Law professor – and apparently legend in his own mind – Brian Leiter has a post up rationalizing his lack of civility in blog discourse.
There’s not a lot new here – it’s a well-picked over field. But I want to take a moment and add my own spin to the well-deserved criticism he’s getting.
And note if you will that it applies to Duncan Black, Tbogg, Yglesias (all too often) and others on the left…it’s a variant of “I just can’t believe you aren’t bowing the ineffable rightness of my positions” that we’re used to seeing from the smart fat guy in the isolated cubicle – the one who knows more than anyone else about the fine points of the interactions between the Venice Specific Plan, the California Coastal Act, and Los Angeles planning law, or multi-threaded processing on early x86 chips, or the student films of George Lucas, or prewar Hegelian theory in the works of Lukacs.
But very few of them have much to say about how things are actually run.
They do coalesce into groups, sometimes – in my own experience I’ve run into them acting in concert primarily in evangelical religion, and in the net-based Randian community. It’s virtually impossible to have dialog, in the traditional sense, with many members of either group, because once you point out that you don’t accept the basic premises their worldview is crafted from, you’re simply not worth talking to. It’s a colloquial version of the Stalinist “if you don’t support us, you must be crazy” model. Lately, I’m seeing them coalesce more and more into the Opposition to Bush.
Leiter stands foursquare in the middle of that intellectual style:
These questions, and many others, are easily addressed in the blogosphere, since there is no serious–or at least no honest or intelligent–dispute about the epistemic merits of the possible answers. Where I get into “trouble,” of course, is with those who can’t tell the difference between the two kinds of questions, the ones who think that the dialectical care, caution, and intellectual humility required for the genuinely “hard” questions ought to apply to the easy questions as well. These folks are a bit miffed when I dismiss their positions out of hand. But that is what their positions usually deserve.
Boy, there are so many problems here.
Let me suggest three, two of which are grounded in my own intellectual history, and cite thinkers I’ll happily hold up against Professor Leiter on their worst days, and one which is based in reality.
Leiter explains that the following are “easy” questions, which have yielded to his towering intellect the only true and correct answer possible:
Was the U.S. justified in invading Iraq?
Are Bush’s economic policies in the interests of most people?
Is Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection a well-confirmed scientific theory?
Is there a social security “crisis”?
All of these – based as they are in complex questions of history, economics, sociology, and history of science are what Horst Rittel meant when he talked about “wicked problems.” I’ve blogged about these before, but let me touch on a few highlights. They set out ten rules for defining wicked problems:
1. There is no definitive formulation of a wicked problem.
2. Wicked problems have no stopping rule.
3. Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad.
4. There is no immediate and no ultimate test of a solution to a wicked problem.
5. Every solution to a wicked problem is a “one-shot operation”; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
6. Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions, nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the plan.
7. Every wicked problem is essentially unique.
8. Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.
9. The existence of a discrepancy in representing a wicked problem can be explained in numerous ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem’s resolution.
10. The planner (designer) has no right to be wrong.
Other than #10 and the question of Darwin, these rules seem to apply fairly well to all of Prof. Leiter’s “easy questions,” making them all, in my mind, pretty clearly wicked problems. What do Rittel and Weber suggest is the solution to wicked problem in the real world? In a gross simplification, dialog.
Before I studied with Rittel, I studied American political theory with John Schaar.
Prof Schaar wrote a lot about the failure of progressives in the 60’s to capitalize on their success and radicalize the American population. He harped on one these:
“Finally, if political education is to effective it must grow from a spirit of humility on the part of the teachers, and they must overcome the tendencies toward self-righteousness and self-pity which set the tone of youth and student politics in the 1960’s. The teachers must acknowledge common origins and common burdens with the taught, stressing connection and membership, rather than distance and superiority. Only from these roots can trust and hopeful common action grow.”
I’m interested in advancing progressive ideals – which I see in large part as using the power of government in favor of the less- rather than more-powerful. While I don’t spend a lot of bandwidth gnashing my teeth over what I see as Republican policies that favor the wealthy and powerful – as an institutionalized value – when it comes to applying the power of the law, it’s something that causes me a lot of distress.
I want to see a viable, powerful progressive movement in this country. I want this because those are my core values, and in part because we need the kind of back-and-forth dialectic that comes from two strong political wings to keep refreshing our politics. In large part it’s because I’m afraid of what politics a class-stratified America might tilt toward.
And, to point out a small fact to Professor Leiter, the Democrats are getting their ass handed to them. The latest Democracy Corps poll shows a downturn in public regard for the Republicans, matched by a bigger downturn in regard for the Democrats.
With all due respect, I’ll suggest that one of President Bush’s – and the Republican Party’s – greatest assets is their ability to relate to the “folks.” Whatever innate feelings of superiority they may hold, their affect is lacking the obnoxious certainty that’s displayed by Professor Leiter or the air of superiority and entitlement shown by both the Professor and his candidate, Senator Kerry.
Which beings us to the title of this piece.
I said a long time ago that the current Democratic leadership was actively harming the poor by failing to become an effective force in arguing for their interests. The wealthy and comfortable apparachniks of the Party, and the tenured supporters of the party like Leiter, live well while the poor and near-poor struggle.
