The Week in Blog: Lucky Day?

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by rcocean

In other words, you want this country to have 2 parties - a left-wing Democrat party and a slightly lesser left-wing Republican party. You aren't alone - Frum and even Goldberg (on most issues) echo your beliefs.

Myself, I'd rather have a real alternative to leftism & not a country where the only choice is between Stalin or Trotsky.

First, I'd be ecstatic if this country had one left-wing party.

Second, apart from a shared distaste for Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, I am hard-pressed to think of where Frum and I agree. And Goldberg only makes sense if you're talking about Michelle or Mark. Or Whoopi or Rube, I suppose.

But given that Stalin!!!1! is about the only thing you can think to say, I guess we've removed the last shred of doubt about where you're coming from.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

No, no. If you want to compare today's Republicans and movement conservatives to these groups, please, by all means.

Touché [note the accent mark]. But you, of all people given our drawn out discussion over the New Year, understand my point.

I find the chronic moral and intellectual vanity to which some on the left are susceptible by turns grating and comic. See, for example, Thomas Frank, whose column in The Wall Street Journal is one long and tedious iteration on the mental and moral defects of conservatives, and the utter worthlessness of all their works. If you've read even one of his screeds you really have read them all. Maybe The Journal chose him for just that reason. A witty and trenchant critic on the left would make their right-leaning readership uncomfortable?

But as someone cheering (lackadaisically) for conservatives and bemoaning the asinine sniping on the right over Rush Limbaugh and various other spokesmen and wannabe spokesmen for "the movement," I can only hope that Frank and others of his ilk keep it up. The endless need for such people to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their views and agenda--and a good many who do--may be our last, best chance for survival.

Alas, I'm not really a very good ideo-cultural warrior. More like an unconvinced and bored guerrilla who occasionally shoots from the bushes at the "enemy"--more for target practice than anything else--but who is just as likely to fire over the heads of his own side just for a laugh. Maybe I should turn myself in to the MPs. [SIGH]

[sp3akthetruth]

Ross' marriage announcement from the NYTimes.

Abigail Tucker, a daughter of Maureen Tucker of Ridgefield, Conn., and the late Harold Tucker, was married yesterday to Ross Douthat, the son of Patricia Snow and Charles Douthat, both of New Haven. The Rev. Carleton P. Jones, a Roman Catholic priest, performed the ceremony at St. Mary’s Church in Ridgefield.

The bride and the bridegroom, both 27, graduated from Harvard, she summa cum laude and he magna cum laude.

The bride, who will continue to use her name professionally, is a reporter for The Baltimore Sun. Her mother retired as an English teacher at Pocantico Hills Central School in Sleepy Hollow, N.Y. The bride’s father was an independent real estate broker in Ridgefield.

The bridegroom is an associate editor at The Atlantic magazine, in Washington, and the author of “Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class” (Hyperion Books, 2005). His father is a partner in Jacob, Grudberg, Belt, Dow & Katz, a law firm in New Haven.

[sp3akthetruth]

Brendan, Looks like you won out. Hehehe

[rcocean]

Second, apart from a shared distaste for Rush imbaugh and Sarah Palin, I am hard-pressed to think of where Frum and I agree. And Goldberg only makes sense if you're talking about Michelle or Mark. Or Whoopi or Rube, I suppose.

You need to do more research on Mr. Frum. I'm sure both you'd agree on:

"Hate Speech" (must be outlawed), Open borders and Illegal immigration (good), affirmative action (good), NAFTA/globalization/"free trade" (very good), nationalism (very bad), Abortion (pro-choice), Pat Buchanan/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/Delay/Ron Paul (all very Evil), supporting Israel and bombing Iran if necessary, Staying in Afghanistan for a 100 years (OK - now that Obama is POTUS), Putin (KGB - evil), high taxes and spending (good), multiculturalism (good). Separation of church and state (Very,Very Good), and driving the "Religious Right" out of politics.

Frankly, I can't think of a *major* issue you'd disagree with Frum on. You appear to dislike him but its all just all process, minor issues, and details.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Touché [note the accent mark]. But you, of all people given our drawn out discussion over the New Year, understand my point.

I find the chronic moral and intellectual vanity to which some on the left are susceptible by turns grating and comic.

Sure. The left ain't perfect. It's got its own tiresome people who are prissy, arrogant, close-minded, whatever. But it does not have anything equivalent to the wingnutosphere or the hate radio crowd or Fox News or the "think" tanks funded by the likes of Scaife and other billionaire disturbos.

