"Gaming the System" at NRO

I've got a piece on a proposal to regulate the video game industry's rating system over at NRO today. Not surprisingly, I'm skeptical:

Video gamers everywhere get a thrill out of manipulating imaginary characters with their game controllers. Sometimes, though, it seems as if politicians are just as thrilled to get their hands on the video-game industry’s regulatory controls. Since 1993, when the game Mortal Kombat was denounced in Congress by Joe Lieberman, the industry has been subject to repeated political attacks. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, then, it’s hardly surprising that, as pundits and ideologues of all stripes shifted blame to their favorite targets in order to support their pet policy initiatives, video games made the list. On MSNBC’s Hardball recently, longtime video-game opponent Jack Thompson insisted that, despite roommates claiming never to have seen the killer playing games, the killings must have motivated by game playing.

But, like an in-game damage meter during a blistering video-game attack, the pressure was already building. Just a few days before the Virginia Tech rampage, the FTC released a report noting that the game industry’s rating system is increasingly effective, but still recommended a universal rating system and more prominent display of ratings information. And at least one congressman already had a bill dealing with game ratings in the works.

Earlier this spring, Rep. Fred Upton (R., Mich.) introduced the Video Game Decency Act, a law which would give the FTC the power to oversee privately run video-game ratings systems. The law would make it illegal for video-game companies to mislead private ratings boards — specifically the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB), which currently rates most major video-game releases — in order to obtain a less restrictive rating. Anyone who’s ever seen a legislator put on his Serious Face and talk about video games before can guess that the underlying reasoning had something to with, yep, “For The Children.” The Children, of course, can’t vote, so “For The Children” usually means “For The Parents,” and in this case, Upton made that explicit. “Parents across the country will be able to breathe a sigh of relief,” he said in a statement, “as this legislation goes hand in hand with the mission of the industry’s own ratings system.”

Whole thing here.

New Me

I've got a quick review of Ghost Rider (way worse than you thought possible) over at The Corner, and I've also got a piece up on the Bush administration's recent promise to veto card check legislation.

The Circus Returns

I've got a piece on the Democrats' return to power in Congress at NRO today.

Come together... right now

As if you needed more reasons that Tim Carney is awesome: His column today is a perfect example of why libertarian-conservative, and even libertarian-Christian, fusionism is still a superb idea. Emphasize the similarities, not the differences--the two groups are far closer than the last six months of conventional wisdom would suggest.

Switching Sides

By now you’ve read Brink Lindsey’s New Republic article on liberal-libertarian fusionism, and you’ve probably read Jonah Goldberg’s brief response as well as Sebastian Mallaby’s column. It’s a good piece, certainly much more persuasive than Markos Moulitsas’ absurd notion of the Libertarian Democrat. But I don’t think I entirely buy it—at least not yet.

Lindsey’s argument, to oversimplify, boils down to asking libertarians to give up hardline support for economic freedom and become pragmatic capitalists, while asking progressives to give up collective identity, hard egalitarianism, and serious centralized economic planning. Needless to say, this strikes me as a difficult proposition. Libertarian angst against Republicans is strong enough right now that it might seem plausible, but I have a hard time believing that there’s really all that much support amongst libertarians for a party whose key positions include a general support for strong business regulations and government programs. This, in fact, is why I’m so reticent to endorse conservative proposals to use government for its ends (even if I have a general respect for those ends). Libertarians aren’t really all that likely to hop parties en masse anytime soon, but if the right makes an active switch away from small government to managed government, they’ll follow Lindsey and turn away.

Of course, as Goldberg notes, there’s an upside to this:

We should all hope that Lindsey's project succeeds. Who among us unapologetic conservatives wouldn't like to see the two parties get in a bidding war over who is more libertarian on economic issues?

And sure, it’d be nice. But it’s also pretty much impossible—and exactly why a true libertarian-liberal alliance will never really happen.

Dividing lines

Yuval Levin's Weekly Standard piece "Putting Parents First" makes an argument that conservative governments should position themselves as negotiators between the interests of the market and the family--an argument that I suspect we'll hear more and more in coming years. The piece reminds us that, despite the cover of the new American Prospect, populist class-warfare policies are going to have a limited appeal, and that the right needs to focus its governing on the interests of the aspirational "parenting class." Like Ryan Sager's recent book, the article leans heavily on the fiscal/social divide in the Republican coalition. But unlike Sager, who recommends that Republicans take a more libertarian slant, the article wants conservatives to focus on developing the links between middle class social conservatives and pragmatic capitalists.

