Greg Mankiw, deep inside the Harvard bubble

I guess we could have seen this coming. Greg Mankiw, Ec10 mastermind and former Bush advisor, trying to explain why Republicans so dramatically lost the youth vote:

Why? I am not enough of a political scientist to be sure, but recent conversations I have had with some Harvard undergrads have led me to a conjecture: It was largely noneconomic issues. These particular students told me they preferred the lower tax, more limited government, freer trade views of McCain, but they were voting for Obama on the basis of foreign policy and especially social issues like abortion. The choice of a social conservative like Palin as veep really turned them off McCain.

So what does the Republican Party need to do to get the youth vote back? If these Harvard students are typical (and perhaps they are not, as Harvard students are hardly a random sample), the party needs to scale back its social conservatism. Put simply, it needs to become a party for moderate and mainstream libertarians.

This saddens me. That Mankiw actually thinks Harvard students -- among the most privileged, self-important, limousine-libertarian groups of people in the country -- could be a representative sample of anything is beyond ridiculous. (Not to mention, those students who wind up discussing politics with His Conservative Holiness are likely either wingnuts or Ec10 sycophants.) "Perhaps" is not nearly a strong enough qualifier here.

...Also, Ross Douthat, incidentally a rather disgruntled Harvard alum, is right to point out in response that today's young people are generally liberal on economic as well as social issues. I would go further and suggest that the "liberaltarianism" Mankiw's reaching for is basically a yuppie fantasy, a silly and impractical ideology which exists nowhere -- except silly and impractical places like Cambridge.

It'll take a long time before the elite media can admit it, and the right wing never will, but redistributionism is popular; we just saw a resounding affirmation of that, after Republicans called Obama a SOCIALIST!! at the top of their lungs and, surprise, Obama won anyway. (Don't even get me started on "limited government and free trade," which are not exactly big-ticket vote-movers either, DLCism notwithstanding.) Point is: people who think that kids these days are predominantly libertarian are probably spending way too much time writing textbooks.

Understanding "socialism"

Ambinder makes this amusing point, re McPalin's ridiculous new attack on "socialism":

Palin is going on about Obama and wealth redistribution.

Palin taxed oil company profits and cut $1200 checks for every Alaskans.

That's spreading the wealth. Redistributing some money.

The McCain campaign talks about Palin's executive experience.

So Obama might have socialistic inclinations... Palin's gotten it done.

Of course conservatives have never had a problem handing out public money by the fistful. It's only when you want to give significant amounts of it to poor people that they get upset.

Tonight's required listening:

Chris Hayes, social-democrat hero and Nation editor (read his blogs here and here), debates redistributionism, capitalism, and oil profit with conservative radio host Mike Gallagher. This is a fascinating and revealing argument, believe it or not, from both sides. (Although of course Hayes is right.) 13 minutes.

No embed sadly, but you can hear the discussion at Gallagher's site (click "Listen Now").