Why does The New Yorker's endorsement of Hillary Clinton praise something it recently published a piece rejecting?

John Althouse Cohen writes:

The New Yorker's endorsement of Hillary Clinton praises her for planning to "increase the tax rate on short-term capital gains for high earners, with lower rates for longer-term holdings." Why wasn't the New Yorker convinced by its own article against this plan?

Here's the editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton. This is all there is on the topic, with the proposal lumped together with a handful of things:

Clinton’s tax plans are also designed to promote broader-based affluence. She would increase the tax rate on short-term capital gains for high earners, with lower rates for longer-term holdings; close the “carried-interest” tax loophole that favors hedge-fund managers; and levy fees on banks with high debt levels....

Here's the James Surowiecki article — published by The New Yorker in August 2015 — "The Short-Termism Myth":

The political appeal of [Hillary Clinton's] plan is clear. It targets wealthy investors, is friendly to executives, and is aimed at getting companies to spend more money. Unfortunately, it almost certainly won’t work. The simplest reason for this is that the plan would affect only a small slice of the market. Len Burman, a tax expert at the Urban Institute, told me, “The plan’s unlikely to have a major impact on stock prices, since most of the money in the market is controlled by institutions that don’t pay capital-gains taxes, like endowments and pension funds.” Burman also made the point that pushing people to hold stocks they would rather sell is hardly conducive to productive investment. “Even if short-termism is the problem, locking people into unprofitable transactions for long periods of time doesn’t really seem like a great solution,” he said.

Aside from these practical problems, the plan rests on two common but ultimately questionable assumptions. The first is that corporate decision-makers care only about the short term. The second is that it’s the stock market that makes them think this way. These assumptions are widely shared and long-standing, in both business and academe...

I'm just putting this problem out there, not expressing an opinion. Who am I to disagree with "assumptions... widely shared and long-standing, in both business and academe"?

James Surowiecki defends the "philanthrocapitalism" of Mark Zuckerberg.

I have to link to this New Yorker piece, since I've been skeptical about whether Zuckerberg is really doing good.

Hostility toward philanthropy is nothing new; when John D. Rockefeller established his eponymous foundation, he was attacked for reasserting “the old reign of aristocracy under the new names of philanthropy and science.” And Zuckerberg’s move comes at a time of anxiety about the rise of so-called philanthrocapitalism. Foundations have great influence over social policy but are independent of democratic control. Why should unelected billionaires get to exercise their neo-missionary impulses across the globe?....

Philanthropies... have far-reaching time horizons and almost no one they have to please. This can lead them to pour money into controversial causes, as Zuckerberg has with education reform. But it also enables them to make big bets on global public goods. There is a long history of this: the Rockefeller Foundation funded the research that produced a vaccine for yellow fever. The Gates Foundation, since its founding, in 2000, has put billions of dollars into global health programs, and now spends more on health issues than the W.H.O.

It’s been suggested that if we just taxed billionaires more there’d be more money for promoting social projects globally. But it’s far likelier that those projects would just go underfunded....

ADDED: I don't think Surowiecki confronts the problem of "pour[ing] money into controversial causes" like education reform. One man's flaky or utopian notions can supplant democratic choice.

"[I]f Reddit is actually interested in using the power of its crowd to help the authorities, it needs to dramatically rethink its approach..."

"... because the process it used to try to find the bombers wasn’t actually tapping the wisdom of crowds at all—at least not as I would define that wisdom. For a crowd to be smart, the people in it need to be not only diverse in their perspectives but also, relatively speaking, independent of each other. In other words, you need people to be thinking for themselves, rather than following the lead of those around them.... The problem from Reddit’s perspective, of course, is that this method of sleuthing would be far less exciting for users, and would probably generate less traffic, than its current free-for-all approach."

All about Malcolm Gladwell.

Rachel Donadio writes:

Gladwell has become an all-out international phenomenon — and has helped create a highly contagious hybrid genre of nonfiction, one that takes a nonthreatening and counterintuitive look at pop culture and the mysteries of the everyday. In the past year, several other books in the Gladwell vein have appeared. They include the best-selling "Freakonomics," a breezy collection of case studies by Steven Levitt, an economist at the University of Chicago, and the journalist Stephen Dubner (the pair write an occasional "Freakonomics" column for The Times Magazine); "The Wisdom of Crowds," a business book for thinking people in which the New Yorker writer James Surowiecki argues that groups are collectively smarter and more innovative than individuals; and "Everything Bad Is Good for You," Steven Johnson's case that pop culture is becoming increasingly sophisticated....

For all their resonance and success, Gladwell's books have also been criticized, most often for demonstrating, or encouraging, lazy thinking. In a scathing review in The New Republic, the judge and author Richard Posner found "Blink" full of banalities and contradictions, "written like a book intended for people who do not read books."

Well, what's wrong with clearly explaining ideas to people who don't want to make the effort to read more scholarly things? But it's more than just vividly written explanation. He transforms social science material into a positive message:

"I'm by nature an optimist. I can't remember the last time I wrote a story which could be described as despairing," he said. "I don't believe in character. I believe in the effect of the immediate impact of environment and situation on people's behavior."...

Although pitched as descriptive, Gladwell's books are essentially prescriptive. Trust your instincts! You too may be (or can become) a connector, maven or salesman! Gladwell's dazzling arguments ultimately offer reassurance. Indeed, he seems a contemporary incarnation of a recurring figure in the American experience, one who comes with encouraging news: You can make a difference, you have the capacity to change. Gladwell may be the Dale Carnegie, or perhaps the Norman Vincent Peale, of the iPod generation. But where Carnegie in his 1936 book, "How to Win Friends and Influence People," instructed readers how to understand their customers and flatter people into liking them, and Peale in his 1952 "Power of Positive Thinking" offered watered-down Christian palliatives, Gladwell offers optimism through demystification: to understand how things work is to have control over them.

So, to paraphrase Posner: It's written like a book intended for people who read self-help books. Do we need to start being embarrassed that we like Gladwell so much?