Consistency

In 2007, Eric Cantor thought that the Logan Act made it a crime to do what Eric Cantor just did.

Eric Cantor just did what Eric Cantor thought was a felony in 2007. As Emerson failed to say, a reckless inconsistency is the symptom of weak morals.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

17 thoughts on “Consistency”

  1. For those who are wondering: Mark's views on the Logan Act changed much more quickly than Cantor's. He didn't even need a change in administration, which is the usual trigger for these sorts of things. Go ahead and check the archives.

    Reading this post makes me think that this "Mark" persona is just an elaborate high-concept joke. A bravura performance.

  2. Mark once commented on Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus during the Bush administration, and noted that she had cleared her trip with the President. She was acting at the request of Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert at the time, carrying a message to Syria on his behalf.

    If Cantor cleared his meeting with Bibi through the President, then Mark has no grounds for criticizing him. Maybe he did; in that case, Thomas has a point. Otherwise not.

  3. Ed,

    Also, Mark did not accuse Cantor of committing a crime. He accused Cantor of doing something that Cantor has claimed is a crime. There's an important difference there. Hence, in regards to the question in your last paragraph, I'm going to go with, "Not."

  4. Rob, you seem to have misunderstood all of my comment, which seems hard to do. It is pretty short. I'm happy to walk you through it, if you don't have a parent around.

    Ed, as J. Michael notes, Mark doesn't directly accuse Cantor of a crime. Mark did criticize Cantor for inconsistency. And that, difficult as it is to see, is the source of my criticism of Mark.

  5. "Mark did criticize Cantor for inconsistency. And that, difficult as it is to see, is the source of my criticism of Mark."

    That's very amusing, Thomas, your game is at an exceptionally high level today.

    (Comments in this style by Thomas always brighten my day.)

    What did Voltaire ask of The Lord wrt his enemies? Mark is similarly blessed.

    But back to the point of the post. Can you imagine what must be going through

    Bibi's mind, that his tiny nation is the subject of obsequious worship by the

    "opposition" political party, which controls 2 of 4 parts of the government of

    the most colossal military power the Earth has ever seen? I should be fair

    and note that a good chunk of the Dems share this intense need to pay

    obeisance; that can only make the situation more gratifying for Bibi.

    And that's just Israel! In the neighborhood, not friendly to the Israelis,

    is a big chunk of OPEC. On which the US economy is a complete hostage. And

    there's Iraq (in OPEC too). And Iran (in OPEC too). And a little further,

    Afghanistan.

    I think it's going to stay a mess, until it all blows up.

  6. Russell, I have no idea what you mean, but I'm pleased to have brightened your day. Suzii, Mark's view of the Logan Act depends entirely on who might be said to be violating it.

  7. Russell means you are being dishonest again, Thomas, which is your SOP when it comes to "interpreting" Kleiman's posts.

    Thomas: "Mark’s view of the Logan Act depends entirely on who might be said to be violating it."

    You have offered no evidence of this whatsoever, much less proof.

Comments are closed.