by Charles
When I first started writing at Tacitus, one of the first things I did for the benefit of the readers was to let them know where I was on the political spectrum (the link disappeared when Trevino switched over to Scoop). When I was graciously invited to Obsidian Wings (and by the way, thanks), I wrote a little about my political leanings here, just so you could get a flavor. Every once in a while I go back to the surveys, for one to see where I stand, and the other to see if my views on issues have changed. This morning I took the Political Gauge and found that I was a "moderate conservative", scoring a 65 on non-fiscal issues and a 75 on fiscal issues. So here’s a challenge: Take the test and tell me where you’re at. If there are other better tests out there, let me know and I’ll update.
[Update: On the Political Compass, I scored 2.75 to the right (out of ten) on the economic scale and -2.00 on the social libertarian/authoritarian scale (leaning libertarian). Sounds about right (hat tip to nous_athanatos for reminding me of this survey). When I took it around two years ago, my economic score was about the same as now, but I’m definitely more libertarian today. Back then, I was slightly positive (less than one) on the libertarian/authoritarian axis. The tests all have shortcomings because they don’t fully round out everyone’s political views. Multiple surveys get a little closer. In either case, the scores I’ve seen so far in comments don’t seem terribly inconsistent with the body of the commenters’ writings.
Well, I’m a strong liberal (16) on non-fiscal issues, and a moderate liberal (29) on fiscal issues. The trouble is, I have no idea what this means. In my view, Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility for decades, but does the test think so? Who knows?
Strong liberal (15) on non-fiscal issues and moderate liberal (35) on fiscal issues. I think the test is out of whack, though, because a lot of the distinctions between the “moderate liberal” and “strong liberal” responses also contain dependent or modifying clauses that could apply to the other position as well. [I assume the same is true of the “moderate conservative” and “strong conservative” dichotomy, but I couldn’t say for sure.] There are also rather severe problems with, e.g., the question on deficits in that I pretty much held three of the four possible views since two were specific and two were general. Eh. It is what it is; thanks for the link.
BTW, does the pre-Scoop tacitus.org exist in any meaningful way (other than the Wayback machine)? Or did the whole site just get blatted in the changeover?
Strong liberal – non-fiscal issues (15); moderate liberal – fiscal issues (24). Interesting exercise – meaningless – but interesting.
On the subject of fiscal policy, interesting post from Kevin Drum on America’s de facto flat tax.
i’m a 24/24 . perfect in every way.
There also needs to be a separate axis (maybe even two) for partisanship. There are people whose views are strongly liberal or conservative but who aren’t at all closely identified with the nearby party. And there are people whose basic instincts are fairly moderate but who are very strongly identified with one party and thoroughly hostile to the other.
According to the Political Gauge I am: moderately liberal on non-fiscal issues (24) and on fiscal issues (29).
I like The Political Compass a little better. There I am: economic Left/Right: -6.75 and social libertarian/authoritarian: -4.87…which seems more of an idealistic measure than a practical one (which seems to be the gauge’s focus). I tend towards more moderate means to achieve a liberal/libertarian viewpoint.
Interesting test there, nous, especially since it’s done from a British perspective. I ended up at -5.75 Economic Left/Right and -5.13 Authoritarian/Libertarian which puts me at almost the same place as Gandhi.
Needless to say, this is about the only thing we have in common.
I am: Economic Left/Right: -4.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.28
So, oddly, less liberal but more libertarian than Anarch. — I always find, though, that I disagree with a lot of the questions, but find myself thinking: I’m sure this is not the sort of disagreement you were looking for, O test. Still, I answer them honestly, without trying to second-guess the test, and so often come up with very odd scores.
To put it mildly, the Gauge fails to capture many possible shades of opinion on issues. The farm subsidies and trade questions are particularly ‘gappy’. If I were designing a test, I’d add at least two more statements per category, and give the ability to choose up to two statements. The intensity meter is nice.
results: 9 fiscal, 13 social. What can you say about a spectrum with nothing to the left of “strong liberal”? That it was designed by people for whom ‘strong liberal’ is code for ‘left-wing extremist’.
I am not now in the mood to take that survey; I may later. Part of the problems I have with such things is my tendency to stick a finger into the air to see which directional the political winds are blowing, and then, either conciously or unconciously, tack into the wind. Given a very liberal administration and/or country, I would appear more conservative. In any case, I don’t feel required to take firm, principle stands on every issue, because I lack certainty on most, and playing with the multiple sides of a policy is one way I gain clarity.
…..
Timmy reads CB’s mind over at Tacitus and thinks Charles is feeling lonesome. ObsWi lacks conservative commenters.
