Perhaps instead of going on strike all at once, he could just stop proofreading his posts for a while.
(seriously, though, i think he's awesome. it's a damned shame.)
At times, his writing is almost incandescent, especially when he is trying to reframe an issue. (The attempt to recast the libertarian/social conservative divide comes to mind.) I find it very strange--it's a quality I associate with literature, not political writing.
Oh man, really, if you go around telling him he's "incandescent," it's his roommates who are going to pay the price. But yeah, he's good and works hard at it.
Well, not all the time. And he can't spell. Happier?
he could just stop proofreading his posts for a while
Haw, funny. I almost missed the sarcasm and just caught myself in the middle of an incredulous response.
I think Matt Y's great, and I may get hammered for saying this, but I don't see how Matt getting a generous salary would be good for him in particular or blogging in general.
Isn't one of the problems with the right half of the blogosphere the fact that many of them are bankrolled by party organs, so they tend to tow the party line?
...don't see how Matt getting...
I just want w-lfs-n to know that yes, I know this should read "don't see how Matt's getting."
It would be good for him And that's "toe."
Should I wait and give you a chance to correct "tow the party line" as well?
I'd always been taught "tow" was correct (a phrase of nautical origin, I assumed), but a quick google search confirms that it's toe.
Thanks for being gentle.
And substantively, part of the Democrats' problem is that we don't have a strong enough party line. The idea is that you pay smart, honest people like Matt to help set the party line, so he isn't faced with the lifelong choice between loyalty to his political views, and selling out to the interests of corporate America to be able to lead a comfortable life.
Young Republican apparachniks live well; young Democrats eat ramen untill they get on the good side of someone who will pay them a comfortable wage. Is it any wonder our message doesn' get out?
And substantively, part of the Democrats' problem is that we don't have a strong enough party line. The idea is that you pay smart, honest people like Matt to help set the party line, so he isn't faced with the lifelong choice between loyalty to his political views, and selling out to the interests of corporate America to be able to lead a comfortable life.
I guess so. I don't know. The whole idea makes me very nervous in a big picture sort of way. I don't feel like he needs a hefty salary to be loyal to his political views.
But I also am generally opposed to federal funding for individual artists, so I clash with a lot of folks on these sorts of issues.
I don't feel like he needs a hefty salary to be loyal to his political views.
Doesn't, or shouldn't? I'm not proud of myself here, but I'm a sellout -- my political views are pretty hard-left, but I'm working for a huge law firm as a commercial litigator. I spent awhile before and during law school nosing around for political, lefty type jobs, and there's very little -- poverty level pay, and an incredible number of very bright people chasing what there is. (Leaving law school, I took a six-figure firm job because I didn't have good enough grades to get a $40,000 spot doing left-wing impact litigation.) There are a lot of people like me, who would love to be working for good causes but can't make a living doing it -- just because we aren't willing to be life-long volunteer supporting ourselves through dumpster-diving doesn't mean we wouldn't do useful work.
If there's more money in the system for left-wing politics, we'll get more good left-wing ideas. Yglesias should get paid whatever his right-wing counterparts get.
There are a lot of people like me, who would love to be working for good causes but can't make a living doing it
Amen. I was talking to a lawyer friend last night about this very issue. He too has a high-paying corporate job, only because jobs doing good work pay so poorly (and if you have hefty loans, there isn't much choice about "selling out").
(Leaving law school, I took a six-figure firm job because I didn't have good enough grades to get a $40,000 spot doing left-wing impact litigation.)
Insanity!
On balance, I can see where you're coming from, LB. I don't know if more people would work for, say, the SPLC if the salary were in the 6-figure range, but I suspect so.
Writing, and the generating of ideas, feels a bit different to me somehow, though. And the way that Scaife and his ilk have essentially bought intellectual justifications for middle class rape makes me habitually nervous about the dynamic between benefactor and Idea Person.
On balance, I can see where you're coming from, LB. I don't know if more people would work for, say, the SPLC if the salary were in the 6-figure range, but I suspect so.
And not even that -- I would have taken a advocacy job paying half what I could get in the private sector and been happy about it. The problem was that the jobs I wanted paid a quarter of what I could get in the private sector, and there were so few that the competition for them was fierce.
LizardBreath,
The problem was that the jobs I wanted paid a quarter of what I could get in the private sector
Ain't that the truth. I think that statement applies to most people. The most fulfilling jobs (actor, artist, teacher) pay the least.
1) To those who have sold out: How much of your income is discretionary (could you, or a consortium of you, be the rich benefactors/patrons)?
2) If you can, find an ethically neutral niche and exploit it for all it's worth, racking up the money until you can personally start funding things.
The "depth and breadth" of Matt's writing stems from his integrity, which is nearly impregnable. I say nearly because he went a little wobbly when he realized he had been had by the proponents of the war, but that lasted only a week or two, and he's been nearly flawless since. And it seems to me, the experience of being so fundamentally wrong, and admitting that, has greatly improved his work since then. Contrast, for instance, Jonathan Chait's frank assessment that he (Chait) can't be faulted for agreeing with the conventional wisdom; how could he (Chait) be blamed when so many others were wrong too?
So I think someone could shovel bushels of gold pieces at him without ill effect. I really hope someone does. I'm ambivalent about losing the homophones and outright mispellings tho, the implementation defects juxtaposed against the narrative competency is part of what makes his writing so jarring and cool. I think John Holbo said it best, because Matt is so good, spelling can't be that important. I have to admit, it's a greedy little pleasure of mine to pause and imagine, what if that [mispelling|homophone] were actually intentional? Sort of like a weird political poetics exercise.