No, he doesn’t.
He’s a good WRITER. His articles flow nicely, and are easy to follow… but they aren’t supported by data. He presents data that is related, but doesn’t actually constitute a logical support.
For his most recent piece, let me explain in detail, although to some degree I suspect this is futile.
He points out that the Neocons are the most intellectually consistent group of conservatives left. This is certainly true, as they actually have a basis in real intellectualism. There is some attempt at the core of it to make a real, coherent view of things. And really, I think that this is the thing that Yglesias actually means… not that they are truly consistent (as I suspect that he believes some of their views to be at odds with other views, as this is generally how you prove someone is wrong), but more that they at least CARE about being consistent. That is, they aren’t willing to just accept obviously contradictory perspectives, like Trump supporters are.
This is in stark contrast to the modern GOP, which is just an increasingly hypocritical and inconsistent mess of garbage. There is no actual logical framework within all the current crap fits. It’s self-contradictory, in the extreme, on everything.
Further, he interestingly also points out that the Neocons actually correctly pointed out, back in the 90’s, that this is what would happen to the GOP if they abandoned the intellectual underpinnings.
But the problem is that he then says, “It’s good that these guys are gone, because they are the most dangerous part of conservatism”. But this is entirely unsupported.
He points out bad things that happened as a result of their policy directives… but it does not logically follow that, because those bad things happened, that they are “objectively the most dangerous” conservative faction.
There are two fairly obvious points that makes this conclusion pretty obviously wrong. First, an intellectually consistent platform is inherently better than an inconsistent one (and one which simply does not care about inconsistency), because you can actually have a meaningful discussion with someone who respects intellectual consistency. You can point out inconsistencies, and in doing so, change their mind. If someone cares about logic and reality, then you can work with them and come to an understanding. This is, inherently, better than the alternative.
Second, and this one is the more obvious… is that some non trivial portion of the GOP, including the Trump administration itself, has essentially embraced authoritarianism and fascism. While we have not seen them actually seize power and implement that vision, YET, they are clearly being driven by those goals. And that faction is, objectively, more dangerous. Fascists started WWII. They murdered millions of people. Fascist authoritarians are infinitely worse than the Neocons.
Again, it goes back to this idea that, “Well, they haven’t actually destroyed the world YET, so they’re not as bad.” No man, fascists are more dangerous. If you go back to Germany in 1930, you wouldn’t say “Oh, well the Nazi’s haven’t done anything bad YET, so whatever!”
I mean, that is in fact what people said back then… but that’s the point. They were WRONG.
(and we don’t even have to get into the fact that some of the stuff Yglesias says is objectively false, from a purely historical perspective… like his characterization of Russia invading Georgia as " the small nation found itself paying the price for aggressive action toward Moscow." Because that ain’t how it went down.)