For the record, I so visit Tacitus regularly and Red State intermittently, and I do see both those places as having more liberal commenters than ObsWi has conservatives. I will make a few points, and then leave the question for anyone who cares to address it. Should there be any Republicans left here. Or perhaps my premises can be challenged. Blogs develop communities, and the lefties on Tac don’t seem all that noticably nicer to me.
1)The rightside posters have been less active lately, and the left more active. No criticism just an observation.
2)Extremely vitriolic attacks, of the type I am occasionally guilty of? That darn innuendo stuff.
3) Piling on? Not on posters, that is the show, but piling on particular commenters is really kinda pointless and tiresome. Drum’s blog is famous for this, “Al” or “Charles”…a different Charles…make a comment, and the next fifty comments are a gang tackle, with a couple of lefty OT comments, and believe it or not, a few rightward comments. Whatever good arguments might exist in the minority comments are ignored for sake of “attacking the troll.”
So to address the commenters: What can we do to make Republicans and/or conservatives feel more welcome? Do you want Cons/Repubs/Libs to feel more welcome? Is it not our problem, the fault lies in the powers-that-be, or in the conservatives?
Or are Timmy and Tacitus obsessed by a problem that doesn’t exist, and isn’t their business?
Blogs develop communities, and the lefties on Tac don’t seem all that noticably nicer to me.
lemme guess, there’s still a cadre of righties who specialize in this form of reply:
[pompous attitude]
[one or two possibly relevant facts]
[backhanded insult mixed with self-congratulatory sneer]
[variation on “…moving on…” ]
What can we do to make Republicans and/or conservatives feel more welcome? Do you want Cons/Repubs/Libs to feel more welcome? Is it not our problem, the fault lies in the powers-that-be, or in the conservatives?
I think the problem is one of rhetoric and tone, and the unfortunate tendency on the web to adopt polemic over debate as the primary mode of expression. Please forgive the use of technical terms here, but it seems to me that many of the posts here are argued as if this is a judicial forum (in the rhetorical sense of the term) where every issue is one to be won, rather than discussed. I recognize that this is standard operating procedure for provoking readers to comment, but it also tends to quickly devolve into polemic and slide towards talking points.
By contrast, I have always taken ObWi (in my short association here) to be, at least by intent, a deliberative forum rather than a judicial one–a forum not of rights and wrongs, but of whys and wherefores.
But, as is always the case with rhetoric, the rhetor must work with the crowd s/he is given. The crowd here (taken as a whole) is rather more liberal and judicial than otherwise. When the conservative commentators make judicial arguments, they provoke a stronger judicial counter-response. When the liberal commentators make judicial arguments, they galvanize the audience. So if the concern is local (this blog) rather than global (the blogsphere)–and I am not at all certain that everyone is concerned primarily with the local–these strategies will only reinforce differences of opinion.
Rhetorical strategy argues that if the commentator on the minority side wishes to win people over to his/her cause, s/he should try to stress the deliberative over the judicial. The same is true for leaders of the majority looking to build a larger consensus rather than an ‘appeal to the base.’
Sorry, that was long and pedantic. I’ve been thinking of this a lot, partially because I’m right at the end of a quarter of rhetoric from the Sophists to Quintillian, and this is all fresh in my mind(if moderately off-topic). This is the first place I’ve felt I could comment without it seeming like an attack on any specific poster.
I’m a strong liberal (scoring 8) on non-fiscal issues and a centrist (scoring 44) on fiscal issues. However, not being American, many of the questions are inappropriate for me. By European standards I would guess I am at least centre-right on economic issues. It would be interesting to know who these things are scored. Is somebody who wants to cut taxes, even if it means a hefty budget deficit, farther to the right than someone who wants a smaller public sector, but only if the budget is balanced?
My result:
On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (10).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (14).
Your score is on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being fully liberal and 100 being fully conservative.
62 social / 70 fiscal
I couldn’t figure out scoop or whatever it is. I like to use a fake email address, and don’t want to log in, so here I am.
Tip to conservative commenters, if you get 5 or 6 comments responding to your comments, just pick 1 or 2 to answer directly or make a general answer in 1 comment, or you might start to feeling a little overwhelmed. Conservatives, try commenting here please. Don’t restrict yourself to “home games”.
Non-Fiscal 21, Fiscal 32. ModLib. I didn’t think the questions captured my views very well, but that’s in the nature of the beast, as noted above.
