But the criticism of the political analyst Chomsky doesn’t get much beyond the ad hominem or worse. And given that his major theses have a fairly broad sweep, one wouldn’t have to engage with him seriously at the detail level, but just critique the general ideas. In fact, the reverse tends to occur and critics cavil at Chomsky’s interpretation of this or that passage in the NYT or the Washington Post, almost as this would be a reductio ad absurdum of his ideas.

So if his ideas are so deplorable or vacuous then this shouldn’t be too hard to do. I could understand a defence of a charge of sloth if to rebut Chomsky one would have to go through his exhaustive (and exhausting) footnoted material.

To gloss Nicholas on liberty, eternal vigilance of the “guards or watchers” in particular. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes”. And this can be a very liberal interpretation of Chomsky’s entire political project.

But you guys on the right are getting it too easy these days – sadly. So you’re getting lazy. Like the left a generation ago. Sad really – in both cases.

Remember guys the price of liberty is eternal vigilance!

Though there’s nothing wrong with a bit of ad hominem – pointing out that so and so suppported Pol Pot or so and so other supported Adloph Hitler (eg Heidegger) once it’s done people should presumably be debating the merits of people’s arguments with the ad hominem stuff as a backdrop.

The kind of thing that I hate I liken to what happens in adolescent peer groups, where all the focus is on what tribe you belong too, how ‘cool’ and ‘in’ you are and all things are reduced to this. That’s a poisonous style of anti-reasoning it seems to me.

And of course it’s exploited by those who feel themselves in a strong position. This was the left when I was young, so all sorts of left mannerisms were about – embarrassment about making money or seeming to say anything derogatory about any minority group (however true or false) and any number of other things.

Now the right, having successfully taken on the left on this score, and having landed some telling blows, is on top and so takes naturally to this kind of talk which is essentially peer group dynamic driven tribalism – not rational argument. Neville’s comment above that “there can be no doubt that the AFR writer is at the extreme end of left wing politics” is a case in point.

I was going more on that, since that was the specific piece you mentioned.

I still think it is abit rich to compare poor Krugman to Chomsky, though!

I didn’t mean that Nicholas was arguing ad hominem. Or ad ignorantiam for that matter.

Rather, the “nit picking” mode of arguing he was inveighing against I don’t think is an ad hominem argument as I understand.

But it could possibly be stretched to an ad ignorantiam. But I’m not too sure about this. Hence, my suggestion that we need a new label for this increasingly common style of essentially tendentious reasoning.

NRO is National Review Online.

Well, the sluggish economy was kick-started, wasn’t it? And I’m pretty sure that, back in the days when anyone read him (ie pre-TimesSelect) he did argue that they would increase the deficit in the long-term, something probably never achieved by tax cuts.

Or alternatively, how about “fellatious”?

I’ve thought about the role and responsibility of our media in our democracy a bit lately. And yes government regulation is a danger, but fragrantly biased reporting in a highly concentrated market has its own dangers. A very thorny issue but very interesting and deserving of deep consideration given how Western democracies are evolving. Paul Ginsborg in his short book on Berlusconi raises some relevant issues given Italy’s recent political and electoral experience with the “la Forzo di Silvio”.

I haven’t seen the Krugman interview. Damn. Good comeback there. No “l’esprit de l’escalier” for the great Paul. And skirting along the precipice of defamation too…

Patrick, who or what is NRO?

And PK didn’t argue that the tax cuts were “suicide”. Just the wrong cuts (to Bush’s rich base rather than to those with a greater propensity to consume) to kick start the sluggish economy. And also presented and sold dishonestly.

Also, Nicholas’s point is not even close to an argument ad hominem. Perhaps an argument ad ignorantum given the way that our eco journo wrote his post.

I suggest the neologism a ‘Foxing’ instead of a review. Why aren’t our classical liberal friends shouting the outrage of Fox news from the rooftops?

Even if one thinks that there’s no role for the state in correcting the problem, it’s hard to think of anything more damaging to a half way decent democracy than a major news outlet simply being given over to bias, misinformation, and propaganda.

Still amidst all the harrassment of his interview with that arsehole interviewer on Fox – I can’t remember his name – Krugman got in the best line. Called a ‘quasi socialist’ Krugman fired back something like “I’m a ‘quasi-socialist?’. Well then you’re a quasi-murderer.”

Never mind that Krugman, who is at least occasionally just partisan and consequently idiot,* but doubtlessly less so than his critics, is at least a recognised and decorated expert in economics. Whereas the review you refer to is not a review of Chomsky’s work on language.

But the wordphrase is ‘attacks ad hominem.’**

* Didn’t he expound the view that Bush’s tax cuts were economic suicide? Even that tax cuts inevitably increased deficits?

**Apologies to the latin scholars, but the phrase is received into English, hence my inability to conjugate to the plural, or even to know if I ought, need not distress you.

I’m a big fan. Amazing how much PK manages to compress into a column, of quite complex material.

There is an interesting article on his “unofficial” site that describes his process in writing an op-ed piece.

Aside from being a poor arguing gambit, the “Havana” line is pretty piss weak. How didn’t it get edited out?

My view is that invariably Chomsky gets similar treatment. Eg review of his latest in last week’s Observer. As Rodney Rude once declaimed, “Hey usher, this bastard’s got nits!”

Is there a word for such “non-reviews”? If not someone should neologize….

Terry McCrann and Ross Gittins, to me, fall into the “economic journalist” category. They are both adequately qualified, Terry in economics, and Ross in accounting, but they’re not quite in the same league as Paul. :)