Not to put to fine a point on it: all these things apply to liberals just like they apply to everyone else. We are, no doubt, wrong about a great many things, and conservatives are right about a great many things. Unsurprisingly, I think that American liberals tend to be right about more things than American conservatives, otherwise I wouldn't tend to identify myself with the former group rather than the latter. Perhaps I flatter myself in thinking that more thought or new evidence might make me a conservative - perhaps I'm as locked into certain liberal ways of thinking as, say, Rush Limbaugh is locked into conservative ways of thinking. Such tribalism is, to some extent, unavoidable. But only to some extent. We can reduce the effects of tribalism by reflecting long and hard on those effects, learning to recognize them for what they are, and resolving to resist them. For liberals, this means learning to resist the infamous knee-jerk inclination to agree with liberal orthodoxy. (I don't mean to suggest that conservatives are any less susceptible to this reaction; in fact, I think that they are usually slightly more susceptible to it.) The flip side of this strategy is to make a conscious resolution to evaluate reasonings as objectively as possible and to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even - especially - when it leads to conclusions that are unorthodox in our community of thought. But more to the point, it is extremely difficult to resist ideological tribalism without entering into cooperative dialogue with reasonable people who hold conclusions with which we disagree. And for us, this means conservatives. (Entering into combative dialogue with unreasonable people probably only serves to harden the conclusions we already hold, and to deceive us into thinking that those on the other side of the issue are ALL dogmatic idiots. This is why it is probably counter-productive for liberals to listen to people like Ann Coulter.) So to do their part to combat the Great Unhinging, liberals must listen to reasonable conservatives with an open mind. And here's a fringe benefit: if we more frequently listen to reasonable conservatives and genuinely consider their points, more of them will genuinely consider ours. Everybody wins, the Great Unhinging is halted. Furthermore, liberals should think that liberals have even more to gain politically than conservatives, since liberals think that liberal ideas are stronger than conservative ideas, and, consequently, will have a greater chance of winning out in the marketplace of ideas. This does not, of course, mean that we will agree about everything. It certainly does not mean that we should automatically agree with everything said by conservatives. Nor does it mean we should merely engage in some ridiculous true-for-you/true-for-me sharing of feelings. Rather, it means that political discourse should emulate scientific discourse by beginning with an explicit recognition of our own fallibility and an explicit recognition that our only hope of reaching the truth is to allow ourselves to be guided by reason and evidence, even when these lead us to conclusions we are not antecedently inclined to believe.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Hal Pawluk
I may be back on the rest of it later, but for now have a couple of factoids:
1. If you go to the PNAC site and look behind the "About" link you'll find 6 "project directors" and an additional 7 "project staff" so Brooks' number of 5 is wrong (or at least misleading), not even considering the other PNAC members, "fellows" and associates.
2. His piece seems to be part of a concerted propaganda effort by neos to minimize the idea of neoconservatives and take the focus off themselves. Pieces have been written by Max Boot (What the heck is a neo? while he was at the WSJ in late 2002), Irving Kristol (the grand-daddy of the neoconservative movement, about august 2003 I thnk) Jonah Goldberg (The Neoconservative Invention in National Review on line May 2003), among others. It looks like a deliberate, concerted smoke screen.
Nice work - keep it up.
2 - Eric Olsen
Excellent, well-written essay as always. A few thoughts: I agree anti-neocon does not equal anti-Semitism and Brooks weakens his case by saying so, although there IS a fair amount of overlap there and that is just as important to point out as the fact that one does not equal the other.
The fragmentation of the media and in particular the Internet absolutely causes people to hear just what they want to hear. I think this is one of the reasons Blogcritics is important and increasingly popular: people can hear many sides forcefully argued.
Yes, you do seem to be coming from a very specific liberal perspective that colors your perception: you are automatically anti-Bush, anti-administration, anti-War on Terror especially Iraq, and though you make a good point about not reading idiots like Ann Coulter because they may lead you to believe all conservatives are equally idiotic, you seem to believe just this, and if not idiotic then at least woefully misguided at best and dangerous at worst.
But we all have blinders, and the fact that you call our attention to it so eloquently is of great merit.
Thanks! and please disable the smart quotes in your word processing program before I lose my mind. This goes for everyone.
3 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: you are automatically anti-Bush, anti-administration, anti-War on Terror especially Iraq
That's not what I've seen.
The "anti-bush, anti-administration" statements he has made seem grounded in facts, rather than being "automatic" knee-jerk reactions.
I also seem to remember that he, like many others, makes a distinction between the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq.
I certainly do, and believe that the invasion of Iraq was in fact a turning away from the "war on terror." Last week's War College report supports that belief.