As for how to get more Republicans and/or conservative to post here, I’ve really no clue. I can tell you why I gave up commenting on Tacitus and the like after a pretty short run: life’s too short to spend time arguing with people who are not interested in listening. Mr. Trevino himself sometimes falls into that category, but not always, and I suppose a day spent with him drifting down the Potomac on a rubber raft drinking beer wouldn’t be all that bad. He’s more the exception (or was the last time I looked, a year ago maybe) than the rule. RedState is the same to me, and I did look at a post a week or so back, and the comments were kind of scary.
The worst, for me, is the constant assertion that people who hold my views are either (a) dishonest;* (b) traitors; or (c) both. I don’t ask for agreement, but for fair discussion, and see no purpose in interacting with people who cannot engage in it.
Item (b) reduces me to purple-faced rage, and causes all manner of irrationality. It’s a failing of mine. In fact I feel myself descending into a state of rage just thinking about this, and am only barely suppressing the urge to write in all caps. I just have to avoid sites where this sort of thing is common. I guess the question is whether there is an analogue — an unfair, capital, personal smear — that makes conservatives feel the same way. Undoubtedly there are such, so then the question is whether ModLib commenters can be educated to avoid them. Or at least acknowledge error when called out. I think the answer is yes, but then the biggest knock on my kind from those of the other faith is that we think we are better than them.
* E.g., I’ll paraphrase: ‘no thinking person could believe that the Constitution precludes or in any way limits state power to regulate abortion, and those who say they do believe this are lying, because they like the result.’
Personally, I would prefer to see ad hominem attacks on anyone, liberal or conservative, vanish from the world. All they do is tell the person you’re supposedly talking to that you are willing to dismiss what s/he has to say out of hand. ‘Dishonest’, for instance.
It has also struck me from time to time that when one of the conservative posters agrees with us, some of us still jump all over him (whichever him it is) for whatever residual errors (in our view) still remain, without giving enough weight to the part we agree with.
There must be some analog to the conservative habit of making assumptions about liberals — we hate America, criticize only because we want to see things fail, care about torture because we think it’s important not to be mean and judgmental to those poor misunderstood terrorists, etc. This truly annoys me — I mean, how often should a person have to prove that she loves her country? and what gives them the right to say truly hateful things about someone they’ve never met? — and I’m sure we must have some analog. But I don’t know what it is.
hilzoy: So, oddly, less liberal but more libertarian than Anarch.
Oddly?
I always find, though, that I disagree with a lot of the questions, but find myself thinking: I’m sure this is not the sort of disagreement you were looking for, O test.
Amen to that, sister.
bob mcmanus: Piling on? Not on posters, that is the show, but piling on particular commenters is really kinda pointless and tiresome. Drum’s blog is famous for this, “Al” or “Charles”…a different Charles
It’s “Al” and “Charlie”, not “Charles”. The real Al doesn’t comment much on Washington Monthly any more — I hear he’s moved his travelling inanity show to Yglesias’ site — so most of the “Als” that you see at WaMo are fakes. Regrettably, it’s now become a tradition for commenters to adopt the Al persona just to stir things up; one particularly memorable thread last year had comments filled with nothing but “Al” clones.
Charlie deserves all the flak he’s getting and then some. He’s a troll through and through, with a particularly irritating habit of side-tracking every thread to deal with his favorite hobby-horses (usually “abortion == genocide”). After repeated requests by multiple commenters over a period of almost six months, Kevin Drum finally asked him to leave… and contrary to his promises, Charlie immediately popped back up under a multitude of pseudonyms, only to get outed almost immediately because, well, he’s not very clever about it.
All that said, I completely agree that the piling on at Washington Monthly tends to be disgraceful and unnecessary. Worse is that legitimate conservative commenters — or oft-trollish conservative commenters making legitimate points — get caught in the crossfire (I think Sebastian ended up getting hammered just this past week in a markedly unfair fashion) which merely reinforces both the echo chamber and the entrenched imbecility of the conservatives who decide to stick around. Bad news, all of that.
What can we do to make Republicans and/or conservatives feel more welcome?
Stop calling them “liars”, “fools”, “traitors”, “cowards” and the equivalent. That’d be at the top of my list, at any rate. A close second would be to stop imputing heinous motives without cause — and to require a much higher level of “cause” then some commenters here seem willing to credit. Coming in a distant third: don’t pile on unless there’s a damn good reason. If you see four responses dealing with the same post then it’s probably not worth remarking on again unless you have something qualitatively new to add to the discussion.
[All that cuts both ways, natch, which is why I ultimately ditched most of the blogs I frequented, from all over the blogosphere. I deal with enough imbecility in my regular line of work; I don’t need to deal with it during my down-time.]
