I just read a statement in your book "The Argument" where you said that conservatives "ended up running up deficits that would have been unimaginable to Jimmy Carter."
I wonder what your opinion is of the deficits under the Obama administration?
I just tossed your book in the recycling. At least I supported the used book store where I bought it, and it will serve a better purpose as recycled paper.
- Dave Thomas
Good to support used bookstores while we still have them. Good to recycle for the environment, while we still have one. A win-win all around.
I have to say, Dave, I marvel at the way you seem to have read a book critical of Democratic ideas on every other page and come away focused on a single line that holds Republicans accountable. Sign of the times, I guess. People see only that which confirms their expectations--which must be comforting on some level, but probably makes for a boring intellectual existence. Go buy Rush Limbaugh's latest--you won't be disappointed.
- Matt Bai
on July 17, 2010
Hi Matt, I read your interesting article on Obama in this past Sunday magazine. I believe there is an error in it. One that others have made and one which drives me crazy as a non-Rahm enthusiast (Howard Dean supporter). You seemed to give Rahm credit for the success of the Dems in 2006. Howard Dean's 50 State strategy I believe was the cause of the Dems most recent success (and Obama's) and Rahm fought him tooth and nail about it, though when it was a success he never corrected anyone who gave him credit. Nevertheless, I always enjoy your views and insight look forward to more.
- Diane Young
Thanks, Diane. Let me just say that I doubt there's any writer at a major paper or magazine or who's given Governor Dean more of a hearing or more credit than I have. You may recall my writing a cover piece on the 50-state strategy during that campaign, and I wrote about it in my book, and I wrote this after the election: http://www.mattbai.com/node/256.
Now, having said that, I think there's plenty of credit to go around here, and I do believe that no one deserves more of it for that victory than Rahm Emanuel. Governor Dean's stand was, I think, important for the long-term health of the party, and Barack Obama has built on it. But as far as 2006 itself goes, I would argue that Rahm made the most critical contribution simply by recruiting the right candidates for those districts. Republicans are finding out how hard that is to do right now, and it may cost them control in November.
Thanks for reading, and I hope you'll follow my new column in the paper, either at the Times site or by subscribing to me on twitter.
- Matt Bai
on June 25, 2010
I HAVE CAVED TO TECHNOLOGY
Don't we all? Wanted to let readers know that you can now get links to my column on Twitter. No 10-second-old pearls of wisdom or updates on my coffee consumption or TV watching habits. Just links. Please follow--thanks.
8000 words and not a single one of them about politics. What a talent you have. Did you learn to be insubstantial at Harvard, Yale or Princeton? You are really good at it, I must say.
- Louis Proyect
(Louis is referring to my cover piece titled "Democrat-in-Chief?")
Actually, Louis, it was Tufts and Columbia, if you must know, but regardless of where I was educated, it appears my reading comprehension skills have got to be better than yours. The whole thing was about politics, obviously.
- Matt Bai
on June 13, 2010
ANNOUNCEMENT: FOR EVERYTHING THERE IS A SEASON....
I've hinted at this briefly in some of my responses, but here's the deal: after eight really terrific years of writing only for the Times Magazine, which is as much a journalistic home to me as I've ever had, I'm moving over to the paper. Beginning at the end of May, I'll be writing a political column in the news pages, though I'll continue to write a few long pieces a year for the magazine. What this means for this site, I'm not exactly sure yet. I doubt it will be practical (or legal, perhaps) to post all my columns here, although of course I will have a page for that on the Times site. Hopefully i'll still be able to answer all your questions and comments in this space. But until I get all that figured out, please do check out the column, and please check bag for updates here, and thank you, as always, for your interest and conviction.
Matt, I thought your piece in today's NYT Mag ("An Out-of-Office Message for Republican Candidates") was right on the mark. Your usual insights. Perhaps Thune or Daniels, perhaps others who are quietly thinking that sooner or later people are going to want to see a serious candidate who has heft and actual experience in dealing with trading off between various "goods." I also enjoyed "when the vast Alaska frontier became too confining for her ambition" as well as staying in office "not nearly long enough to have left any traceable residue of government." Made me think of that master of irony, Edward Gibbon, and Decline and Fall, what with that modest and quiet devastation. Thanks for all.
- Roger Soder
Thanks, Roger, that's really kind of you. Edward Gibbon! Who wouldn't take that comparison? As it happens, this was my last column in the front of the magazine. I'll soon be taking my act as a columnist into the pages of the daily paper, instead, and will post an update here soon for anyone interested. Thanks again.