4 - Eric Olsen
It is certainly possible I have mischaracterized Winston's position - I guess we will have to wait to hear from him. By the "war on terror" I believe you mean the "war on al Qaeda" - I see it much more broadly. That is a fundamental difference, I agree.
5 - Winston Smith
Eric:
Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I agree with Hal.
Eric writes:
"Yes, you do seem to be coming from a very specific liberal perspective that colors your perception:..."
I guess (tho I'm a gun owner and strongly pro-Second Amendment, favored welfare reform, and tend to favor market-based solutions and solutions that promote personal responsibility and minimize the role of government in our lives when these are practicable. And my position on abortion has changed a couple of times.)
Eric: "you are automatically anti-Bush, anti-administration,"
I disagree. These positions are forced on me by the evidence. Like so many others, I got behind Bush after 9/11, strongly supported military action in Afghanistan, and moved away from Bush again when he started lying to us about Iraq. (I was never *strongly* behind him, however, I must admit. After the election of 2000 it became clear to me that we were dealing with some very dangerouns people in this administration.)
Eric: "anti-War on Terror"
Well, I'm not sure how to wage war on *terror*... (next: the war on horror!)...and I'm not sure it's actually a *war*...but I support going after *terrorists* in a very big way. As Hal notes and a recent report from the Army War College concludes, being pro "war on Terra" is one reason to be AGAINST the war in Iraq.
Eric: "especially Iraq"
Well, note: I've supported military action against Saddam for a long time, though on humanitarian grounds, and will dance in the street when he finally swings. I'm not against military action in Iraq, I'm against the President lying to us and to congress about the reasons for it.
Eric: "and though you make a good point about not reading idiots like Ann Coulter because they may lead you to believe all conservatives are equally idiotic, you seem to believe just this, and if not idiotic then at least woefully misguided at best and dangerous at worst."
Um. Not sure how I suggested that to you, but nothing could be farther from what I actually think. I WILL endeavor to be more careful about conveying that impression in the future, and regret having conveyed it in the past.
WS
6 - debbie
"Eric: you are automatically anti-Bush, anti-administration, anti-War on Terror especially Iraq
That's not what I've seen."
Please...
"this means learning to resist the infamous knee-jerk inclination to agree with liberal orthodoxy. (I don't mean to suggest that conservatives are any less susceptible to this reaction; in fact, I think that they are usually slightly more susceptible to it.)"
"Unsurprisingly, I think that American liberals tend to be right about more things than American conservatives, otherwise I wouldn't tend to identify myself with the former group rather than the latter."
" "All evidence suggests" that Bush doesn't arrive at ANY conclusions independently. During the campaign of 2000, we were told that Bush would be our first "CEO president." Sure, he didn't know many, you know, facts, and sure, he wasn't a very good, you know, reasoner, but he'd surround himself by good advisors. "
These are just a couple of areas that indeed show that the writer is Anti-Bush, anti-administration, etc. It obviously was written by someone with a liberal viewpoint.
7 - debbie
"moved away from Bush again when he started lying to us about Iraq. (I was never *strongly* behind him, however, I must admit. After the election of 2000 it became clear to me that we were dealing with some very dangerouns people in this administration.)"
Let's not even open this can of worms. Obviously you see it from a liberal viewpoint and I see it from a conservative viewpoint.
"Well, note: I've supported military action against Saddam for a long time, though on humanitarian grounds, and will dance in the street when he finally swings. I'm not against military action in Iraq, I'm against the President lying to us and to congress about the reasons for it."
Do you honestly believe that Bush and his administration 'made up' stuff to invade Iraq? What about the 'evidence' the Clinton cited in his bombing of Iraq? Was that made up too? It is obvious that we actually had intelligence that made us believe that Saddam had WMD, there isn't any doubt that he supported terrorist, he paid families of suicide bombers $25,000 to kill Isrealis. It just seems disingenious to claim that 'BUSH LIED' and never mention the fact that Clinton belived the same thing during his administration?
8 - Eric Olsen
Winston, i have always considered myself fundamentally liberal and this is the kind of liberal I see myself as: "tho I'm a gun owner and strongly pro-Second Amendment, favored welfare reform, and tend to favor market-based solutions and solutions that promote personal responsibility and minimize the role of government in our lives when these are practicable. And my position on abortion has changed a couple of times."
Other than the gun part - I detest guns and support gun ownership purely on constitutional grounds - and I also have never been anything but pro-choice, the rest of it is me.
This is why I have such a hard time understanding why people who think so similarly to the way I think on so many other issues are so at odds with my view of the war on terror. And though rhetorically clever to turn it into an abstraction, we all know this means "war on terrorism."
I see the RESULTS of the war, the fact that it is taking place at all, as infinitely more important than WHY it is taking place, since I also know that it is taking place for a VARIETY OF REASONS, any one of which may be paramount at any given time.