That’s all my perspective, at least, and YMMV. You’d have to check with actual Republicans and conservatives to see whether that’s what they’re worried about.
Do you want Cons/Repubs/Libs to feel more welcome?
Provided they make good-faith, fact-based arguments? Of course. Same is true for anyone of any political disposition as far as I’m concerned.
Is it not our problem, the fault lies in the powers-that-be, or in the conservatives?
That, alas, lies above my pay-grade.
What can we do to make Republicans and/or conservatives feel more welcome?
I could bake a bundt cake and make some punch. 🙂
I scored 12 on non-fiscal and 25 on fiscal. I’m with Nell, however. This is very facile and limited.
Nell: What can you say about a spectrum with nothing to the left of “strong liberal”? That it was designed by people for whom ‘strong liberal’ is code for ‘left-wing extremist’.
It’s a problem for a country that doesn’t have a left-wing political party: the Democratic Party is right-of-center (and apparently drifting rightward at a rate of knots); the Republican party is so far right as to be unelectable in the UK. (Well, not quite. But far right parties in the UK are very much minority parties.)
I don’t tend to take American political tests any more except if they’re intended to be funny, because the results tend to be skewed by the tester not conceiving that there exist major political parties in government that are far, far more left-wing than the Democratic party at its most centrist.
It is actually a genuinely good reason for not hanging out on right-wing American sites. Used to be you could tell a troll as someone who made a deliberately controversial statement. But it is entirely possible, so far apart have left and right drifted, for one person’s uncontroversial truism to be another person’s confrontational trollism.
I’ll add another pair of remarks that applies to everyone, irrespective of sociopolitical leanings, myself included:
1) Stop passing off your opinion as truth.
2) Stop passing off the truth as somebody else’s opinion.
I think this, more than anything, has contributed to the general degradation of debate in this country. The twin pillars of faux-certitude and carefully-circumscribed-doubt are more corrosive to rational thought than just about anything else I can think of, in large part because they can successfully masquerade as rationalism long enough for the debate to become meaningless.
I took the test and answered all the questions and was like hilzoy (a strong liberal (17) on non-fiscal issues, and a moderate liberal (28) on fiscal issues). But then I took the test and answered no opinion for all the questions whose answer I felt skewed my opinion or failed to provide me with a meaningful option, I clicked no opinion and came up with a 34/34 score.
the other test
Economic Left/Right: -4.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (9).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Moderate Liberal (29).
Used to be you could tell a troll as someone who made a deliberately controversial statement. But it is entirely possible, so far apart have left and right drifted, for one person’s uncontroversial truism to be another person’s confrontational trollism.
No kidding. I really wonder sometimes how that happens. The best I’ve come up with is that some people trust President Bush and believe everything he says, even when it’s clearly and uncontroversially contradicted.
Strong Liberal (6) on non-fiscal, and Moderate Liberal (20) on fiscal. This test is so limited in scope, though, as to be near-meaningless–it’s about as comprehensive as an LJ quiz. :>
I came up as a 27 (Moderate Liberal) on non-fiscal, and 54 (Centrist) on fiscal; I suppose if, by “liberal,” they mean “classical liberal,” then sure. But I doubt they do.
The “Political Compass” lists me as:
Economic Left/Right: 1.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.90
Which puts me about halfway in between Gandhi and Milton Friedman. Yeesh.
Of course if I took them again tomorrow, the numbers might be a fair bit different. There were a lot of questions where I wasn’t happy with the phrasing of the question or none of the answers were good. I didn’t expect to be rated quite so fiscally liberal, but I suppose free-marketeers have to be in favor of multinational monopolies nowadays. And is disbelief in astrology libertarian or authoritarian?
Also, the Political Gauge has forgotten that DC exists (judging by the dropdown on its form).
I balked at the first question. I think that that shall-issue is a good standard for firearm permits, and that people who’ve served their jail terms and probations should get the right to carry firearms back, but that much closer scrutiny of sales would often be in order, and that firearm use should be a strongly considered factor in sentencing, and so on. Not rules that interfere much at all with purchase, training, carrying, or self-defense, but that come down hard on evasion of basic scrutiny and harder on use in crimes. That didn’t strike me as an option at all. likewise with the others. But what the heck…
On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (6).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Moderate Liberal (32).
I tend to find this a travesty of my views. 🙂
NF – 28
F – 36
People scratch their heads when I wear that on my T-shirt.
On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (15).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (16).
My results are flipped from the usual here:
Most of the rest of you seem to be strong on non-fiscal and moderate on fiscal issues. Of course, the fiscal matters was where I wanted more nuance and options, but was sort of forced to come down on partisan principles and talking points.
