We seriously need to get on the ball and find out who kidnapped Matt Welch, because some imposter at Reason had this reaction to the speech:
There was much to dislike about this speech, most notably (for me anyway) the effortless way in which the new president talked out of both sides of his mouth. We will not govern in anger! No more drapes for you, fatcats! Etc. More on which tomorrow.
Welch is responding to this portion of the speech:
I intend to hold these banks fully accountable for the assistance they receive, and this time, they will have to clearly demonstrate how taxpayer dollars result in more lending for the American taxpayer. This time, CEOs won’t be able to use taxpayer money to pad their paychecks or buy fancy drapes or disappear on a private jet. Those days are over.
Accountability is apparently viewed as hostility by libertarians. I guess libertarians think that if you give a bunch of taxpayer money to CEO’s because they have driven their company into the ground but are too big to fail, it is “angry” if you demand they don’t piss away that money redecorating their office or flying to Vegas. Who would have thunk it? Do our libertarian friends at Reason feel the same way about those receiving welfare? I doubt it.
I really don’t know what the hell has happened to the entire collective thought processes at Hit and Run (and let me note I can completely understand why they would not like the speech, but for the reason Welch highlighted here?), and were it not for Radley Balko I would have just given up on the place by now. And I say that as someone who has been reading Matt Welch for most of this decade (I don’t think he has ever not been on my blogroll)- even when he goes on endlessly about the Angels.
*** Update ***
Obligatory Scalzi link:
Libertarians: Never got over the fact they weren’t the illegitimate children of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand; currently punishing the rest of us for it. Unusually smug for a political philosophy that’s never gotten anyone elected for anything above the local water board. All for legalized drugs and prostitution but probably wouldn’t want their kids blowing strangers for crack; all for slashing taxes for nearly every social service but don’t seem to understand why most people aren’t at all keen to trade in even the minimal safety net the US provides for 55-gallon barrels of beans and rice, a crossbow and a first-aid kit in the basement. Blissfully clueless that Libertarianism is just great as long as it doesn’t actually involve real live humans.
Libertarians blog with a frequency that makes one wonder if they’re actually employed somewhere or if they have loved ones that miss them. Libertarian blogs even more snide than conservative blogs, if that’s possible. Socially slow — will assume other people actually want to talk about legalizing hemp and the benefits of a polyamorous ethos when all these other folks really want is to drink beer and play Grand Theft Auto 3. Libertarianism the official political system of science fiction authors, which explains why science fiction is in such a rut these days. Libertarians often polyamorous (and hope you are too) but also somewhat out of shape, which takes a lot of the fun out of it.
Easily offended; Libertarians most likely to respond to this column. The author will attempt to engage subtle wit but will actually come across as a geeky whiner (Conservatives, more schooled in the art of poisonous replies, may actually achieve wit; liberals will reply that they don’t find any of this humorous at all). Libertarians secretly worried that ultimately someone will figure out the whole of their political philosophy boils down to “Get Off My Property.” News flash: This is not really a big secret to the rest of us.
That whole Scalzi post is genius.