I see absolutely zero "evidence" for an anti-Bush position being "forced" upon anyone other than terrorists. I don't see Bush lying to anyone about his reasons for going to war - I see an administration doing its best to explain its position at any given point in time given the evidence available and given the asdministrations predisposition to fighting the war on terror, including Iraq - a position with which I strongly agree. I see doing the right thing for more or less the right reasons.
I have many issues with Bush, but they are mostly on domestic matters. I think his foreign policy since 9/11 has been remarkably successful and almost unerring, and since this is by far the most important matter of our time, that puts him in such a strong position that I may be willing to overlook his wretched record on the environment, abortion, his steel tariffs (now blessedly removed), his support of Powell's FCC, his fiscal irresponsibility, and his desire to erode the separation of church and state, among other things.
9 - Winston Smith
Eric,
A couple of thoughts:
1. I probably agree with you about being "forced by the evidence." Problem is, the evidence doesn't usually (in the words of Lewis Carroll's Achilles to his Tortoise) take us by the throat and FORCE us to accept anything.
2. However, an objective and dispassionate examination of the evidence indicates that, before the war, it was more reasonable to believe that Saddam did not have lots of deliverable "WMD"s than it was to belive that he did, and that it was more reasonable to believe that there were no significant Saddam/Al Qaeda links than it was to believe that there were such links. Again I refer to Judis and Ackerman's "The Selling of the Iraq War" in the New Republic.
3. The one good, quick indicator that 2 is so is this: that's what the CIA concluded before political pressure was put on it to conclude otherwise. Perhaps I'm a liberal locked into my blah blah blah, but I don't think that the same can be said of the CIA.
4. I agree that results are important in our efforts against AQ et. al., but I assess the results differently than you. I think they've been pretty lame. Sure there have been some victories--Libya, for example. But certain kinds of compliance are predictable in the face of certain kinds of aggression. Don't forget about the costs: the complete loss of the goodwill of the world (as many polls indicate). That's only one...and not the most important one. But this is already long-winded.
5. Why are intentions important? Because we have to assess two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. We have to figure out whether the war in Iraq is overall a good thing, and we have to figure out whether the Administration lied to us. The answer to the former might be 'yes' even though the answer to the latter is also 'yes.' I am inclined to believe that this is a real possibility. If the Admin. lied to us, then we have good reason to distrust them, vote against them, etc. even if what they did turns out to be a good thing in the end.
My $0.02.
WS
10 - Eric Olsen
Okay, that's reasonable - so it mostly comes down to the "lying" issue. I am either much more cynical or realistic depending upon your perspective: everyone, including politicians, "lie" to a certain extent, if by "lie" you mean not telling "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" at all times. I do not believe Bush has told any intentional falsehoods, but if he gave "the facts" a reading closest possible to his own philosophy, that wouldn't surprise me or disturb me in the least because my philosophy is broadly the same as his on this. There are all different kinds of "lies" - they are not monolithic and equally sinful - and I see nothing done here that absolutely ANY other politician on earth wouldn't do.
11 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: By the "war on terror" I believe you mean the "war on al Qaeda" - I see it much more broadly.
No on both.
12 - mike
"I think his foreign policy since 9/11 has been remarkably successful and almost unerring, and since this is by far the most important matter of our time, that puts him in such a strong position that I may be willing to overlook his wretched record on the environment, abortion, his steel tariffs (now blessedly removed), his support of Powell's FCC, his fiscal irresponsibility, and his desire to erode the separation of church and state, among other things."
A perfect example of how the spread of "democracy" abroad mandates its destruction at home. The same President who is anti-choice at home is committed to liberating Arab women abroad? That's not even remotely credible.
The Iraq war "is going to be quick, and it's going to be great politically," Karl Rove is alleged to have told Republicans in Congress last year. Precisely.
13 - Hal Pawluk
Eric: I see nothing done here that absolutely ANY other politician on earth wouldn't do.
Isaiah 6:9-10
14 - debbie
"A perfect example of how the spread of "democracy" abroad mandates its destruction at home. The same President who is anti-choice at home is committed to liberating Arab women abroad? That's not even remotely credible."
How is it not credible? What does not killing late term fetuses (to me they are babies) to escape personal responsibility have to do with not being able to stone a women to death for not being a virgin, even if she was raped? What does it have to do with being able leave the house without being in the company of a male? Or how about forced chastity checks? Not being able to work?
They are not even remotely comparable.
15 - Eric Olsen
I do not see his foreign policy affecting his domestic policy - it is not a cause and effect relationship. In fact, all of the domestic proclivites were in place before 9/11, before the current foreign policy took shape. It is the emergent foreign policy that is the positive "aberration," the domestic policy has been there all along and hasn't changed much at all as far as I can tell.
