Michael Kinsley is a longtime political journalist and commentator. More
This post is part of our forum on Michael Kinsley's October cover story exploring the legacy of the Baby Boomers and what they owe the country. Follow the debate here.Eric Liu has always been a higher-minded person than me. He still wants to see the Boomer generation involved in active public service, whereas I am willing to settle for cash. Trouble is, I think my fellow Boomers share my low-mindedness more than his high-mindedness.And I'm thrilled to learn… More »
A reply to Maya MacGuineas—and Jamie Galbraith More »
A response to Todd Gitlin More »
A response to James Galbraith More »
A response to Christopher Buckley More »
A response to Lisa Chamberlain More »
A response to Bruce Bartlett More »
Supreme Court confirmations have become a festival of code words. One of the most confusing is "conservative." What is a conservative judge? In fact, this can mean three very different things. It can mean a strong belief in the principle of stare decisis, or respect for precedent. Problem: Does that mean that a conservative judge must rule in favor of upholding all of the liberal rulings of the 1960s and 1970s? Even though many of them overturned earlier… More »
Publishers admit e-books cost less to produce. So, what does the $26 you spend on a hardcover copy really pay for? More »
There's no evidence that liberals are any more elitist than their counterparts. At least they tell it like it is More »
Conor, You have a point. I had a paragraph about externalities in my Post column that I cut for space. The argument would have run something like this: it's good for you if I read the New York Times, and good for me if you read it, and without a subsidy the total amount of Times reading will be sub-optimal. I think that's a fairly easy argument to make. Maybe it's even true. Trouble is, I don't think it's a legitimate purpose of government to try to affect what you… More »
Conor, You have a point. I had a paragraph about externalities in my Post column that I cut for space. The argument would have run something like this: it's good for you if I read the New York Times, and good for me if you read it, and without a subsidy the total amount of Times reading will be sub-optimal. I think that's a fairly easy argument to make. Maybe it's even true. Trouble is, I don't think it's a legitimate purpose of government to try to affect what you… More »