- Matt Bai
on May 3, 2010
Matt, very interesting article but I find it a little bit of a stretch (and a "little" insulting) to say that if one does not like the 17th Amendment then they must also be against women's right to vote in the 15th amendment. You should be careful. Statements like those really don't make your articles stronger, they make them weaker by ensuring that a reader on the fence stops reading dead in their tracks.
- Doug Baggett
(Doug is referring here to my latest magazine column, on the Republican argument against health care, in which I said this: "Representative Louie Gohmert, a Texas Republican, suggested last month that it might be time to eliminate the direct election of senators and let state legislatures choose them instead, as they did before the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Perhaps he’d like to roll back women’s suffrage while he’s at it." I'll post it on the site shortly.)
Doug, this may surprise you to know, but my editor and I had a fairly detailed conversation about the very point you've raised. It wasn't an argument, by any means: we were just talking through whether it was fair to connect the two things, even sarcastically. In the end, we decided it was, because women's suffrage and the direct election of senators came out of the same progressive reform agenda in the early part of the last century, and if you opposed one, you very likely opposed the other. The main point here is that it's foolish to suggest we should roll back the clock to a time when voters had less freedom and power generally.
That said, I could argue it your way as well. So while I think I'm right, I don't reject your point. Thanks for writing.
- Matt Bai
on April 11, 2010
p. 26,para. 2/the argument....by radically conservative ideology, are you speaking of our Constitution?
- Terry
Let me just repeat the line in question from my book, Terry, so that others may interpret your cryptic message. I wrote of the change in the nation's political calibration:
"It was the result of a deliberate, stealthy campaign waged and funded by a relatively small number of wealthy white men whose only real political allegiance was to a radically conservative ideology."
Well Terry, I'm no legal scholar, but last time I checked there was nothing in the Constitution that prevents the federal government from regulating commerce, protecting consumers, redistributing income or recognizing and enforcing civil rights. So to the extent that anyone believes that these functions are violations of our rights as citizens, then yes, that sounds radical to me, and no, I don't think it casts aspersions on the Constitution, which is as fine a document as was ever written or ever will be. (Though perhaps not as awesome as the Declaration of Independence.)
I appreciate your reading the book. I expect you'll find some things in there you agree with and many that you don't.
- Matt Bai
on March 31, 2010
You have the makings of a book. I wrote an extensive e-mail to my family today after sending them your article. I ended up asking why the Supreme Court acts like it does and I ended with this: "The Court adheres slavishly to the precise words of the Constitution as it interprets it and common sense is abandoned resulting in the above absurdities. Over the past hundred years there has been much debate as to how rigidly the Bible (a sort of Constitution for many)should be interpreted (that word again) and while there are fundamentalists who believe the world was created in seven days, that humans were created then in our present form, that the world is
10,000 years old and so on, they have been almost universally discredited. Luckily, the minority does not get to set the rules. By contrast, The US Supreme Court, another literalist group and decidedly a minority (5 out of
9 jurists out of hundreds of millions of citizens), does get to set the rules." Now that is "dysfunctional" writ large!
I hope you go for it.
- Jack Tennier
Thanks for promoting my work, jack, although I have to admit to being a little confused. First, I didn't actually blame the Supreme Court. (I don't much like the campaign finance ruling, but then again, I probably forfeited my ability to critique court decisions when I opted against taking the LSATs.) And second, your note says you're in Toronto. Which is, you know, part of Canada. How about this: we'll give up our high court when you give up your queen.
Kidding aside, I appreciate the kind thoughts.
- Matt Bai
on March 8, 2010
While I do not always agree with your conclusions, I always appreciate your
careful consideration of political issues. But I was completely in
agreement with your recent op ed from yesterday's NYT. I don't know any
lobbyists but I fully expect that they are no more corrupt than the typical
politician or the typical voter.
I agree that "cash-in-paper-bag" transactions are probably pretty rare but I think you are placing too much blame on the electorate. Corrupt individuals are often likeable people -- witness Charlie Rangel -- and there is a huge personal cost for individuals voters to figure out the reality behind the friendly face that good politicians so often have.
When combined with the nearly limitless ability of human beings to self-justify self-serving actions (teacher unions fighting pay-for-performance "for the children"! or pro-business advocates arguing for corporate bailouts lest the "economy go under"!), we find ourselves facing a "culture of corruption" shared by Republicans and Democrats, shared by politicians and permanent staffers, shared by corporate America and environmentalists and unionists and every other "ist" we can imagine.
Even if I understand the nature of the problem and even if I understand the cause of the problem ("power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"), changing it seems an impossible task -- too many lobbyists and politicans and voters have too much to lose should power devolve away from the federal government back to individual citizens.
- Lee Nason
Thanks, Lee. I don't blame the voters at all. I just think they should continually demand the representation they deserve. Sometimes they even get it.
- Matt Bai
on March 8, 2010
