fighting poverty/positive rights

[Jeffrey Segal]

I have to disagree that the term "lefty" is pejorative (no less
McCarthyite!).

Moreover, the fact that Krugman is to the left of the spectrum is relevant
to the argument that free markets can alleviate poverty.  It would be
easier to dismiss such arguments if made by Milton Friedman or the Wall
Street Journal than coming Paul Krugman.

Jeff

Jeffrey Segal
Distinguished Professor and Chair
Department of Political Science
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794
phone 631-632-7662
fax 631-632-4116
jeffrey.segal at stonybrook.edu
http://www.sunysb.edu/polsci/jsegal/


                                                                           
             Robert Sheridan                                               
             <bobsheridan at eart                                             
             hlink.net>                                                 To 
                                       Jeffrey Segal                       
             04/21/2007 10:08          <jeffrey.segal at stonybrook.edu>      
             PM                                                         cc 
                                       conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: fighting poverty/positive       
                                       rights                              
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Having just noticed this discussion, I read the last few posts with
interest, because "positive rights" is a new term/idea to me esp. the
idea that judges should interpret contracts in accord with greater
societal needs, something our SC justices, some of them, have been
doing since Day One, to wit:  Marshall, CJ. in McCulloch, Gibbons,
and others.  The problem is that both sides claim 'greater societal
benefits,' in any contested case.

What dismayed me was the intro to the Paul Krugman ("a true lefty")
piece.

"Lefty" is a leftover pejorative from the now defunct (I'd thought)
Cold War/McCarthy Era period and it's loaded rhetoric.  It means "You
can disregard this guy, not take him seriously at all, because he's
the next best thing to a card-carrying Godless Communist, as in
Commie-Pinko-Red, as opposed to us God-fearing good all-American guys
who know a lot better."

I think it's a mistake to perpetuate this sort of rhetoric instead of
taking what the man says on the merits.  Unless that is, one is
looking for a job in the (moribund, imho) Bush administration.  I was
going to ask "How far left could PK be, considering that he's
published regularly in the NYT?" until I realized that people near
and dear to me refuse to read the Times in the belief it is too far
to the left and why endanger their far-right beliefs with anything
that may resemble fact or thought.  If only our MSM (their term for
mainstream media) would only print the TRUTH about Iraq, all the
little towns where people aren't being blown up daily, we'd be a lot
better off in supporting the troops and the war, is their position.
And I mean REALLY close people to me.

rs
sfls