And debbie is correct that there is a world of difference betwen opposing abortion for religious or moral reasons and opposing the treatment of women as chattels with fewer rights than a good dog.
16 - JR
And debbie is correct that there is a world of difference between opposing abortion for religious or moral reasons and opposing the treatment of women as chattels with fewer rights than a good dog.
Then again, there's a world of difference between opposing abortion for religious or moral reasons and opposing abortion because it represents the will of the majority (which it doesn't).
17 - Hal Pawluk
Um, perhpas I should clarify my earlier post for those, like me, without access to a bible:
Isaiah 6:9-10
: And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see indeed, but perceive not.
: Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.
18 - mike
"How is it not credible? What does not killing late term fetuses (to me they are babies) to escape personal responsibility have to do with not being able to stone a women to death for not being a virgin, even if she was raped? What does it have to do with being able leave the house without being in the company of a male? Or how about forced chastity checks? Not being able to work?"
Sorry, you lose this argument. Told you so:
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003042.html
19 -
"the domestic policy has been there all along and hasn't changed much at all as far as I can tell."
Eric,
Are you an ostrich? In light of the Patriot Act, can you say such a thing without getting a guilty conscience?
I wonder, why are you promoting Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Self-Reliance" while approving of an administration that is all-out against the principles in that essay? It doesn't balance.
Who are you?
20 -
Eric,
The part about Emerson is misplaced, I apologize.
You wrote:
"[I] tend to favor market-based solutions and solutions that promote personal responsibility and minimize the role of government in our lives when these are practicable"
Anyone, with a bit of independence of thinking, will read your words, and through juxtaposing your praise for the Bush admin, conclude that either you don't really beleive in the values you claim, or you don't really know what Bush & Co. are about.
21 - Eric Olsen
I didn't even know you could leave a comment without giving a name - the question directed at me - "Who are you?" - is rather ironic under the circumstances.
22 - Hal Pawluk
"Who are you?" - is rather ironic under the circumstances.
I was about to say something similar :-)
So, okay, #19 - who ARE you?
23 - Nick Jones
"Doot-doot, doot-doot."
24 - Bob A. Booey
Everyone should by that Brooks book on the Amazon link. It's cultural analysis rather than politics and even those (like me) who normally disagree with Brooks on politics will find "Bobos in Paradise" a great read about how the counter-culture of the 60s fused with the capitalism and materialism of the 80s and 90s to make Boomers the best consumerists of all.
That is all.
25 - FreeDem
I used to say that in the spectrum between the InfaRed to the UltraViolent I was a sound wave as I usually had a third opinion to the dichomity of either side.
These days the InfaRed & UltraViolent are somehow on the same side and most differences of policy have faded to the background with everyone measuring Conservative/ liberalness on how much of an idiot/danger one thinks Ole GW is, and how much we should trust him to do the right thing with absolute power.
In reality that is the only issue as without a free and democratic civilization all other arguments are moot, but I am stunned by the strange bedfellows on either side, and the assumptions each makes of the other.
My Web page oes into more depth about the triumverate of evil that has taken hold, and how their goals are not identical, but one point needs making.
The first step is to understand Leo Strausse and his idea that there needs to be aware shepherds leading blind sheep, all the rest are enemies.
The sheep are created by emphasizing, trust, faith, obeying official leaders and sources, and are heavily warned against straying.
The Shepherds see themselves superior for seeing that all is BS, but they can benefit as greater or lesser aristocracy, by helping advance their superiors in the Cult. These folk think belefs or morals are to used to control others and not for them, the only rule , to keep the man behind the curtain covered up.
If we have a discussion with a sheep, we are constantly in the face of their absolutes, and indeed come away thinking we talked with an idiot. And at least where Faith rules, that is not far off, as thinking there is halted.
If we discuss with a shepherd, the lack of rules on their part also makes discussion ultimately fruitless, as there is no attachment to any concept or reality that does not serve the moments need, and can be abandonded the moment the concept becomes inconvient, no matter how vociferously held.
Those not in on the joke are constantly flommoxed, and call the Cons hippocrites, but it is deeper than that,as (at least in my definition) a hippocrite actually has a position but may not live up to it, while they only argued the position because of momentary advantage.
Brooks, in true shepherd fashion, is out to blur this as much as possible.
Beyond such Evil (and I can only think it that)intelligent discussions can be widely held even with folk who have a part of their thinking locked away, but most folk are not just one facet, and while we may each hive around an idea there are usually many ideas to hive about, and many that are opposites in one hive might well be comrades in another, and that lies our best hope.
While opposite hives dehumanize the other, cross hive actions expose at least some of the "other" as humans, and that may help reduce the brutality of the unhinged political conflict that I dread but every day seems more inevitable