If they were doing their jobs – if they were building a powerful and effective force for progressive values in this country – no one would mind that they were doing well by doing good. But the reality is that they are marching the Democratic Party off a cliff, and their arrogant blindness – and the fact that they revel in their arrogance – is one of the main reasons. Not only does it drive away what Leiter calls the “brainwashed” “cowed” and “fooled” by it’s affect, but it leads to a myopia and unwillingness to change, react, and cope with the reality that is far from “easy.” So we get bad people expounding bad politics.
But they have tenure, and high self-esteem.
The fact that they are losing – and worse, harming the people who depend on them winning to survive by losing – is something they can talk about on their blogs, in the therapist’s office, or over a nice Viognier.
Have one for me, Professor Leiter. Drink to another decade of corporatist Republican power – brought to us by you and your arrogant, immature, and foolish colleagues on the Left.
Update: Here’s an image that pretty much sums up my view:
–
Leiter: reasons and evidence appear to play almost no role in changing anyone’s views.
What does this guy teach in law school? Bribery, or Subornation of Perjury?
I’m reminded of the old canard that used to be bandied about the right wing blogs, though with decreasing frequency up to the election and with zero occurance since, that the left looks for heretics while the right looks for converts. Whatever accuracy that phrase once had has clearly been destroyed by the events of the 2nd Bush term. As for the Democracy Corps poll, it doesn’t much concern me. The party advantage matters only if either party manages to make individual races reflective of the national debate as a whole. The GOP, and Bush did that in 2002 and 2004, but they probably won’t be able to in 2006, try as they will. Furthermore, the Democratic Party has led in generic Congressional ballots for years now with little to show for it. This is one poll, and as the right likes to remind us re; Iraq, polls aren’t everything, and this is literally the only domestic political number I’ve seen in months that anyone on the right (or center, in this case) has mentioned as an indicator that Bush and the Congress aren’t in free fall. If the national mood in this country is as bad as almost every other poll suggests, The Pottery Barn rule, it seems, will have a domestic component as well. In any event, 2006 is a long, long way out.
As for your other points, let me add several in response. I’m always interested to hear what people who critique the Democratic Party from the center (as opposed to the right) have as suggestions. So, AL, what would you have the party do differently (and I mean that quite seriously)? The formulation you present in this piece, is guilty, I think, of letting the President and the Republicans off too easy for what are decisions they make and are responsible for. Do you blame the PS for the failures of Chirac? No. The party of government should govern, and the party of opposition should oppose, but the responsibility each has are not even close to being equal, and it simply lets the GOP off the hook to blame its excesses on the Democrats. Forget the milieu; the President and the Congress have failed in their attempts to lead this country in the right direction. I really don’t care how bad Brian Leiter, or Ward Churchill, or even Howard Dean may be. They’re not in charge. They’re not equivalent.
2nd, the charge of “guy in the cubicleism” seems rather incongruous coming from someone who posts at this site. It’s not an insult (and it’s not meant to be) to say that most of the people who post here, on issues of great scale and complexity are amateurs in their fields. I, alas do not know the details of everyone’s backgrounds, including yours. But, WoC certainly tries to cover a great deal of subjects, and you all aren’t shrinking violets. TBogg is a guy with a website whose title includes “a daily dose of snark”. Duncan Black is just as qualified to comment on whatever he chooses to as Glenn Reynolds (and both are, I might add, not shy about “always being right.” I find the mention of Yglesias rather surprising. He writes considered and detailed pieces of journalism. He is, as he has noted, not interested in being a “hack”, but rather a “wonk.” If you had specifics for the individuals you mention it would support your charge, but even so I don’t think arrogance is a distinguising feature of the left-wing blogosphere. And most people don’t know or care enough to comment on US-India defense pacts. But you all do. Which is why people come here. So I think it’s wrong to suggest that attribute is, in others (but especially Yglesias), a bug and not a feature.
“These questions, and many others, are easily addressed in the blogosphere, since there is no serious–or at least no honest or intelligent–dispute about the epistemic merits of the possible answers. Where I get into “trouble,” of course, is with those who can’t tell the difference between the two kinds of questions, the ones who think that the dialectical care, caution, and intellectual humility required for the genuinely “hard” questions ought to apply to the easy questions as well. These folks are a bit miffed when I dismiss their positions out of hand. But that is what their positions usually deserve.”
Oh, that’s classic. I think I’m going to have to remember it and recite it to any liberal that doesn’t get the basics.
I’ve this intriguing idea of having a debate in which both sides simply recite that back and forth at each other endlessly. I’d like to say that such idea is original, but in fact its exactly what passes for politics in this country now.
“The party advantage matters only if either party manages to make individual races reflective of the national debate as a whole. The GOP, and Bush did that in 2002 and 2004, but they probably won’t be able to in 2006…This is one poll, and as the right likes to remind us re; Iraq, polls aren’t everything, and this is literally the only domestic political number I’ve seen in months that anyone on the right (or center, in this case) has mentioned as an indicator that Bush and the Congress aren’t in free fall. If the national mood in this country is as bad as almost every other poll suggests, The Pottery Barn rule, it seems, will have a domestic component as well.”
You know, I’ve been hearing that as the conventional wisdom of the Democratic party since at least 2000, and in no small measure all the way back to 1980. Every year its the same thing. “The country is going to come back to our side in 2 years. All we have to do is stall, stall, stall and not do anything, and then the good old days will be here again.” It’s that attitude that has left the U.S. without a real opposition party to the GOP. The only time the Dems have done momentarily well is when the GOP party was split by a third party candidate, and even that required the press to spend its last credibility with the American public.
