Apparently having been dropped on his head from a large height sometime after 2007 or so, Matt Stoller is arguing that electing Mitt Romney would be good for progressivism. Apparently, the income inequality that has been building since the early 1970s is entirely by President Obama’s design — seriously — and there is no significant difference between Obama and Romney on women’s health issues such as abortion. Who knew?
Scott Lemieux argues that Stoller has turned into the new Camille Paglia, except “1)with fewer references to Madonna and uses of the word “Dionysian,” and 2)less coherent.” That’s good, but not on the mark, I think. I have always thought of Paglia as the Thomas Kinkade of philosophy, and I don’t think Stoller rises to that level. He’s possibly attempting to be the Glenn Beck of firebaggers, but he’s not flamboyant enough to pull that off.
More on Stoller — the Booman.