In some sense, I'm sympathetic to both arguments; Sager's small-government bent is obviously appealing to me, while Levin's pro-family tack is, I think, at least a strong part of the necessary strategy for winning elections. However, it seems to me that the flaw in both arguments is that they make too much out of the divisions in the right. In the end, both end up leaving one end of the spectrum out in the cold. Sager would practically abandon Souther social conservatives in favor of independent-minded Western libertarians, and Levin, though careful not to come out and say it, would let libertarians flounder ("In this effort, there is a role for government" just isn't going to appeal to many serious small-government types).

But instead of playing up gaps between the two groups, the focus should be on reminding them of their shared interests. Southern social conservatives need to be assured that godless libertarian types aren't really a threat, and libertarians need to be reminded that religious conservatives have as much interest in liberty as they do. Easing tensions, not building them up, should be the goal.

The buy back hustle

Normally I stay away from foreign policy, but this TNR column on what to do in Iraq sort of demands a response. In it, Niall Ferguson argues that what the U.S. government needs to do is to bribe the various insurgent groups and warring parties, starting the major step of buying up their weapons. Basically, his argument is that “with a fraction of the money that goes to our boys' cheeseburgers, you could buy and decommission all the AK-47s in Iraq.”

But what Ferguson is doing is confusing the value of the AK 47s with the money we’d have to spend on them. And, more importantly, he’s assuming that the insurgents, who I think most reasonable people agree are pretty heavily invested against U.S. forces on a personal level, would play ball. Unlikely doesn’t even begin to cover it. Instead, they’d probably charge us a premium on the weapons, knowing what we have at stake. Some groups would likely hold out on us, selling many of their weapons—again, at a premium—but keeping a significant amount in reserve. Those with reserves would continue attacks, causing those without to use the extortion money to rearm, possibly even at a higher level than they began with (due to the high sums paid). The end result would likely be that weapon buy back program would get abused by warring sects looking to take advantage of their rivals and that some groups would try (and quite possibly succeed) to use the program as a trade-up to better weapons—hardly the sort of result anyone’s looking for.

All Hail the Crasher in Chief

Yes, yes, it's shameless self promotion and the buddy-system and all that, but I'm still going to recommend this Washington Times profile of my friend and coworker Jason Talley's activist group, Bureaucrash.

Jason Talley works at a public policy institute on Connecticut Avenue, but his job looks nothing like the jobs of most other 20- and 30-somethings in Washington.

He wears jeans and a sweat shirt to work, and not just on Fridays.

His office is decorated like a college student's room, with deep red walls and shelving units holding carefully marked bins of T-shirts. A sleek desk, black slipcovered couch and green screen for videography complete the decor.

Not jealous yet? Check out his job title: crasher in chief.

Still not enough Jason Talley for you? You can check out Bureaucrash's typically lampooning take on the election here.

The pundit version of the one man band

No matter what you think of Ben Stein and his conservatives-should-raise-taxes tack (I find it somewhat but not wholly persuasive), he has the no-kidding best-ever author tagline. "Ben Stein is a lawyer, writer, actor and economist." He's a veritable human Swiss Army knife.

Blockbusted

Blockbuster has apparently forged a deal with the Weinsteins that will give it sole rental rights to their movies. So forget Netflixing the next Bob and Harvey flick; it's drive to Blockbuster or shut up. Ezra Klein, naturally, thinks this is a travesty of cinematic justice:

In what seems like a truly stupid idea, the Weinstein's have inked a deal to give Blockbuster exclusive rights to their future DVDs. So Bobby, The Nanny Diaries, The Protector, and many others will be kept out of Netflix, Hollywood Video, and local stores. Blockbuster will be your only option. Which is bad for consumers, who'll see their choices restricted, and bad for those involved with the movies, who'll see their efforts constrained to a limited audience. It's the TimesSelect of film distribution: bad for everything but the bottom line.

I was ready to agree with him until he mentioned The Nanny Diaries. The fewer people that see that movie, the better.

No, seriously, this just doesn't strike me as all the malicious. Dumb, perhaps, and bad for business, but nothing to get worked up over. For some unknown reason, Klein thinks this will be profitable, and maybe in the short run, the Weinsteins will eke out some gains from whatever payouts Blockbuster makes for the rights. But my guess is that this rather odd business model will fail to draw much foot traffic into the spiraling black hole of earnings that is Blockbuster. Brick and mortar rental stores are dying fast, and between the varied threats of Netflix, iTunes movie downloads, and the planned Xbox Live HD download service, I can't imagine this small deal, covering only a few movies, doing much for either company. Blockbuster won't get much of a boost, and, though the Weinsteins will get Blockbuster's payments, their rental numbers will be the pits. After a while, both sides will see the folly of their deal and the whole thing will go under. It's called a market, and it works.

And, on a side note, close your browser for a moment of net-silence in honor of Milton Friedman. Or, in lieu of that, click here to watch a choral version (really!) of Friedman's classic take on corporate social responsibility.