Sooner or latter, the Democratic Party is going to die, the Republicans are going to overreach and then the party will split and we’ll have an actual debate over something – hopefully between parties that actually have principals and feel that the electorate will hold them to it. We don’t have that at the momment because the opposition party is out of touch completely with what the American public actually rejects in the GOP, and the Dems have been stuck with the same talking points for just about my entire lifetime. The American people aren’t happy with Bush or the GOP, but do not delude yourself into thinking that they see the Democrats as an alternative. It’s those very delusions that has kept the GOP winning for decades now.
My point, celebrim, is that these numbers do not matter much as 2006 is concerned, but to whatever extend they do most of them suggest the opposite of the one mentioned here. It’s not to suggest the Democrats be complacent, but that there’s an oppertunity to make gains. Bush and Congress are faltering, hard. And they’ve already overreached, many times over.
I’d say the problem AL describes of people who do not understand “how things are actually run” is not confined to the left, though it may be stronger there for a whole bunch of logical reasons.
It’s endemic to both the blogosphere and journalism, actually, and it does affect the suggestions and criticisms offered. There’s nothing wrong with anyone speaking their mind – after all, each and every one is a citizen, and it’s quite possible for “ordinary” citizens to be informed and to be right. But if a blogger can’t explain to you how something works now, it’s wise to factor that in when assessing credibility (Steven Den Beste was the best at this, which is why he developed the fan base he did before his illness forced him to quit).
I’ll note that many bloggers (the MilBlog community, for instance) blog on matters with which they’re intimately acquainted. This has, in fact been one of the plusses of blogging for public discourse: unfiltered experts.
No argument with AL’s frying of Leiter – if those are what he calls obvious problems, he’s OBVIOUSLY an idiot and the Wile E. Coyote cartoon is dead-on accurate.
As for the rest, it’s not exactly a revelation. “John Perry Barlow”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005852.php confesses as much, “potential voters have written in about it,”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005866.php James Carville is talking about it fer cryin’ out loud.
I’m _not_ a Democrat or a liberal. I wish AL would stop writing about this, because one day liberals might start to listen and we’d lose our biggest asset.
“It’s not to suggest the Democrats be complacent, but that there’s an oppertunity to make gains.”
No, there isn’t. The Democrats have no oppurtunity to make gains if they remain the same party that they’ve been for the last 30 years. The Democratic party platform failed 30 years ago, and its still failing, and waiting two more years won’t change that.
“Bush and Congress are faltering, hard.”
What else is new? AL believes that we shouldn’t talk about this because one day the Democrats might actually listen, but I’ve been watching American politics long enough to realize that simply isn’t going to happen. You could lay out an exact strategy for winning back control of the Congress and the Presidency to the Democratic party and it wouldn’t matter because not only wouldn’t they believe you, but they wouldn’t hear you.
“And they’ve already overreached, many times over.”
Yes they have. Many times. And they’ve also underreached, many times. And they’ve turned thier back on the principles that they claim to stand for, many times. So what? It doesn’t mean that the American public will ever turn to the Democrats. You want to know how someone like George W. Bush gets elected president of the United States _twice_? The answer was that he was running against Democrats. As my brother – former president of the College Republicans, formerly a delagate to the Republican convention from two states – puts it, “The Republicans have become Democrats, and the party leadership is a pack of idiots, but it doesn’t matter because the Democrats have gone insane.”
Let me tell you my story. I have never voted anything but straight ticket GOP. In 2000 though, the GOP ran George W. Bush for the office of the Presidency, and I thought there was just no way I was going to vote for the son of a former President (which strikes me as un-American in its aristocracy), whose father was of the liberal Rockefeller wing of the GOP party was basically a RINO and never impressed me much as a leader anyway, who had a past history of drunkeness and exess (which as an Evangelical Christian turned me off completely), and whose accomplishments were basically unremarkable. Too boot, the democrats were supposedly running in Al Gore a man of science (which would be a refreshing change), and he picked as a running mate one of the most conservative and rational members of the whole party. I was ready to cast my first vote for a Democrat; all that Al Gore had to do was convince me that he was rational, distance himself from the glaring deficiencies of his boss, and show by his avoidance of the stock Democratic talking points that he had some vision for the future. Instead, Gore acted like a fool, ran an incompontent campaign in which he let that son of Satan James Carville call the shots, seemed to lack any kind of professionalism in his staff, did not distance himself from the calamity of Clinton, and basically let himself be presented as a stock Democrat devoid of any ideas except to sling sterotypical slurs at Republicans.
Even the state of Tennessee found no favor in that, and incidently, had he won Tennessee, Florida wouldn’t have mattered.
The manner in which Bush has conducted himself since being elected largely confirmed many of my fears, but the manner in which Gore has conducted himself since the election largely confirmed I voted for the right man anyway.
Since that time, the democrats have been running the 2 year plan in earnest and if anything have gotten wackier and wackier, to the point that they are a laughingstock. In 2004, though I was fully ready to vote for someone else, the Democratic party choose to run 9 clowns, and of them picked a man who would not vote for where he to run against a mule. And should I have any doubts about that decision, Kerry dismissed them all by running the singularly most incompotent and inept campaign I have ever seen – proving to me that Kerry couldn’t and shouldn’t be trusted to run a fast food restuarant much less the United States of America. I had told a friend that it would be impossible for Bush to go to war in Iraq and retain the Presidency. I did not foresee how truly stupid the Democrats could actually be. If Kerry had wrapped his head in a touriquet and said nothing the whole campaign, he would have won, but unfortunately for Kerry (and fortunately for the country) he could not but be himself.
