Scott Lemieux

Scott Lemieux is an assistant professor of political science at the College of Saint Rose. He contributes to the blogs Lawyers, Guns, and Money and Vox Pop.

Recent Articles


ONE LIFE. I also agree with Ezra about this . There is, of course, no "correct" choice for dealing with a such a tragedy, and had Edwards dropped out of the race to take care of his wife it would be entirely beyond criticism. But the same, I think, is true of the choice they did make. As I've said elsewhere, I certainly would not want my hypothetical spouse to give up her lifelong ambition because I got sick. Good luck to them both. --Scott Lemieux


CLINTON NON. To hop into the debate , I pretty much fully endorse the arguments of Matt , Sam , and Ezra . In particular, I would like to highlight the apercus that " nobody is entitled to a presidential nomination on account of unfair treatment at the hands of scoundrels, and liberals should avoid the danger of judging Clinton 's political maneuvers and struggles from her perspective rather than from the perspective of what's best for liberalism," and "Clinton's new dissembling, on an issue where the record is so clear, fits a pattern: Not only is she not much of a liberal, she actually seems determined to insult liberals' intelligence." I'm also not persuaded by the vote-counting data adduced by Garance . You can't compare raw vote totals without considering the fact that Clinton represents one of the most liberal states in the country and Edwards represented one of the most conservative. In context, it seems to me that Edwards ' voting record is at least as progressive, and...


COULD 2001 HAVE BEEN THE NEW 1937? Matt replies here to my post from yesterday about the 2000 election. There seem to be two separate arguments he's making here. On the less important issue of whether Gore squandered an opportunity because he failed to "propose a particularly ambitious domestic agenda during the 2000 campaign," I suppose that all things being equal I would have preferred that he do so. But as I said yesterday, I don't think that it's terribly consequential in terms of what he could have accomplished, and given the states in play he had sound strategic reasons for not doing so. The more important question is "would [it] have been feasible for a progressive president to secure a similarly-scaled, though differently directed, package of reforms." I am certain that it would not have been. The fact that, from a rational policy perspective, 2001 would be a good time for an ambitious progressive agenda is neither here nor there in terms of the political viability of such a...


BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS. I think I'm a little more sympathetic to the overall premise of Matt 's argument than Ezra, although to me it's not so much about the war (arguably the greatest period of progressive policy-making in American history, after all, happened during the escalation of the Vietnam war) as a straightforward story about how American political institutions make major progressive reform very difficult under all but the most fortuitous circumstances. I must admit, however, intense annoyance about Matt's claim that Al Gore is to blame for "squander[ing] the opportunity" presented in 2000. First of all, we don't know what kind of reform Gore might have been able to attain, especially a Gore elected to a second term ( FDR didn't exactly run as a fire-breathing progressive in 1932.) Given that the election was "lost" in relatively conservative swing states, there were good strategic reasons for not running further left, but this doesn't tell us exactly what his policy agenda...


WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK ABOUT DESTROYING THE UNIO... I MEAN, THE CHILDREN? Kevin Drum has an excellent rejoinder to Megan McArdle 's offer to support any and all liberal remedies, including "double spending per student" (with, presumably, commensurate tax increases I'm sure McArdle and her conservertarian friends will enthusiastically support!) if liberals will agree to bust teacher's unions. As Kevin says, particularly given the logical problems (where, exactly, is this pool of brilliant teachers willing to teach in badly-performing public schools for non-union wages and with no employment protections going to come from?) and lack of empirical evidence that unionization has a significant effect on educational outcomes, it once again gives away the neoliberal show . Even given conflicts between their purported fiscal principles and their a priori desire to crush unions, they'll pick the latter. Moreover, there's also the problem of how disconnected this is from actual politics. As...