From Wikipedia:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

The Leonhardt column began by talking about Scott Brown. It then pivoted to …

The case against the stimulus revolves around the idea that the economy would be no worse off without it. As a Wall Street Journal opinion piece put it last year, “The resilience of the private sector following the fall 2008 panic — not the fiscal stimulus program — deserves the lion’s share of the credit for the impressive growth improvement.” In a touch of unintended irony, two of article’s three authors were listed as working at a research institution named for Herbert Hoover.

Had Leonhardt explained that he intended to narrowly challenge the GOP talking points that Chait cites (e.g., “The case congressional Republicans make against the stimulus …”), he’d have a strong point. Instead, he suggests that the stimulus, minor caveats aside, should be understood as a big success. I argue that there are many reasons it should not be seen as a big success, and that two of the scholars he cited, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, have offered a good reason to be very skeptical of whether the stimulus was well-designed.

Jonathan Chait writes the following:

I also think it would be extremely useful if those conservatives who understand how ridiculous these ideas are would use their position of influence within the movement to refute these ridiculous ideas rather than deny their existence. I understand the difficulty of Reihan’s position and why he has very good reasons not to do so. But we should be clear that it’s not David Leonhardt or me that’s allowing his writing to be driven by partisan loyalties.

I think that Chait misunderstands my objectives. When Republicans are in power, I criticize Republicans. When Democrats are in power, I criticize Democrats. Had Chait excerpted different parts of my post, that point would come across (I stated this explicitly), but we approach these arguments in a different way, and I respect that. It’s not at all clear to me that Chait understands the difficulty of my position: I don’t think my position is very difficult at all. Criticizing John Boehner is, in my view, frankly less important than criticizing Nancy Pelosi when Nancy Pelosi commands a large congressional majority. That said, I’ve also written several columns for The Daily Beast recommending that the White House and congressional Democrats pursue a more partisan legislative strategy. The DSCC issued a press release citing a Forbes.com column I wrote on Charlie Crist. I’ve praised Greg Anrig’s call for federalizing Medicaid. I’ve favorably cited arguments made by Jane Hamsher and Chris Hayes. I’ve criticized Republicans for not backing the excise tax. I’ve advocated a VAT to help balance the budget. I’ve … you get the picture.

Chait very generously characterizes me as smart, which is why he doesn’t understand why I can’t grasp his argument. If being smart means understanding that running a 10 percent deficit is the best of various bad options or that Alice Rivlin is wrongheaded for believing that the stimulus package was poorly designed or that the case against the stimulus bill and the case advanced by congressional Republicans against the stimulus bill are identical, I obviously don’t deserve to be called smart. And I’m okay with that! I almost flunked out of high school, and as far as I’m concerned there are more important things in life than being smart, like being judicious, open-minded, and independent.