At least there’s the Churchill Club and the AlwaysOn Network. Thank G-d for Tony Perkins!!

I’m glad that you enjoyed the article. I have to disagree, however, in your assessment of “Thank You For Smoking.” TYFS was written by Chris Buckley, a conservative. It was rewritten for the screen and directed by Jason Reitman, a self-described libertarian. And of course the film was produced by David Sacks, a member of the PayPal team, and a former editor of the Stanford Review.

What makes the film so successful is that it defends freedom of choice, not smoking, and attacks the hypocrisy of the mainstream.

Don’t forget that this is a movie where the hero is a tobacco lobbyist, and the villains are the liberal senator and the intrepid investigative reporter.

The thing that seems to trip people up is that the movie is incredibly funny, and humor has not been a noted attribute of mainstream Republicans in the US. Nonetheless, I would argue that things like “Thank You For Smoking” and “Team America: World Police” express a point of view that Republicans would feel more at home with than Democrats.

P.S. Watch for an upcoming blog post on humor and politics.

Enjoyed the article. And I don’t necessarily think that the point is erroneous even on a logical basis (in addition to the coincidental one you describe). Computer companies of the past were founded on a certain type of democratization of information and resources, an undoubtedly bipartisan issue. However, it could be argued that companies like Paypal, which encourage economic liquidity, and their progeny, Linked in et al, encourage a certain amount of social liquidity, are conservative ideas. While Republicans don’t exclusively hold insights into the advantages of liquidity in an economic and social “free market”, it wouldn’t be incorrect to say that a lot of conservative/libertarian ideals are predicated on that theory.

My one point of confusion was at the mention of the Thank You for Smoking film- this is a liberal film, despite it’s coming from an author with Bill Buckley’s DNA. Most libertarians/conservatives wouldn’t be anti lobbying, and while many conservatives might agree with the point of the film (lobbyist structures are corrupt), it isn’t really an example of Republican or conservative principles.

I do not think that Chris’s logic is faulty. Rather, he has a faulty premise that makes his argument logical but nonsensical. This faulty premise is the “eternal truth” that outsiders make the best entrepreneurs. Simply note that some outsiders have failed at entrepreneurship while many insiders have prospered.

BTW, Chris is not committing the fallacy of the undistributed middle. An example of that failing would be something like:

Bananas are yellow.
The school bus is yellow.
Therefore, the school bus is a banana.

Chris never really claims that entrepreneurial skill grants you outsider status which you are saying in part (1) of your post on 03.2.07 | 9:12 am.

I believe I stated very clearly:

“I do not believe that I ever tried to “pin entrepreneurial success on just a single factor” or argue that being a Republican would “guarantee” success.

While it would be nice if a scholarly study existed to show whether or not Silicon Valley Republicans were disproportionately successful, I’m unaware of any such study, though if you can produce one that contradicts my speculation, I’m all ears.”

Ultimately, I’m just a guy with a blog commenting on what I see as an interesting possibility. I don’t claim to have followed the scientific method–after all, how many blog postings include peer-reviewed primary research?

we now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

Thanks for your recent comment. I’m glad that you are trying to be non-partisan (as am I–I generally self-identify as independent, though I do end up voting for Democrats and Republicans because, well, that’s who ends up on the ballot).

I agree with your argument about the fallacy of the undistributed middle–note that I was careful to indicate that I was only speaking of Silicon Valley Republicans.

I would definitely speculate that Democrats in the OC make better entrepreneurs than OC Republicans.

On another level, you can see the corrosive impact that incumbency has had in Washington. When the Republicans were on the outside looking in, they actually generated interesting ideas and promoted reform. Then when they took control of Congress in recent years, they tossed their ideals aside and focused on the classic Washington activity of pork-belly and partisan politics, as exemplified by Tom DeLay and crew.

It’s also important to remember that Republicans, like Democrats are a fragmented bunch. There are the Eisenhower Republicans, Ayn Rand Republicans, and Moral Majority Republicans. Each has very different characteristics, and can barely stand the other!

I definitely believe in attracting flies with honey rather than vinegar, but I also believe in fighting vinegar with vinegar. I am grateful that you and Joe have taken the time to engage in dialogue!

I see that Joe and Sundar have taken their time and interest as I did to try and let you know how your coming across. Please be gracious and listen to what is being said. You can attract more flys with honey….

Whether you believe it or not, Chris, I am trying hard to be NON-partisan in understanding your reasoning. When I read your column, something “felt” wrong with your conclusion. It got me to thinking about a logic class I once took. I went over to Wikipedia and looked up syllogisms. I think (I haven’t made a firm conclusion, mind you), that the problem with your argument is that it uses a “fallacy of the undistributed middle.” See Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle

Here’s what Wikipedia says:

[START QUOTE] The fallacy of the undistributed middle is a logical fallacy that is committed when the middle term in a categorical syllogism isn’t distributed. It is thus a syllogistic fallacy.

The fallacy of the undistributed middle takes the following form:

All Zs are Bs
Y is a B
Therefore, Y is a Z [END QUOTE]

Looking at your argument, I understand it as follows:

1. All great entrepreneurs (Z) are outsiders (B).
2. Republicans in Silicon Valley (Y) are outsiders (B).
-or-
2. Democrats in Orange County (Y) are outsiders (B).
3. Republicans in Silicon Valley (Y) are great entrepreneurs (Z).
-or-
3. Democrats in Orange County (Y) are great entrepreneurs (Z).

Mind you, I’m not trying to berate you on this. I just love to argue and I’m also a bit OC (like you couldn’t figure that one out).

What’s your take on this? Am I breaking down your argument fairly or am I misunderstanding the “fallacy of the undistributed middle”? Anyone else want to weigh in? I honestly do want to know if I’m wrong … or right.

All my readers know that I prefer to be happy. They also no that I harbor no hatred of liberals or conservatives. If agreeing with The Economist makes me a vile, evil Republican in your mind, then count me in. Believe what you want to believe, and go in peace.

Judge: “But, Mr. Yeh, you haven’t presented one shred of evidence to prove your case.”

Chris Yeh: “What are you, some kind of LIBERAL?! I rest my case!”

Judge: “OK. Have it your way, Mr. Yeh. This court finds Mr. Yeh’s argument to be without merit. Case dismissed.”

Chris Yeh: “But, but, but Clinton…”