Check out Daniel Drezner’s intriguing attempt at hawk taxidermy in the wake of the Chalabi raid. Interesting stuff that (like all attempts at broad-brush categorization) probably generates a bit more heat than light. But, if we’re categorizing, put me with the neo-paleos, Fareed Zakaria-old-skool. (Neopaleonius Zakarius.)
(Original categories from The New Republic.)
There’s a distinction between a Hawk taxidermy and a Conservative Hawk taxidermy that isn’t being made here.
In particular, there are liberal nation-building/domino theory Hawks and liberal human-rights Hawks.
That’s just about the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen Drezner post. On the flipside, I’ve never seen him post anything dumb before.
I don’t come even close to fitting any of his categories, and they don’t form a basis for Right-space. Because I can’t be formed from any linear combination of them.
Obviously, Right-space has either more than four dimensions, or Drezner’s categories aren’t linearly independent; I didn’t care to think about it once I realized he was way, way off base.
Well, that last was obviously me.
“Check out Daniel Drezner’s intriguing attempt at hawk taxidermy….”
But that’s not at all what he’s attempting to do.
“Where are conservatives on Iraq?”
Naturally, “hawks” and “conservatives” are orthogonal categories. Treating them as identical results in complete confusion.
Orthogonal? There are no conservative hawks? And no hawkish conservatives?
Methinks thou hast abused “orthogonal” past all forgiving.
Slarti, methinks you are not thinking about the true meaning of “orthogonal”, which (as far as I can see) Gary Farber is using in a sense close to its true technical meaning.
Orthogonal literally means “at right angles to”. In math, it’s used of vectors that are linearly independent. When not speaking of vectors, though, it’s fair usage to say that “hawks” and “conservatives” are orthogonal categories – meaning, simply, that they are not mutually dependent. Being a hawk is not dependent on being a conservative, and vice versa.
You appear to be defining “orthogonal” as “mutually exclusive”, and that, Slarti, is truly an abuse of the word.
Gosh, von, I hope you mean taxonomy. Taxidermy could get pretty messy.
That’s true, Jesurgislac. Point well made.
And I ought to have known better. Oh, the embarrassment.
I die…you know the drill.
Okay, I’ve read the article now. Von, you really had we worried with the hawk taxidermy—I don’t think I could have stood the sawdust.
Well, it’s pretty interesting. Put me down for none of the above. I’ve been working on my own taxonomy of positions on the war. I’m certainly open to suggestions. What I was doing was trying to identify reasonably distinct positions and assign to each position leading exponents and, if possible, bloggers that take the possible. How do these four positions strike people? They certainly don’t seem all-inclusive of the pro-war stance to me.
For example, I didn’t buy WMD, human rights, or democratization arguments but I did feel there were reasonable argument to be made. Not that I heard any.
But now we’re there and committed and will be for fifty years.
I’m confused. Is Fareed Zakaria a paleo-conservative? I thought he was kind of an international realist.
I’m confused. Is Fareed Zakaria a paleo-conservative? I thought he was kind of an international realist.
I thought Fareed Zakaria is a neo-Wilsonian.
I’ve been thinking lately that Fareed Zakaria is one mean mother-
Shut your mouth!
I’m just talkin’ ’bout Fareed Zakaria!
Hawk Taxonomy
Dan Drezner has a great post building off a New Republic article. If you were for the war, which category do you fall in now. I’m in “The Neo-Paleos: We Shoulda Known”: Burkean conservatives who never bought the democracy-building line,…