See, for example, Thomas Frank, whose column in The Wall Street Journal is one long and tedious iteration on the mental and moral defects of conservatives, and the utter worthlessness of all their works. If you've read even one of his screeds you really have read them all. Maybe The Journal chose him for just that reason. A witty and trenchant critic on the left would make their right-leaning readership uncomfortable?

I dunno why the WSJ hired him, but I don't share your view of him. I haven't read a ton of his stuff, but I've liked at least three of his pieces well enough to recommend them.

But as someone cheering (lackadaisically) for conservatives and bemoaning the asinine sniping on the right over Rush Limbaugh and various other spokesmen and wannabe spokesmen for "the movement," I can only hope that Frank and others of his ilk keep it up. The endless need for such people to talk down to everyone who doesn't share their views and agenda--and a good many who do--may be our last, best chance for survival.

There gets to be a point when the opposition is so insistent upon wallowing in the mud that there is no other way to address them.

Alas, I'm not really a very good ideo-cultural warrior. More like an unconvinced and bored guerrilla who occasionally shoots from the bushes at the "enemy"--more for target practice than anything else--but who is just as likely to fire over the heads of my own side just for a laugh. Maybe I should turn myself in to the MPs. [SIGH]

Or join up with the ones who believe that Republicanism/conservatism need not be the party of the know-nothings. You've got decent people doing that, and I suspect, as with atheists in the Bible Belt, once a few stand up and identify themselves, more will follow.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Or [you should] join up with the ones who believe that Republicanism/conservatism need not be the party of the know-nothings. You've got decent people doing that, and I suspect, as with atheists in the Bible Belt, once a few stand up and identify themselves, more will follow.

Care to name a few? I'm really feeling really disaffected about now...OK, I know it's not YOUR job to help me find fellow travelers! Maybe "disaffected warrior" would be a better "handle" for me on this site than just my initials and last name.

[SpikeTedAgnew]

Hello Bloggingheads,

Hopefully with Douthat moving to the NYT op-ed page he won't become another David Brooks (NTY Conservative).

Me Agapi,
Spike

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by rcocean

You need to do more research on Mr. Frum.

No. I do not "need" to do anything. Least of all that.

I'm sure both you'd agree on:

But since you troubled to make a list ...

"Hate Speech" (must be outlawed),

Dead wrong. I am a free speech fanatic.

Open borders and Illegal immigration (good),

Disagree somewhat. I'm for easier access to the US by people who want to come here legally, and I think the current mess needs a lot of work, some of which will involve amnesty of some sort for at least some people, but I'm in principle against illegal things and not persuaded that completely open borders is something we can yet do.

affirmative action (good),

Mixed. I mostly think it's passed its time of maximum benefit, although I'm not interested in banning it outright. I'm against mindless quotas and privileging thoroughly unqualified candidates. It also depends on what we're talking about getting admitted to.

NAFTA/globalization/"free trade" (very good),

Generally support the ideals of free trade, very skeptical about the practical implications, especially given disparities in environmental and labor laws. Worried about the uneven playing field, but against protectionism as a general policy. Probably, in the end, resigned to the inevitability that some people will have to suffer during the transition from where the US is/was to a more balanced planet. Like the endpoint, wish we could get there without as much pain, realize there's no way to achieve that when people have to run for re-election every 2, 4, or 6 years.

nationalism (very bad),

Meh. Too vague. When it's "my country right or wrong," of course I am opposed. On the other hand, I am proud to be an American. On the gripping hand, I think we shouldn't hide our warts or deny that others can help us heal them.

Abortion (pro-choice),

Yep. (But I have a vague sense Frum is not as adamantly pro-choice as I am.)

Pat Buchanan/Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh/Delay/Ron Paul (all very Evil),

Buchanan, mostly, and Coulter, totally, are Limbaugh-equivalents -- clowns who are worth concern only because they appeal to the dumbest and worst instincts in people. "Evil" is too strong a word, though. I'd choose repugnant and counterproductive.

Paul is a different sort altogether. I view him mostly as a glibertarian and a bit of a crank, but given the seat he holds, and comparing him to most Texas Republicans I can think of, I guess I'm happy enough to have him haranguing the rest of the powers that be.

supporting Israel and bombing Iran if necessary,

I do not have anywhere near the same pro-Israel stance that Frum does. Not by a light-year. And while I wouldn't say "never," I can't think of anything I wouldn't try first before bombing Iran. I'd pretty much have to be convinced they were dead-set on launching nukes in the next 24 hours before I'd say "go" on bombing them.

Staying in Afghanistan for a 100 years (OK - now that Obama is POTUS),

No way. I'm for declaring victory and getting out, as soon as possible.