All of which leaves me with no one that I’m happy to vote for; no one in DC who represents my interests; and no real feeling that anyone has the qualities to steer the ship of state. Steel sharpens steel. The best time for me as a supporter of the GOP is from 1992 to about 1994 when the GOP suddenly (and very temporarily) felt that they might have some political opposition and hense, might actually have to stick to thier principles for a change. The GOP needs someone presenting challenging ideas to keep them sharp and honest. But I’m convinced that opposition party will *never* be the party of Howard Dean. In fact, the party of Howard Dean only enables GOP sloth.
And I can say all of that without the slightest fear that any liberal that doesn’t already understand it, would actually come to understand it – much less understand what a true opposition party to the party of Bush, Gullianni, and Swartznegger would look like.
Pardon me, when I said, “AL believes”, and I should have said “JK believes that AL should stop talking about this…”
Every attempt to harness the power of government to the advantage of the less fortunate gets hijacked. i.e. those with power gain it and the so called beneficiaries lose power.
Every time.
What is to be done?
Limit government power.
Not very progressive is it?
Well look at the Kelo decision. Who is going to get their urban renewed? Souter or some poor folks down the blighted road?
Every time.
For the last 100 years.
With such a record (check out the history of the Interstate Commerce Commision which was going to protect farmers from predatory freight rates. Guess what. Railroad folks dominated the comission. Who benefitted? Guess.) you would think the “progressives” would have figued it out by now. You would be wrong.
It is another triumph of hope over experience.
Add in his crusade to out “Juan Non-Volokh” of the Volokh Conspiracy, and I think its obvious that Leiter has some serious character problems.
I speak as I do because I come from a line of “progressives” Dad and Mom were life long yellow dog Democrats.
I was a Dem until the 60s when I went communist.
Vietnam post ’75 cured me. Then I started looking into why?
In a word. Bad philosophy.
My conclusion? A roaring economy (lower taxes, less regulation) is 1,000 times better for the poor than any combination of government programs. Of course the rich will benefit even more. So what.
I’ve given up the politics of envy. It cripples economies. It hobbles the poor. It cripples the rich. It holds back tecnological change. Feh.
Am I happy with the “Democrats lite”? Surely you are joking. But what reasonable choice am I offered? Kerry? He was the author of Vietnam post ’75. And aside from his personality deficts I am never going down that road again. So help me God. And Dems think that the Kerry position if not the man is the answer? To what? How to create a genocidal situation?
So they get the economy wrong. The war too. Excepting Lieberman. He gets both. Not perfectly. Good enough.
So where is the party of civil liberties? MIA.
The Dems used to be the party of anti-prohibition. Fait le bon temps roulez. So where are they?
As one previous poster pointed out. I’m waiting for the Dems to die so the Rs can split. The sooner the better.
bq. _”The Republicans have become Democrats, and the party leadership is a pack of idiots, but it doesn’t matter because the Democrats have gone insane.”_
Now that’s something I can certainly agree with. The Republicans are no better at keeping their promises than the Democrats are. I’ve yet to see a Republican stand on the plank of less government, reduced spending, and elimination of social programs. This is also evident at municipal and state levels of government as well. Seems no matter who makes the promise it is forgotten once in office. As an example Virginia has yet to rid itself of the personal property tax which was promised years ago. Former “Governor Gilmore (R)”:http://www.csg.org/CSG/Policy/health/bio/Gilmore+bio.htm did abolish personal property taxes, but not immediately. In 1998, he developed a program where a percentage of the tax would be paid by the state each year, over a five-year period. Each year, the percentage paid by the state increases until 100% of your tax bill is paid by the state. Also, the program is dependent upon state revenues and may change from year to year. You guessed it the personal property tax is still in effect. Even with a surplus the current “Governor Warner (D)”:http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15458 couldn’t resist raising taxes after he ran on a platform of no new taxes.
bq. _”You could lay out an exact strategy for winning back control of the Congress and the Presidency to the Democratic party and it wouldn’t matter because not only wouldn’t they believe you, but they wouldn’t hear you.”_
Oh yes, they would hear. The same things they’ve heard for years and the same disappointments that follow. That’s why they wouldn’t believe which really is what at issue here isn’t it. Credibility and accountability is a core issue with most constituents I would surmise. I know it is for me.
bq. _”The GOP needs someone presenting challenging ideas to keep them sharp and honest. But I’m convinced that opposition party will never be the party of Howard Dean. In fact, the party of Howard Dean only enables GOP sloth.”_
I guess it’s too much to ask of our elected officials to do exactly what they say. The vote is no longer a tool of the populace when potential candidates are selectively funded by the party’s coffers. On the Federal level as long as the likes of Kennedy and Byrd want to serve, do believe for one minute the party will fund anyone else? The same could be said for a host of other senators and congressmen on both sides of the aisle. In my opinion the hope for a better future lies in the old codgers failing in health to climb the steps and walk the halls of the congress and the senate. My hope is that new blood will breed better ideas with promise and conviction.
