Wednesday, April 22, 2009

The Real Amazon Controversy

Check out this horrifying summary here:

In this ambitious, accessible and intellectually nourishing policy treatise, New Republic senior editor Kaus proposes a plan to avoid the "end of equality" that threatens America as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. For equality and capitalism to coexist, Kaus argues, we must create a public life in which money has limited influence. Thus he calls for compulsory national service and universal health care, renovated public spaces and reformed politics. Maintaining equality would become government's goal. While he names his program "Civic Liberalism" and pitches it to Democrats, Kaus is no traditionalist. He reproves "Money Liberals" for pursuing, through tax legislation, chimerical "money equality." To integrate the ghetto "underclass" into society, he recommends a national jobs program that would transform the "welfare state" into the "work ethic state." Kaus believes that if we guarantee jobs to all, while discontinuing welfare compensation for the able-bodied who refuse employment, work will become America's ultimate common denominator. There's something here for everyone to disagree with, but with his crisp, metaphor-rich writing and his command of history and political philosophy, Kaus proves persuasive.

... "intellectually nourishing" ... "command of history" ... "crisp, metaphor-rich writing" ... "persuasive" ...

Is this Mickey Kaus we're talking about? If the North Korean media wrote this about Kim Jong Il, he'd probably ask them to tone it down a little.

Also, you might notice how Mickey's still writing about welfare, the underclass, and Money Liberals ... but the national jobs program, compulsory national service, renovated public spaces, and guaranteeing jobs to all? Not so much.

I mean, it's almost like he's just using a leftier-than-though ideology as a perch from which he can pursue his true ambition of ceaselessly attacking Democrats ...

p.s. Ha!

There's something here for everyone to disagree with

I think that's supposed to say that everyone could disagree with something in the book, but the way it's written it suggests that there's an aspect of the book that everyone on Earth will unite in disagreement with. That'd be quite an accomplishment, but if anyone could do it, it'd be Mickey.