Putin (KGB - evil),

I don't see Putin as evil, but my first real cold chill caused by Bush was when he blessed him after he "looked into his eyes and saw his soul." I see him as someone who we have to deal with, not irrational, but with obviously different goals and priorities, not to mention the baggage of historical enmity.

high taxes and spending (good),

Too sweeping. I'm for higher taxes on the rich than we have now, that's for sure, and I'm generally in favor of things like good schools, well-maintained infrastructure, and lots of R&D. On the other hand, I'd like the DoD's budget slashed, and when we're not in a situation like the one we're in now, I'm pretty much of a deficit hawk; i.e., only as much spending as you can get taxpayers to support in real time. [Added: or spending that has a good chance of paying off in the long run; e.g., I'd support borrowing to set up a national health care plan, because I believe that, done right, it'll end up saving us money.]

multiculturalism (good).

Yeah, but I'm not a fetishist about it. I don't believe all cultures are equally good.

Separation of church and state (Very,Very Good),

Yep.

and driving the "Religious Right" out of politics.

Not absolutely. Separation of church and state, yes, creationism out of the science classroom, yes, a wish that political candidates didn't have to pass a litmus test, yes, and like that. But I'm not opposed to groups of people organizing, agitating, and supporting candidates they prefer. I wish there weren't so many people determined to deny Enlightenment thinking, and I'll work as hard as I can to oppose the more cretinous of their views, but I'm not looking to "drive them out." I'd much rather get them to see the error of their ways.

Frankly, I can't think of a *major* issue you'd disagree with Frum on. You appear to dislike him but its all just all process, minor issues, and details.

Assuming you've characterized Frum's views correctly, you're only right without argument about two. You're absolutely wrong on at least three, and partly to mostly wrong on the rest. I'm not sure what you view as "minor issues" and "details," but the very fact that you think most of the issues you listed are amenable to labeling as either "good" or "bad" speaks volumes about the gulf between the way we see the world.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Care to name a few? I'm really feeling really disaffected about now...OK, I know it's not YOUR job to help me find fellow travelers! Maybe "disaffected warrior" would be a better "handle" for me on this site than just my initials and last name.

Off the top of my head ...

Daniel Larison's a good place to start. James Poulos is another one I quite like to read. Douthat, Drezner, Derbyshire, Daniel Davies (not all begin with D), Frum, Salam, McWhorter, Hitchens, Sullivan, Wilkinson, and Julian Sanchez all have intelligent things to say that I don't agree with, and link to other people, particularly Sully. Some of these aren't what other conservatives would call conservative, but they're definitely to my right on most things.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by pampl

If GOP primaries result in unelectable fringe candidates then you're guaranteeing that all the political choice occurs in the Democratic primary. You and other hardliners are opting for a choice between two left wing candidates instead of a left wing and a centrist or even, inshallah, center-right candidate.

How dare you place a sense of personal responsibility on a good conservative like rcocean!

;^)

You actually make a very good point.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Off the top of my head ...

Daniel Larison's a good place to start. James Poulos is another one I quite like to read. Douthat, Drezner, Derbyshire, Daniel Davies (not all begin with D), Frum, Salam, McWhorter, Hitchens, Sullivan, Wilkinson, and Julian Sanchez all have intelligent things to say that I don't agree with, and link to other people, particularly Sully. Some of these aren't what other conservatives would call conservative, but they're definitely to my right on most things.

You just couldn't resist the urge to tweak my nose by throwing in a couple of militant atheists in, could you? ;-)

Ah, well. If I want a party or a movement that matches my preferences perfectly I'll likely find myself in a Party of One. Come to think of it, maybe that's the handle I'm looking for. "Disaffected Warrior" is a bit pretentious sounding and I hate pretentious sounding stuff, even when it comes (all too often) from my own mouth. (Sorry, I have a tendency to think out loud in my posts.)

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

You just couldn't resist the urge to tweak my nose by throwing in a couple of militant atheists in, could you? ;-)

Heh. Honestly, I didn't even think about that part. I was thinking economics and foreign policy, mostly.

[...] (Sorry, I have a tendency to think out loud in my posts.)

No prob at all. It's a big part of why I post here, too.

[Kandigol]

Originally Posted by Joel_Cairo

Not to quibble, Bill, but I think you are wrong here.

See, for example, this fairly authoritative Slate item: "How to pronounce Ross Douthat's name."

It sounds closer to "Dow-thut" than "Dow-that."

Why not like Duthah, in the French way? That's what I would do, reading the name.

[Eppur Si]

You misunderstand the word hypocrisy. It means professing a belief you don't truly hold, in order to conceal your true belief. It does NOT mean believing people should behave a certain way, and then failing to live up to that standard yourself. Look it up.