SamAm (#2) wrote about pots and kettles:
bq. the charge of “guy in the cubicleism” seems rather incongruous coming from someone who posts at this site. It’s not an insult (and it’s not meant to be) to say that most of the people who post here, on issues of great scale and complexity are amateurs in their fields…
I’d suggest that readers hop over to Prof. Leiter’s blog to get a firsthand sense of the attitude that A.L.’s posting about. It’s not that Leiter is reliably bad; most of his posts are well-written. It’s that he takes pride in the bellicose snark that he can loose from his keyboard. A.L. linked “this post;”:http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/on_rhetoric_civ.html also see Leiter spit venom at “Juan”:http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/who_is_juan_non.html “non-Volokh.”:http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/06/cowardice_and_b.html
SamAm, you are right that, for the most part, WoC posters are uncredentialed in the subjects they write about–leaving aside that the work that goes into blogging can itself contribute to credibility, as is happening for A.L. with New Media, and for Dan Darling with analyzing jihadism. Each reader can judge for herself whether it is a bug, or a feature, that the arguments offered at Winds of Change have to be evaluated on their own merits.
I suppose Winds is in some danger of losing those readers who think as highly of Lieter’s acuity as he does, and who like their politics served with condescension and snark. If this site was a right-facing mirror of that sort of preening, it would lose its appeal for me, and I expect for others as well.
Prof. Leiter didn’t sound like a law professor, but a quick google for “the Socratic method”:http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2003/10/the_socratic_me.html on his website explained why. He doesn’t use it:
bq. _So everyone who’s seen a movie about law school in America knows that law professors use something called “the Socratic method.” The professor asks a student a series of questions about some court case (which the students have read), eliciting the facts, the court’s decision, and the reasoning behind it. The professor sometimes tries to elicit from the student recognition of the guiding legal principles at work in the decision. *Other times the professor tries to lead the student to the realization that equally good arguments would support a different conclusion by the court* (in this guise, the method is less Socratic, than Sophistic, since no one answer to the legal questions presented is deemed to be the correct one)._
This method of teaching has been attributed to building a sense of amorality in lawyers. Whatever answer the student gives, the teacher will challenge the answer with another question. The student might attempt to switch positions, only to face more grilling. No position is unassailable.
There is something to be said about too much amorality (see Lynn Stewart), but these law students are going out in the world, primarily to persuade others. And it is extremely odd for a law professor to doubt whether one can persuade another by reason.
AL:
For those of us in the “policy community” the situation is even worse than you suggest. You have a choice of going to work for policy organizations whose core policy prescriptions for the War on Terror are fundamentally myopic and misguided, which includes both the current progressive left and the paleo-conservative right, or you go to work for policy organizations about whose domestic policies you have serious reservations. (i.e. If capital is expanded without expanding the numbers of capital owners wealth will become more concentrated and the “needs-based safety net” more threadbare.)
Not working isn’t much of an option, so one either eschews policy and goes into real estate or rattail, or one compromises depending on that set of policies one feels more critical. Voters basically face the same dilemma, but it doesn’t directly involved their source of livelihood.
[Note: This is not to say that I think the “progressive left” has many good domestic or economic policy ideas. They don’t. It’s possible that there’s a relationship between the poverty of their shopworn domestic policies and their inability to formulate a progressive and militarily robust war policy that isn’t based on the inappropriate concept of a criminal justice response to a ubiquitous enemy.]
Combine an insistent spell-checked and poor eyesight and what you get is something like this:
So what’s the retail price of a rattail, do you think?
SamAm – Sorry for the delay, been busy. A few quick responses:
1) Yes, the President’s #’s are trending down. But the Democrat’s #’s aren’t trending up, and all that matters is their relative velocity downward. We’re seeing the same thing here in California with the Governator and the Legislature racing each other to the cellar – and as they are realizing it, both are suddenly trying to actually govern.
2) I’ve made a bunch of suggestions here (google Democrats Armed), and started and abandoned (temporarily) and effort to actually craft some direction that would make me happy. It’s a fair cop that I haven’t, and I’ll work to do some of that over the summer.
3) I think you’re completely misreading the point of the “guy in the cube” metaphor. I’m blogging because I’m trying to figure all this out, and dialog with the smart and knowledgeable people who read my stuff – even those who (frequently) blast it – is the best way I know to learn and think. I certainly don’t categorically dismiss folks for ideas that disagree with mine (note that there are things I’ll take offense to, or points I think are stupidly wrong, and I’ll certainly say that. But in every case, the person making the point is neither intellectually nor morally devalued in my eyes. I still read Professor Cole, and on occasion learn stuff from him). The issue is with people – people who may actually have good ideas – who are unwilling to roll up their sleeves and recognize that having the idea is about 10% of the process; getting it diffused and adopted is the balance. And what these people tend to do is to casually dismiss – out of some style or motive I don’t understand – everyone who doesn’t immediately start singing in key with them.
That’s what tyhe guy in the cube does, and why he’ll never have a corner office.
A.L.
Where to begin? I disagree with your initial premise, that Leiter, “wants to help the poor”…How did you determine this? Because he said so? What is your evidence?
The Republicans are only interested in helping, “corporatist” America? At last count, over 210,000,000 Americans are involved with “corporatism” and depend upon this noun for sustenance…
Ah hell, it is Friday, and I want to get drunk.
Why did I post this?
Never mind, #10 by M. Simon pretty much covers my empirical experience…
Now is when I drink.
I just ran into this same phenomenon with Charlie Stross, a brilliant sci-fi author who I’d hoped would be able to reasonably debate the war. You can click my blog-link if you’re interested.
