Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Still true: “a discussion with the likes of Brad DeLong is not productive”

Still true: “a discussion with the likes of Brad DeLong is not productive”

The class clown of the academic internet is beclowning again; must be he’s upset with my investigation into Elizabeth Warren so he attacks the only way he knows how.  Rather than address the merits, he picks a three and one-half year old post of mine and calls me names.  Class act.

So I thought I’d revisit the wise observation by Prof. Stephen Bainbridge of UCLA Law School:

a discussion with the likes of Brad DeLong is not productive

I figured that out a long time ago. But now my friends Larry Ribstein, Jonathan Adler, JW Verret, and Todd Henderson have figured it out too. I won’t bother you with the merits of the argument, because you can’t have an argument–let alone a conversation–with someone with Delong’s consistent pattern of, as Adler puts it, “selective editing” and misrepresenting his opponent’s positions. To quote Adler again, “Yes, this is the same Professor DeLong who repeats baseless accusations against other academics and then, when asked to substantiate his charges, selectively edits his comment threads and then dissembles about said editing when called on it.”

I believe it was George Bernard Shaw who said “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”

Hence, I agree with Larry that “a discussion with the likes of Brad DeLong is not productive.” With luck, this’ll be the last time his toxic style of intellectual thuggery and execrable personality will be mentioned in these pages.

I’ll also revisit comments by Jonathan Adler and Logan Penza reprinted in my post, Nutroots Best and Brightest Isn’t:

Jonathan Adler at Volokh Conspiracy (via Instapundit) has a very good take down of the nutroots best and brightest economics-professor blogger, Brad DeLong:

Would you consider it sound for one academic to attack a paper written by another, calling it (among other things) “obviously erroneous” and “simply stupid,” based upon a third-party representation of what it says? And would you consider it responsible to use the third-party representation of said paper as Exhibit A for questioning why the author has a tenured job at a prestigious academic institution? You would if you were University of California at Berkeley economics professor J. Bradford DeLong, who has continued his series of attacks against University of Chicago law professor M. Todd Henderson. “I genuinely do not understand why Henderson has his job,” writes DeLong, pointing not to anything Henderson himself wrote but instead to what another academic blogger wrote about Henderson’s scholarship. [Yes, this is the same Professor DeLong who repeats baseless accusations against other academics and then, when asked to substantiate his charges, selectively edits his comment threads and then dissembles about said editing when called on it.]

A post at The Moderate Voice reveals the depth of DeLong’s vindictiveness:

#9 on DeLong’s hate-o-list is particularly striking. Yes, you read that right. DeLong believes that Henderson should be fired for no other reason than that DeLong disagrees with him strongly.It is terrifying that such a mindset sits in a prominent position at an elite university with power over who gets hired, who teaches what classes, and who is given the protection of tenure. Is there any doubt that DeLong doesn’t exactly place a priority on ensuring that Berkeley economics students hear dissenting views? The fact that DeLong used to hold high government office and may do so again gives additional reason to be concerned about his apparently authoritarian tendencies.

Looks like I’m onto something if J. Bradford DeLong is on the case.

Update:  Compare the reaction of J. Bradford DeLong with the reasoned analysis of legal ethicist Jack Marshall of Ethics Alarms, who while not necessarily agreeing with all my conclusions, recognizes the seriousness of the issue regardless of the politics of those involved, Jury Summation: 20 Conclusions Regarding Elizabeth Warren’s Law License Controversy:

8. Prof. Jacobson performed a service to his profession and the public by raising the issue, and was behaving responsibly and fairly to do so. The fact that he opposes Warren’s politics does not diminish the legitimacy of his work.

9. Journalists should have done the work themselves, and reported Jacobson’s allegations. They had a duty to do so.

10. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that if there had been any question raised regarding unauthorized law practice by Scott Brown, Warren’s Republican opponent, it would have been reported in the Boston media and elsewhere with enthusiasm and gusto….

20.  Outside of [Jonathan] Steele, and a few others, the reaction to Jacobson’s research was overwhelmingly influenced by partisan preferences and prior biases, by officials, pundits and experts who should know better, including me. I have defended Elizabeth Warren against unfair attacks, but I cannot deny that I found her conduct and statements regarding her dubious Cherokee heritage and acceptance of affirmative action status and benefits manipulative, deceitful and evasive, and that this predisposes me to regard Prof. Jacobson’s allegations as credible….

DeLong’s long history of vindictive childish behavior is one of the reasons people hate academics and academia.  And if DeLong is the poster child, that hatred is well deserved.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



So just when did her license in New Jersey become inactive? I know they don’t call licenses “inactive” there, but that’s the word she used in the radio interview.

Isn’t that one of the key issues: that she may have been practicing law with no active law license from any state?

Da guy’s a PUTZ, Prof.

I got a good giggle out of his comments. The Collectivist cocoon portrayed faithfully in just a few lines of the complete absence of critical thinking!

