Facile

File these two under "intellectually dishonest":

1. Tom Friedman writes that "none of the leading presidential candidates has offered an energy policy that would include a tax on oil or carbon that could trigger a truly transformational shift in America away from fossil fuels." Kevin Drum points out that this is flatly untrue, and all the major Democratic candidates (but none of the Republicans) have proposed plans that include systems that are functionally equivalent to carbon taxes. Matt Yglesias points out that Tom Friedman is ignoring the facts in order to maintain his typical "pox on both houses" posture.

I think Yglesias has it right. It seems like a lot of mainstream media figures - major paper columnists, newscasters, etc. - think that if they report facts that are favorable to either Democrats or Republicans, they'll either lose their jobs or be ignored by half the populace. So what they end up doing instead is ignoring facts and instead pretending that both sides of any debate have equal merit (or lack of merit, i.e. "pox on both houses"), which of course frees either side of any debate to be as radical as they want and never be afraid that someone's going to call them out on it. This balancing act is a huge source of intellectual dishonesty in our public discourse.

2. Mike Boyer pooh-pooh's David Brooks' column about the elitism of single China's governing party, which funnels top college grads into a framework where they control both business and the government. But look, Boyer says, he U.S. is just the same! Ivy league grads dominate the ranks of CEOs and national politicians alike, and the "revolving door" system means that the two groups are one and the same. Look, we're just like China!

Boyer should know better. Yes, top colleges are very important in both countries. The difference between China's system and ours is that, in America, the Ivy Leaguers who control the government are not the same Ivy Leaguers who control businesses. Yes, there is the "revolving door" system, but this system operates mainly for firms that live off the government dole (i.e. defense contractors). You don't see Bill Gates sitting in the Senate unless he's been called in to answer questions. And here's another important difference - even when American politicians do go into the business world, they don't do it while they are serving as elected leaders. Contrast this to China, where most companies of any significance are state-owned, and where politicians hence have direct control over most aspects of the economy.

Boyer goes on to gush about the enlightened new generation of Chinese leaders:

Not all [Chinese elite-college students] are selling out. Many of the very people who were reared to become a part of the system seek something better, something freer, and something more fulfilling. Give it time.

How charming. Maybe Boyer thinks this transition is going to happen all of a sudden, when one day the idealistic new generation takes the reins and shakes thinks up. Because the trend is certainly in the opposite direction. So far, all "giving China time" has done is allow us to watch a never-ending movie of unbroken unwavering Communist Party control.

Wanting to back to "strong horse" - and China is undoubtedly the world's strongest horse right now - is another important source of intellectual dishonesty. Might doesn't make right, but that doesn't stop columnists from wishing that it did.