I’m in M. Simon’s amen corner too.
If government has anything to do, it’s to make sure anyone can take advantage of a growing economy (low taxes, low barriers to starting and growing businesses, low regulatory burden, low barriers to hiring and firing, no barriers to rapid business failure when needed, etc), and otherwise stay the heck out of it’s way.
This is the most successful anti-poverty program that can be concieved. Everything else pales into insignificance.
Armed Liberal,
Thank you for the response.
1) I am often wrong on these things, but it just seems clear to me that, for the purposes of the next election the bigger story in Washington, and the one that matters more right now is the one to do with the president and Congress’ numbers. They’re the only entities that can get anything done right now. The Democrats can’t and shouldn’t try.
If Reid and Pelosi came out for some new popular program or reform it would either get nowhere or be claimed by the Republicans (DHS, anyone?). There’s no room to get stuff done in the current atmosphere in DC, and if the numbers suffer for it, it’s still the best of both alternatives. When the time comes to advocate a Democratic agenda for Congress, it will be done. But that time isn’t now, or even a year from now. The party is keeping its powder dry and, from what I can tell, concentrating on the individual races that matter. As a result the House and Senate outlooks are ones in which I’m cautiously but solidly optimistic. Is the party doing enough to establish its principles in the public mind? Probably not. But it’s really not a big loss at this point in time.
2) I’ll have to check that out. Thanks for the tip.
3) Like I said above, I’m quite unconvinced that this is a distinguishing characteristic of the left in the blogosphere (maybe it’s a blogosphere wide thing?). The 3 you mention, to me at least, seem to have very few traits in common other than being smart and liberal. They’re pretty different other than that (I don’t read TBogg or Leiter, but I get the idea) and all of them have distinct, though in my mind lesser bizzaro-world, err, right wing counterparts. Let me bring up just one example, David Horowitz’s “Follow the Network” website, which juxtaposes pictures of Mohammad Atta with Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Barack Obama and suggests they are fellow travelers, part of the same group. I find that much more offensive than what Leiter’s been doing (which, fwiw, I don’t approve of and think is childish and needlessly mean spirited), and as a representation of what the right believes (or at least how it operates), in its deliberate confusion of dissent and terrorism, I find it quite salient. Or how about Wretchard, whose writings used to be promoted to death by the right and who even Greg Djerejian now notes, despite superior claims to world historical truth, strays so far from how things really work as to be unreadable.
I’d also argue that you’re just as liable to find over simplistic, over certain answers to the 4 questions Lieter poses on the right as the left. I’d say the left would argue over 1, but there’d be general agreement on 2-4, while the right would agree on 1, 2, and 4 and argue on 3 (which is ironically the most open and shut of the four).
Oh God you guys. ROTFL! Why can’t more political discussions be this entertaining? So many good points, I can’t single out one.
My thoughts?
Today you have the retirement of Justice O’Conner. But what do most people know about her and the process of SCOTUS? Nothing. Nada. Politically this is gonna be fun. This is the knock-down drag-out fight we’ve all been waiting for. The problem is, no matter who wins, we the public will lose because the fight has now become more important that the job of running the country in a responsible fashion.
Look at the issues that have been front and center in the MSM.
Durbin said this.
Dean said that.
Rove said what.
Shark attack in FLA.
Girl in Aruba still missing.
What’s missing is any substance from any vital governmental issue. What does it matter that Dean said Republicans are racist cads, and Durbin equates our poor treatment of detainees with the holocaust (OK, that did go too far). Shark attacks only matter if you’re in the water. I don’t watch the national news any more because they don’t present any info that helps me make decisions and get on with my life. It’s because too many reporters are trained to break the big story and not just cover events and the MSM supports this model of journalism. So what he or she said is somehow more important than, say, details of bills in congress. My point is that as long as the press does not focus on any real substance, politicians won’t have to either.
Blogging is a good source for some info, but a lot of the time the writer is too close to a political view point (myself included) to be really good source for pertinent info.
And besides, I’m just a bass playin’ pool guy who should be writing a paper about formal and informal writing practices for my Content Area Lit. class (getting my masters in ed).
OK. I’m done. Now back to the regularly scheduled program.
Armed Liberal,
Thank you for the response.
1) I am often wrong on these things, but it just seems clear to me that, for the purposes of the next election the bigger story in Washington, and the one that matters more right now is the one to do with the president and Congress’ numbers. They’re the only entities that can get anything done right now. The Democrats can’t and shouldn’t try.
If Reid and Pelosi came out for some new popular program or reform it would either get nowhere or be claimed by the Republicans (DHS, anyone?). There’s no room to get stuff done in the current atmosphere in DC, and if the numbers suffer for it, it’s still the best of both alternatives. When the time comes to advocate a Democratic agenda for Congress, it will be done. But that time isn’t now, or even a year from now. The party is keeping its powder dry and, from what I can tell, concentrating on the individual races that matter. As a result the House and Senate outlooks are ones in which I’m cautiously but solidly optimistic. Is the party doing enough to establish its principles in the public mind? Probably not. But it’s really not a big loss at this point in time.
2) I’ll have to check that out. Thanks for the tip.