In any event, I have listened to Rush for years, and I've never heard him talk much about drug use, and certainly not about harsh penalties for overuse of prescription pain medicine. Tell me, have you ever listened to him? Or do you just project your stereotype of what a conservative must think onto him?

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Off the top of my head ...

Daniel Larison's a good place to start. James Poulos is another one I quite like to read. Douthat, Drezner, Derbyshire, Daniel Davies (not all begin with D), Frum, Salam, McWhorter, Hitchens, Sullivan, Wilkinson, and Julian Sanchez all have intelligent things to say that I don't agree with, and link to other people, particularly Sully. Some of these aren't what other conservatives would call conservative, but they're definitely to my right on most things.

Oh, Daniel Davies is not a conservative. He's cranky, he makes fun of misguided progressives, but he's definitely not a conservative:

People seem to be faintly drawn to the idea that there might be more political dimensions than just "left" and "right". Bullshit. Being in favour of allowing other people to take drugs, shag each other or read what they want isn't a political position; it's what we call "manners", "civilisation" or "humanity", depending on the calibre of yokel you're trying to educate. The political question of interest splits fair and square down a Left/Right axis: either you think that it is more important to provide a decent life for everyone in the world, or you think it is more important to preserve the rights of people who own property. You can hum and haw as much as you like about whether the two are necessarily incompatible, or whether the one is instrumental to the other, or what constitutes a "decent life" anyway, but when you've finished humming and hawing, I'm still gonna be asking you the question, and your answer to it will determine whether or not we're gonna have an argument.

http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/...thing-has.html

... the single most sensible thing said in political philosophy in the twentieth century was JK Galbraith's aphorism that the quest of conservative thought throughout the ages has been "the search for a higher moral justification for selfishness". Some rightwingers are not hypocrites because they admit that their basic moral principle is "what I have, I keep". Some rightwingers are hypocrites because they pretend that "what I have, I keep" is always and everywhere the best way to express a general unparticularised love for all sentient things. Then there are the tricky cases where the rightwingers happen to be on the right side because we haven't yet discovered a better form of social organisation than private property for solving several important classes of optimisation problem. But at base, the test of someone's politics is simple; if their political aim is to advance all of humanity, they're on our side, while if they have an overriding constraint that the current owners of property must always be satisfied first, they're playing for the opposition. Hypocrisy doesn't really enter into the equation with rightwing politics; you don't (or shouldn't) get any extra points for being sincere about being selfish.

http://d-squareddigest.blogspot.com/...rtue-what.html

More at Brad DeLong's Davies tribute page:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/0...old-us-so.html

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by Eppur Si

You misunderstand the word hypocrisy. It means professing a belief you don't truly hold, in order to conceal your true belief. It does NOT mean believing people should behave a certain way, and then failing to live up to that standard yourself. Look it up.

My dictionary says "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Oh, Daniel Davies is not a conservative. He's cranky, he makes fun of misguided progressives, but he's definitely not a conservative:

I could respond in three ways:

1. I was less concerned about social attitudes, and view him as conservative in fiscal and economic matters, at least to the extent that he is highly skeptical of woolly-headed thinking (which, as we know, is a problem only for libtards).

2. It depends upon what your definition of conservative is.

3. Curses! You've exposed my stealth plot to brainwash rfrobison!

The truth is, I think everyone should read Daniel Davies, no matter what one's political self-identification might be.

[Added] To keep up with him, one can subscribe to the feeds for his blog, D-squared Digest, the group blog Crooked Timber, and his postings on The Guardian's Comment is Free.

[claymisher]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

3. Curses! You've exposed my stealth plot to brainwash rfrobison!

Sorry. I wasn't paying attention to that. It might have worked!

Davies is a terrific and original thinker, especially on economics. Too bad he has a day job, he hardly posts at all.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by claymisher

Sorry. I wasn't paying attention to that. It might have worked!

Davies is a terrific and original thinker, especially on economics. Too bad he has a day job, he hardly posts at all.

Yeah. But, as Gauss said (bragged): Pauca sed matura.

Also, don't know if you saw it, but I updated my last post with links to three places where he posts. You can get something from him a couple times a week, I'd estimate. And there are gobs of archived posts that still stand up brilliantly.

[Added] Can't resist sharing this tidbit as an example of why I like him so much. (I may have linked to this before -- apologies if you've already seen it.)

[Eppur Si]

My dictionary disagrees:

hy·poc·ri·sy (hĭ-pŏk'rĭ-sē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. hy·poc·ri·sies

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
An act or instance of such falseness.

