There Are Two Sides To Every Argument, And I Agree With Them

The trouble with most pundits is they offer boosterism disguised as analysis. Take E. J. Dionne, whom I've used as an example before (though I don't mean to imply this is only a problem on the left). James Taranto is hardly the first to note Dionne will argue on either side of an issue, depending on what benefits the liberal position:

If the Republicans pushing against the filibuster love majority rule so much, they should propose getting rid of the Senate altogether. But doing so would mean acknowledging what's really going on here: regime change disguised as a narrow rules fight. We could choose to institute a British-style parliamentary system in which majorities get almost everything they want. But advocates of such a radical departure should be honest enough to propose amending the Constitution first."--E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, March 22, 2005

"The Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone 'reconciliation.' Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass."--E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, March 4, 2010

You expect this from politicians, but shouldn't pundits be held to a higher standard? I'd like to know how Dionne explains these two statements. Does he honestly believe he was not contradicting himself?

It's amazing how old, bad arguments can suddenly sound good.

PS As long as I'm letting Taranto do my work for me, here's another example:

Today's Paul Krugman:

What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says. [...] But that's not how Republicans see it. Here's what Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, had to say when defending Mr. Bunning's position (although not joining his blockade): unemployment relief "doesn't create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work." [...] To me, that's a bizarre point of view--but then, I don't live in Mr. Kyl's universe.

Pre-New York Times, pre-partisan Krugman from his textbook Macroeconomics:

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.