3) Like I said above, I’m quite unconvinced that this is a distinguishing characteristic of the left in the blogosphere (maybe it’s a blogosphere wide thing?). The 3 you mention, to me at least, seem to have very few traits in common other than being smart and liberal. They’re pretty different other than that (I don’t read TBogg or Leiter, but I get the idea) and all of them have distinct, though in my mind lesser bizzaro-world, err, right wing counterparts. Let me bring up just one example, David Horowitz’s “Follow the Network” website, which juxtaposes pictures of Mohammad Atta with Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Barack Obama and suggests they are fellow travelers, part of the same group. I find that much more offensive than what Leiter’s been doing (which, fwiw, I don’t approve of and think is childish and needlessly mean spirited), and as a representation of what the right believes (or at least how it operates), in its deliberate confusion of dissent and terrorism, I find it quite salient. Or how about Wretchard, whose writings used to be promoted to death by the right and who even Greg Djerejian now notes, despite superior claims to world historical truth, strays so far from how things really work as to be unreadable.
I’d also argue that you’re just as liable to find over simplistic, over certain answers to the 4 questions Lieter poses on the right as the left. I’d say the left would argue over 1, but there’d be general agreement on 2-4, while the right would agree on 1, 2, and 4 and argue on 3 (which is ironically the most open and shut of the four).
Maybe a bit offtopic, but, Prof Leiter reminds me of the people I teach with. They’re by and large nice people, but slightly counter what they hold to be truth, and it’s shocking. They come unglued. See, the problem for guys like him is this: they’ve never been wrong, or been in a place where they’ve been wrong. All their careers, everyone agreed with them, and if their ideas were wrong, it was somebody else’s fault, namely evil Republicans. (Look, my father in law is case in point. Great guy, and I love him dearly, but he’s got a leftist cliche for everything) Most conservatives haved lived in a world of liberals, or at least where it was chic to be liberal, and a stigma to be a conservative. We have always been “wrong”, and haven’t enjoyed the social protection like liberals have. And by and large, conservatives are not as demonstrative as liberals. How many conservative rallies do you see? And when there are, how is the behavior of the participants? Look at all the hollywood types, the music types, and contrast the left with the right.
What Leiter and others are doing is really covering for their own self-doubts. Why else would the left be so into self esteem? It’s theirs that needs the work.
“The so-called “blogosphere,” like the public culture in general, is not a rich repository of intellectual maturity, needless to say.”
So writes Prof. Leiter, proving his own point.
He refuses to engage us, the Great Unwashed, because that would give us a respect of which we are unworthy. We don’t get it and we never will.
So be it. He has closed his stall in the marketplace of ideas, which is OK because he pays no rent. We shall await the establishment of his command economy then, where we will eat what he chooses to feed us, and say thank you sir, can I have some more?
Until we put his ideas up against the wall and shoot them. Even we civil folks have our limits.
_I’m interested in advancing progressive ideals – which I see in large part as using the power of government in favor of the less- rather than more-powerful_
I prefer government which respects the rights of individuals.
Your progessive visions seems to be just a different flavour of _from those according to their means to those according to their needs_
To be succinct I do not trust Socialists. I will stipulate that a Conservative Government *can* be totalitarian, but a Socialist Government
*must* be totalitarian.
Recently I have watched with growing dismay, while the Campaign Reform Act and the Kelso Decision punched large holes in the Bill of Rights, so I will use what I can muster to oppose “progressive” agendas.
I have been a participant in opposing one of Leiter’s rampages. He was trashing a graduate student who dared to disagree with Leiter. Leiter said: “I am Oz, the great and terrible. Ignore that man behind the screen. Get rid of that little girl.”
Leiter is a blowhard and a bully. But these days, on the internet, everybody, even blowhards and bullies can have their say. All we can do about that is to ignore them.
No thread on Prof Leiter is complete without “Robert Schwartz”:http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2003/10/splendid_parody.html showing up to denounce him as a “blowhard and bully.” Robert, why can’t _you_ just ignore him?
Interisting that A.L. (with whom I sometimes agree) wrote an interesting piece on bad philosophy yet continues to espouse bad philosophy.
So called “progressive” politics is regressive.
The more capitalist the society the better the poor do. The correlation is unmistakeable. Yet A.L. continues to push socialist solutions.
Well at least he gets the war right.
Guns too.
A.L. read Hayek. Any socialist planning system has to turn fascist in the end. The petty regulations of France are no accident. They are the result of France’s socialism.
Look into “urban planning”. What is becoming evident to even the planners is that organic growth unlimited by plans builds stronger communities than all the zoning laws in the world. Even the “planners” are coming to this conclusion.
Organic growth. The best rule.
Interesting that A.L. (with whom I sometimes agree) wrote a good piece on bad philosophy yet continues to espouse bad philosophy.
So called “progressive” politics is regressive.
The more capitalist the society the better the poor do. The correlation is unmistakeable. Yet A.L. continues to push socialist solutions.
Well at least he gets the war right.
Guns too.
A.L. read Hayek. Any socialist planning system has to turn fascist in the end. The petty regulations of France are no accident. They are the result of France’s socialism.
Look into “urban planning”. What is becoming evident to even the planners is that organic growth unlimited by plans builds stronger communities than all the zoning laws in the world. Even the “planners” are coming to this conclusion.
Organic growth. The best rule.
Interesting that A.L. (with whom I sometimes agree) wrote an interesting piece on bad philosophy yet continues to espouse bad philosophy.
So called “progressive” politics is regressive.
The more capitalist the society the better the poor do. The correlation is unmistakeable. Yet A.L. continues to push socialist solutions.
