William’s phrase, ‘just more boo bait for the bubbas’.
Yeah, I know. Walter Williams is a racist. And like what else is new?

You achieve inner peace when you realize that you cannot control other people.

Unfortunately others spend much of their time trying to control you.

@P.M.Lawrence:

Thanks for nig-nog. Never heard that one before. ‘Course, I’m not sure everyone agrees with you that it only means what you say it means (NB: four links).

I don’t accept your narrow definition of cheap. Perhaps where you come from it’s not used this way, but in every part of the US I’ve lived in, it has always been commonly used as synonymous with niggardly. Maybe thinking of the term cheapskate will help?