The bit about the WSJ’s continuing denialism on rising inequality brings to mind a point I think I’ve made before, but which seems especially appropriate for recent debates. It is this: Today’s right wing never gives up on a politically convenient argument, no matter how thoroughly it may have been refuted by analysis and evidence. It may downplay that argument for a while — though often even that doesn’t happen — but it always comes back.

Inequality is a clear though not at all unique example. Consider three arguments one might make against 21st-century populism:

1. Inequality isn’t increasing.

2. OK, inequality is increasing, but it’s not a problem.

3. OK, it would be nice to have lower inequality, but any proposed solutions would do more harm than good.

Which of these arguments does the right choose, when making its stand? The answer is, all three. Argument 1 faded away briefly when the CBO published its landmark study documenting the rise of the one percent, but as we’ve just seen, it’s back (this is an illustration of the concept of cockroach ideas.) Argument 2 doesn’t stand up under scrutiny, but it just keeps being made anyway — it’s a zombie. But meanwhile, argument 3 is made against anyone like, say, the new mayor of New York who proposes even the slightest effort to equalize opportunity.

This kind of thing flummoxes many people, who imagine that we’re having a real debate. It makes perfect sense, however, once you realize that the other side here isn’t engaged in good-faith argument, just looking for anything that comes to hand, with no regard for consistency.

Much the same thing takes place in macroeconomics. There are several arguments you could make for austerity in a depressed economy:

1. As a matter of principle, government borrowing must crowd out an equal amount of private spending.

2. OK, maybe that’s not true. But confidence!

3. OK, maybe no confidence fairy. But debt! 90 percent!

In this case, argument 1 is again a cockroach — Heritage angrily denies making any such argument, insisting that it’s dong sophisticated intertemporal somethingorother, then makes the same argument all over again. And the WSJ does it too. Argument 2 is a zombie, thoroughly refuted by evidence, but continually asserted all the same. And 3 is part-zombie, part highly dubious assertion. Again, however, none of these arguments is ever taken off the table.

Incidentally, I love the sneering way the Wall Street Journal talks about the “notorious ‘multiplier'”, implying that this is a ridiculous notion only ignorant fools could take seriously — ignorant fools like the researchers at the International Monetary Fund …

I’d love to be having real debates on these issues. But we aren’t having and can’t have such debates, because the cockroaches and zombies get in the way.