Well at least he gets the war right.
Guns too.
A.L. read Hayek. Any socialist planning system has to turn fascist in the end. The petty regulations of France are no accident. They are the result of France’s socialism.
Look into “urban planning”. What is becoming evident to even the planners is that organic growth unlimited by plans builds stronger communities than all the zoning laws in the world. Even the “planners” are coming to this conclusion.
Organic growth. The best rule.
I think that at this point both parties are largely dominated by their lunatic fringes and neither one has to much to say to the average American. And, so far, all attempts to start a 3rd party have been taken over by people who are too loony for even the Republicans & Democrats to tolerate. With all those nuts running around, it’s no wonder there’s little civil discourse.
Brian — because I want to make sure that someone who knows from personal experience that you are a blowhard and a bully testifies to that — Robert
Sorry, Robert, I’m a mere student, not the great man himself. But I’ll pass this on to Prof Leiter, he will be amused to know that you continue to stew in the juices of your ressentiment. By the way, did you ever dare to go back to Crooked Timber after Henry Farrell threw you off?
Well Brian. I am going to amend my previous statement. You are a blowhard, a bully, and a creep. and no I don’t bother to go to Crooked Timber and taunt little Henry and his playmates. I was going to offer them one way fares to France after the election, but I didn’t bother. I was having too much fun celebrating.
TTFN
P.S. For the onlookers who don’t know whats going on, Leiter, who must Google himself every six hours, always shows up on blog comments where he is being discussed, as an anonymous poster with a bogus Texas.edu e-mail, to complement himself, tell everybody what a great guy he ism and chivvy his detractors.
#s 27, 28, 33, 34, 35:
Please review the WoC comments policy before continuing in this vein on this thread. Demonstration of a less-than-civil tone is not identical to a discussion of this question.
As a bonus, redrafting your remarks to focus on the issues is likely to gain you more traction with this audience.
Hi all.
Discussion of Brian Leiter’s demeanor from personal experience strikes me as germane to this post, which is in part about that very subject. And alerting us to a past behaviour pattern does give us the ability to investigate if it seems germane… though those kinds of alerts are better emailed to the admins backchannel.
Beyond that, robust discussion is appreciated, and disagreement (even personal disagreement) is part of that. Festus, like all our Marshals, sees being a positive influence on discussions as a big part of his role. His points about what goes over well here and what doesn’t are friendly advice, worth heeding.
Including the point that it’s wise to be aware of Winds’ comments policies.
The Crooked Timber discussion has gone about as far as it can. If this devolves further into a discussion about the Crooked Timber flamewars and who did what to whom there, we’ll have a problem and empowered Marshals to solve it. Not interested, note the policy on that score, let’s stick to the issues.
I’ll also remind folks that while posting under a handle isn’t illegal here, impersonation is a “one strike, gone” offense if practiced and that seems a prudent advance warning under the circumstances.
Armed Liberal,
I’m interested in advancing progressive ideals – which I see in large part as using the power of government in favor of the less- rather than more-powerful. While
This begs the fundamental questions. Do you trust government with the kind of power that your ideals demand? Are you absolutely certain that this kind of power can be exercised benevolently in perpetuity? Is it not inevitable that the very same power you want to grant to government will eventually be EXPLOITED by the very same “more-powerful” that you oppose?
Here is an example of how progressive ideas can lead to tyranny. Consider a single-payer medical insurance system as favored by Democrats from Truman to Kerry. Consider medical marijuana. What do you think a strong anti-drug warrior, placed in charge of a single-payer medical insurance system would do about doctors who prescribe medical marijuana?
Your political opponents will, at some time, end up in charge. Why not make sure their power is limited?
I say we help the poor by reducing the power of government.
Yours,
Wince
Armed Liberal,
You are such a moron it is impressive. You support your assinine and intellectually backwards claim that questions such as Leiter’s “easy questions are “complex questions of history, economics, sociology, and history of science,” by appealing to the authority of some ridiculous, and arbitrary list that has absolutely no relevence to facts or logic? What a joke! Pardon me for being impolite, but seriously…nobody gives a shit about that list. I hate to break that to you.
It’s more than a tad amusing that in a post chastizing someone, basically because you don’t think they’re nice, you resort on several occasions to irrelevent Ad Hominem attacks. I take offense to this not because it’s inductively weak, but because your insults are lame. Let’s not give the Ad Hominem a worse reputation than it already has. Go balls out with your insults! Don’t point out that someone is “tenured,” and arrogant. Those are some good qualities!
Another highly amusing thing you imbeciles do when attacking Leiter is claim that he makes bad arguments on his blog. That moron attention seeker Horotwitz is a prime example. You fools fail to realize that the “arguments” of his you criticize are not arguments, but polemics (which are not, nor meant to be, arguments!) against worthless political positions. On occasion I’ve noticed him making actual arguments on the site, but only regarding his areas of expertise. These are ACTUALLY arguments. But you don’t criticize these because you are busy straw-manning him about political questions, criticizing his rhetorical tone, and, most importantly: none of you are scholars. From what I’ve seen, you wouldn’t do particularly well in philosophy 101.
Note to Professor Leiter:
Could you and your “immature, and foolish colleagues on the Left,” please stop keeping corporatist republican’s in power? I knew that the gourmet report was popular, but I thought it just made you the most important man in philosophy, not in the whole US!