Brad DeLong is a well-known economist who was a Clinton adviser. He also writes a column for Wired magazine. He's definitely smarter than me, and his blog provides thoughtful counterpoints to many Bush administration policies. But I think he strays from the path of reason in a couple of recent posts.

First, he takes aim at New York Times columnist David Brooks. I don't read Brooks at all, but I do know he is the one sure-fire conservative columnist at the paper. His recent column was about how this decade has dealt a series of blows to American morale. DeLong, picking this up from another blogger, 11D, says this is 180-degree turn from a column he did a few weeks ago on how America is becoming a more virtuous society. Here are the comments I left there:

The two columns are not contradictory, and it takes a deliberate misreading to say they are.

In his earlier one, Brooks is clearly talking about how American society as a whole has improved, in terms of *virtue*.

In the second, he is talking about *morale*, and its decline amid a variety of horrors from 9/11 to Katrina.

"Americans in 2005 are not quite in that bad a shape, since the fundamental realities of everyday life are good. The economy and the moral culture are strong. But there is a loss of confidence in institutions."

Oh, but you're completely correct about the decline in quality of the NYT op-ed page. That's clear every time we read Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich.

Secondly, DeLong has gotten in the habit of ending his hurricane posts with the line: "Impeach George Bush. Impeach him now." Here's my comment:

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the criminal legal basis for impeachment?

Impeachment can only occur when an actual crime -- as defined by existing legal code -- has been committed, such as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors".

Officials get impeached for committing actual crimes, such as bribery or, say, lying under oath. When they commit bad policy, the get voted out of office.

It's one thing to use the rhetorical flourish that Bush's actions "amount to criminal negligence", but quite another to seriously suggest that a public official be indicted and subject to criminal trial because of their official actions, or lack thereof.

It's hard to imagine that anyone would ever want to take public office if they knew that they could face criminal charges over their policies.

Keep in mind that I think Bush's performance on Katrina has been abyssmal, just like every other politician from the mayor on up. Here's my part of an exchange I had with a friend today, on a recent Paul Krugman column decrying the federal response, or lack thereof:

For once, I can't disagree much with Krugman. I would take issue with his assertion that the evidence points "above all" to federal failings. I think the lion's share of the blame falls squarely on the local governments. Why did the mayor wait until the last minute before declaring a mandatory evacuation? Why did he let hundreds of school buses sit idle and get destroyed by the flooding rather than using them to get people out? Why did he order 30,000 people to the Superdome but not bother to deploy police or sanitation services there? The mayor is the front line. He has control of local resources and assets, like public buses and whatnot, to get people out. Then the governor was lax in not having the Guard prepared to roll in with convoys of food and other supplies. Apparently there were requests in to other states to have their Guards mobilized, but the requests were bogged down in paperwork in Washington for two days. The governor has the resources of a whole freakin' state available. Why wasn't every state trooper ordered to the Superdome or set to driving evacuation buses? And of course FEMA and Homeland Security completely failed not only to prevent the disaster but to coordinate any sort of swift national relief effort. Bush certainly didn't come off well with his belated and brief press conferences, in which he tried to smile and be reassuring but instead came off as out of touch. The whole thing is fucked up. I really did not appreciate having to explain to (a European friend) this weekend why the U.S. is not a Third World country despite all appearances to the contrary.

Along these lines, the clever econ professors at Marginal Revolution explain some of the poor response by looking at what incentives local officials have:

Are democratic governments simply not very risk averse when it comes to very bad, low probability events? The model behind this conclusion is simple.

Politicians would have to spend the money on protection no matter what, and lose the benefits of spending that cash elsewhere with p=1.

The chance of reelection goes up only with a small probability, namely if the bad event happens and voters can tell their representatives were suitably cautious.

Why not instead spend the money with a higher chance of boosting reelection prospects?

The key stylized fact is that if a politician messes up very badly, there is no penalty worse than removal from office, which is a penalty (roughly) fixed in value.

And since the value of holding office may not fall in proportion to the suffering caused by the disaster, politicians' utility maximization will not bring optimal spending either.

Finally, Bill Whittle's latest essay on "tribes" elaborates on some thoughts I was having in discussions about the squalid conditions at the Superdome and whatnot. It is hard for me to imagine my circle of friends and family just sitting back and waiting for someone to arrive with aid, feed us and pick up the trash. Whittle spells this out very clearly while absolutely rejecting any racial baggage that some cynics might try to saddle him with.

UPDATE: It seems my that both my comments have gone missing from DeLong's site. It's possible, even likely, that I am an idiot and forgot exactly where I posted them, so I don't want to cry foul play. I reposted them so we'll see if they stay up.