Like the (more…) link.

Much better than the (Read More) type link as it jumps to where you left off on the front page.

Thanks. It’s confusing to have to scroll for where the post leaves off.

BTW; just because someone got an “Obama” phone doesn’t necessarily mean they’re voting for him.

I would guess that the increase in usage of the program is rooted in the increase in those on SNAP. (a qualifying program to be eligible for the “free” phone)

Most all of the increase in SNAP benefits is due to the poor economy and so many being unemployed or underemployed that they are having to take anything they can to make ends meet. There are a lot of folks who would not dream of accepting welfare (and probably wouldn’t qualify) who will accept SNAP because it’s related directly to feeding their family and in some cases would mean the difference between good meals for their kids.

Not everyone is like peggy or the fool in the video crowing about their “obama” phone.

They would rather have a job and they know who’s put them in the dumper.

    “… just because someone got an “Obama” phone doesn’t necessarily mean they’re voting for him.” OR THAT THEY WILL EVEN SHOW UP TO VOTE. They are too busy looking for more free stuff.

I liked the comment regarding how conservatives have nothing better to do.

Yet, what was ignored was, the LI post referenced was from 2009.

I have to say, if I ran a blog that posted half as often as LI does and someone had to go back three years to find something they could discount. I’d consider that a badge of honor for my content.

DeLong’s post appears to be the product of misfiring synapses, and his blog design is tedious and unintelligible.

    Misfiring synapses is one way of characterizing emotional response. It the reduction of order to chaos. It is bounded but unpredictable.

I’m not experienced in DeLong-ism, but from the description here he must be from the same cloth as Paul Krugman. What fascinates by about Krugman is that he is held up as a symbol of brilliance and erudition on matters of economics but also many other topics. However, to an observer like me, he seems routinely incapable of defending a lot his positions with that same level of brilliance. So often in live discussions he shifts quickly to non-analytical and even non-factual (emotional) support for his position. There is something about watching the economic Einstein (my words) get all jittery and show signs of anger at the least challenge that shows either lack of depth or lack of confidence in his position.

DeLong is perhaps the same?? Brilliant sounding pontifications to some, but weak and unimpressive in support?

Sounds like a swell guy.

“a discussion with the likes of Brad DeLong is not productive“
Don’t have much, but my IQ dropped 10* reading Brad DeLong’s blog!

WTG, Professor.

Liberal trolls comes in various shapes & sizes but they all have some things in common… envious hate and a need for attention.

I’ve dealt with 1000s of them over the last four and a half years and quickly realized they are a rather sad insignificant lot, especially when their craved attention is denied.

Never heard of this Brad DeLong guy… 99.9% of the world hasn’t either. I will not ever remember his name after I finish with this comment…

Brad who? must be one of the 1000s common trolls seeking attention in vein.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | September 30, 2012 at 12:18 pm

The post DeLong highlights is how I found this blog. I don’t remember now if some other conservative blogger linked to it which brought me here or if it got a Memeorandum thread of its own.

I’ve said before it’s my all time favorite post because of the insane response it generated from the leftsphere. Based on their responses, it proved that they are either truly, genuinely unstable to be as outraged as they portrayed themselves to be, or they exposed themselves as phonies only pretending to be outraged over something as irrelevant and meaningless as satirical humor.

And frankly, that DeLong still remembers it more than three years later, it made an impression on him, too. Just not the same impression it had on me. But doesn’t that prove how effective it was?

the link to first topic is https so may cause concern for people due to security warnings.

I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first 100 names starting with “J” in the Ithaca telephone directory than in a society governed by the faculty members of UC Berkeley Law School.

    than in a society governed by the faculty members of UC Berkeley Law School.

    We’d be better off if they all came from Bugtussle, Tenn.

WARNING: Do not get too close to DeLong. When Obama loses, he will self-explode and all of the remaining crap within his body will be splattered for a hundred meters.

The problem is that in Massachusetts Elizabeth Warren, with all her flaws, is the perfect successor to Ted Kennedy. Her history of fraudulence and her liberal sense of entitlement make her the female version of Sir Ted.

The name of my blog comes from a discussion where Dr. DeLong called my belief that Bill Clinton committed a crime when he lied under oath about sexual affairs as “Just Barking Mad”.

Add to that that he testified at one of the recount hearings over the vote in 2000 that the issue ought to be decided by the number of registered voters in each party based on previous voter patterns. Why have an election then?

De Long appears to be the embodiment of “ad hominem”.

Would Elizabeth Warren be off the hook on both counts if she could claim to be 1/32 Sue Indian?

Mr. Delong showed up to comment on a group blog I write for and I was not impressed…

    wyjoe in reply to joew. | October 1, 2012 at 4:02 am

    He does that a lot; Quilly and I both encountered him years ago in a newsgroup. I fully expect him to show up and comment in this thread. He’s brave, I’ll give him that. Whether he has good sense is another matter entirely….

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend