Your Email:

Subject:

Message:
Entry: Who Is Matt Welch? Link: http://www.takimag.com/site/article/who_is_matt_welch#22304 Post contents: Tom, No, that's not quite it. I don't say at all that Welch's view don't matter. I just don't think Justin ever shows that they matter. As I see it, Justin's argument is: 1. Reason has been going downhill. See examples 1, 2, and 3 which all libertarians "should" agree on. 2. Welch is not a libertarian, but a self described liberal. So far, so good. Adequate examples proving both (though tinged with a bit of more-libertarian-than-thou bitterness). However, the case sort of stops there. If you want to make the case that Matt Welch's liberalness is bringing Reason down, then make it. I think it's an argument that could be made. But Justin doesn't (or does poorly). He just sort of assumes that "everyone knows that a liberal could NEVER run a libertarian magazine." Well, no, not everyone knows that. For my part, I'd argue it's not necessarily the case, but I'm not writing an article on it. Justin is. And he does so poorly. <blockquote>And yes, I know Reason’s people are unjustly put upon and called names by those whose libertarian credentials are far stronger than theirs, but you may have noticed that Reason has a way of unloading on people as well.</blockquote> This, I think, is very true, and I would have no problem if the argument were made in that context. <blockquote>Usually, as another commenter observed, the targets of their vilest words happen (by just a coincidence, I am sure) to be unpopular for other reasons—they’re religious (especially Catholic), conservative, or whatever. It takes exactly zero ounces of courage to expose the sins of those whom the establishment already despises.</blockquote> And it takes more courage to scream "neocon!" at the slightest sign of libertarian "impurity?" Call me old-fashioned, but I think this is a case where both paleo-libs and cosmotarians are both wrong. Sent at: 2008 05 16