Charles Kozierok
Elite Member
In the ongoing argument over whether it is "trolling" to ask if the behavior of Christian conservatives is consistent with the behavior of Jesus, a point I have repeatedly made is that asking such questions is valid, and that the same applies to liberals and any other groups. Well, it hasn't taken long for an actual controversy to erupt that allows us to explore one portion of the other side of the coin.
The specific issue is the $1.2 million DC house purchased by liberal blogger Matt Yglesias. It took no time at all for right-wingers to decry this as an example of "limousine liberal" hypocrisy, and then, of course, for liberals to respond saying those criticisms are invalid.
I bring this up both so we can discuss the topic itself, and to demonstrate that such topics are entirely valid here, regardless of whom they criticize.
In terms of "condo-gate" itself (or whatever everyone has decided to call it), I find the arguments from both sides unpersuasive.
Conservatives are jumping to conclusions that Yglesias is a hypocrite solely because he supports liberal causes like income equality but obviously is earning more than an average wage. The implication is somehow that liberals are not allowed to make money, or that if they do, they should give it all to charity or something. It could well be that Yglesias would be fine with his own taxes being substantially higher; he also could give significantly to charity; we don't know. The obvious reference case here is Warren Buffett, a multi-billionaire who is on record as believing his own taxes should be higher.
Furthermore, this brings us back to the other discussion of Republicanism and Christianity. The very same argument being implied against Yglesias here could be applied to Republicans who make lots of money, because Jesus was arguably even less of a fan of the super-rich than liberals are.
As for the response to the conservatives, I've found much of it rather facile. One of the most common replies is typified by that of Paul Krugman:
Sorry, but no, he is not being attacked "simply for doing well". He's being attacked for the perception that his spending habits are not consistent with his political views. One can certainly argue against that, as I have above, but dismissing it as "attacking success" is hand-waving.
It's also worth pointing out that just as Krugman thinks it is unreasonable for right-wingers to "attack success" here when they didn't for people like Romney, it is likewise unreasonable if liberals attack Romney over his wealth but not liberals who are also well-to-do.
The specific issue is the $1.2 million DC house purchased by liberal blogger Matt Yglesias. It took no time at all for right-wingers to decry this as an example of "limousine liberal" hypocrisy, and then, of course, for liberals to respond saying those criticisms are invalid.
I bring this up both so we can discuss the topic itself, and to demonstrate that such topics are entirely valid here, regardless of whom they criticize.
In terms of "condo-gate" itself (or whatever everyone has decided to call it), I find the arguments from both sides unpersuasive.
Conservatives are jumping to conclusions that Yglesias is a hypocrite solely because he supports liberal causes like income equality but obviously is earning more than an average wage. The implication is somehow that liberals are not allowed to make money, or that if they do, they should give it all to charity or something. It could well be that Yglesias would be fine with his own taxes being substantially higher; he also could give significantly to charity; we don't know. The obvious reference case here is Warren Buffett, a multi-billionaire who is on record as believing his own taxes should be higher.
Furthermore, this brings us back to the other discussion of Republicanism and Christianity. The very same argument being implied against Yglesias here could be applied to Republicans who make lots of money, because Jesus was arguably even less of a fan of the super-rich than liberals are.
As for the response to the conservatives, I've found much of it rather facile. One of the most common replies is typified by that of Paul Krugman:
Sorry, but no, he is not being attacked "simply for doing well". He's being attacked for the perception that his spending habits are not consistent with his political views. One can certainly argue against that, as I have above, but dismissing it as "attacking success" is hand-waving.
It's also worth pointing out that just as Krugman thinks it is unreasonable for right-wingers to "attack success" here when they didn't for people like Romney, it is likewise unreasonable if liberals attack Romney over his wealth but not liberals who are also well-to-do.