[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrīnesthai, to play a part, pretend : hupo-, hypo- + krīnesthai, to explain, middle voice of krīnein, to decide, judge; see krei- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

In any event, if hypocrisy only meant that you sometimes fail to live up to your own standards, everyone is either a hypocrit or has Godawful low standards for themselves. Between those choices, I'll take being a hypocrit.

[conncarroll]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

You beat me to it. Indeed, a fairly amazing statement of intolerance for even the smallest amount of criticism.

I've been doing TWIB for over two years now. I'll let people judge, by the body of my work, how open and curious I am to new ideas and criticism. Whether David Frum is a useless ass is a completely separate question.

[AemJeff]

Generally related to this discussion - Wolcott on Ross Douthat's new job.

Three or four months into the job Wonder Boy will write a column that offends conservative orthodoxy and may even take a poke at some revered figure on the right, then the chorus will begin clearing its throat that he's trying to curry favor at the liberal Times, letting himself be Borg'd just like David Brooks, going soft and placating. Then when the second or third offending column appears, snorts of disgust will ring the land; rightwing blogs will start screaming RINO, lumping him in with fellow traitors David Frum and Kathleen Parker, and NRO's Corner will be shaking their heads in dismay over their dashed hopes, such golden promise going sadly unfulfilled. But it'll matter naught to Douthat because by then he'll be appearing semiregularly on Meet the Press or Washington Week in Review or Chris Matthews' weekend show (planted between Norah O'Donnell and his former dueling buddy Andrew Sullivan), and accustomed to being fawned over and ego-stroked because of his affiliation to the Times, which will more than compensate for the carping he'll hear from the old pinochle crowd.

[bjkeefe]

Originally Posted by conncarroll

I've been doing TWIB for over two years now. I'll let people judge, by the body of my work, how open and curious I am to new ideas and criticism.

Sure, that's fair.

Whether David Frum is a useless ass is a completely separate question.

In and of itself, I could grant this statement, too. However, I'm fascinated that Frum's books merited space on your bookshelf until the moment he criticized Rush Limbaugh, and I'm equally fascinated by your reaction. I did not throw out my Paul Krugman books when he spent last spring and summer criticizing Obama, for example.

[mmacklem]

Originally Posted by bjkeefe

Yeah. But, as Gauss said (bragged): Pauca sed matura.

Also, don't know if you saw it, but I updated my last post with links to three places where he posts. You can get something from him a couple times a week, I'd estimate. And there are gobs of archived posts that still stand up brilliantly.

[Added] Can't resist sharing this tidbit as an example of why I like him so much. (I may have linked to this before -- apologies if you've already seen it.)

In addition, if you're looking for fellow-travellers, it might be good to look at people like David Cameron in the UK and Stephen Harper in Canada. Not that I'm telling you to move to the UK or Canada, but both have provided very good blueprints for how to model a conservative movement in countries that seemed to have turned entirely against conservatism, and I'm pretty certain that the version of the Republicans that gets elected next will look something like either of those two parties.

[mmacklem]

Originally Posted by Freddie

Conn, talking about Rush's drug issue is talking about the issues, because Rush's drug history comes in the context of his public record on drugs as a political issue. And he's talked at length about the need for harsh penalties for drug offenders, and taken many Democrats and liberals to task for their own troubles with drugs. Talking about hypocrisy is fair game.

In addition, the entire point Frum was trying to make was not that Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot, it was simply that if you want to present to independents two parties with two leaders, one of whom is Rush Limbaugh and the other Barack Obama, then you have to look at both of them as they would be perceived by people who are _not_ listeners of Limbaugh or already followers of the conservative movement. With that in mind, Limbaugh's past drug abuse is a _major_ political hurdle to overcome, and it does not help conservtives to pretend that it isn't. Frum was not describing Limbaugh using personal attacks in bringing up his past drug abuse and his weight issues, he was describing what your average independent voter would see in Limbaugh if he was presented as the figurehead of the Republican party. That's not a personal attack, it is a description of the tactical landscape of the current political moment.

[rfrobison]

3. Curses! You've exposed my stealth plot to brainwash rfrobison!

Gee, guys, I had no idea you thought I was so important! That's about the nicest thing anybody's (sorta almost) said about me on this site. Which, I grant, isn't saying much.

For the moment, I think you'll have to settle for me being a cross between Richard Lugar, Jagdish Bhagwati, with a dash of C.S. Lewis thrown in. And (whisper it softly) John McCain, too.

[osmium]

Come on, Conn. You can be angry, but this is a little dramatic.