Nous, I enjoyed your pedantic argument and mostly agree with your analysis. There are some threads, often on topics that fall outside the better-rehearsed lines of partisan disagreement, where the deliberative still obtains. Perhaps that’s the better direction for the main-posters: to attempt to cast a wider net, to write more often about issues that don’t have such familiar sides.
BirdDog,
I don’t care about your political bent.
My strong lefty tendencies in no way interfere with my deep friendships with strong righties and with deep love for righties and misanthropic libertarians in my family.
What I care about is that your contributions are primarily composed of shallow, inaccurate, deliberately obfuscatory, deliberately inflammatory, irresponsible, demonstrable lies, and that you seem to think that somehow repeating those lies often enough will make them true and that repeating those lies often enough will make the policies that are based on those lies “good policy” and that those lies, oft repeated, will somehow deflect criticism and suspend reality.
Bullshit.
No surprises here, though as others have pointed out the questions are inherently biased and produce something of a caricature as a result.
Charles, I believe I have been polite to you even though I disagree strongly with some things you have posted. I have noticed, though, that you fail to respond when I pose you a direct question. Why?
I got a 5 and a 3, respectively, btw.
Charles, I apologize. Reviewing what I have written, I see I wrote hastily above.
non-fiscal: 4
fiscal: 19
economic: 6.00
social: 7.03
Accurate . . . ? But fun to take.
I got 9/39. Not sure what that means. In particular, I have no idea what they are talking about when they rate people on fiscal issues. Is the issue spending levels or attitude towards budget balance?
RedDan: I just posted a civil response to you a minute ago, but that was before I saw what you wrote here. I’m banning you. Feel free to appeal this if you think it’s unfair.
hilzoy,
I tend not to appeal.
I knew what I was doing and why.
I disagree with your policy, and think you should rethink it, but I do not think it necessary to appeal.
Should you decide otherwise, send me an email.
15 non-fiscal, 22 fiscal. I dislked the questions, often because I felt both of the liberal answers were needed to properly state my views.
I grouse about some of the conservative commentators we have, but I certainly want them to stay and debate as actively and open-mindedly as possible. Given that the makeup of the front page posters leans conservative, one would think that should be sufficient to draw more conservatives here. Since it seems not, I am not sure what to suggest.
Otto, did you leave out a couple of negative signs?
Despite RedDan’s penchant for tomfoolery, I have been pleasantly surprised to learnt that he is, counterintuitively, pro-life.
“I have been pleasantly surprised to learnt that he is, counterintuitively, pro-life.”
How very interesting! Please expand, I would like to understand your intuitions that might have made it a surprise. And perhaps the priorities that made the surprise a pleasant one.
….
Comrade Dean has embarrassed us, and I have received instructions from cadre leaders that general criticism of “Republicans” is counter-productive, and that all such criticism may be easily corrected with the simple addition of “leaders” or leadership”.
Example:”Republican leaders suck.”
This cell, as demonstrated above, is not in compliance with NewSpeak, and may face Party discipline, possibly including the withholding of refreshments and recreational equipment.
Looking at the other thread, let me add that while I can imagine enjoying a lazy summer afternoon arguing with Mr. Trevino — floating and drinking, not just arguing — I cannot say the same of Mr. Bird. RedDan’s frustration with unilateral disarmament imposed by the rules in the face of Bird’s penchant for over-the-top and often incendiary rhetoric is perfectly understandable. I wouldn’t say that Mr. Bird is beyond hope of redemption, but I would hope that he would find in the comments there, and here, cause for reflection.
Non-fiscal: Moderate liberal
Fiscal: Centrist
Like many others, I found myself frustrated because of questions where I think I have a clear position, but it wasn’t one of the ones listed. The only one I’m rabid about is balancing the federal budget. I would prefer to see it done by a combination of raising revenues and reducing spending. But if it were done by reducing spending, I would probably disagree with most conservatives about where to reduce first. And if it were done by raising taxes, I would probably disagree with most liberals about how to structure the taxes. Overall, it did seem to put me, a self-described “flaming moderate”, in about the right place.
Oh yeah.
economic: -6.00
social: -7.03
Thanks, KCinDC.
Hmm:
“On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Centrist (45).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Moderate Conservative (72).”
Tacitus: Despite RedDan’s penchant for tomfoolery, I have been pleasantly surprised to learnt that he is, counterintuitively, pro-life.
I’m uncertain why it should surprise you that someone unabashedly rude is “pro-life”. (I am guessing at your definition of “pro-life”, but if – as I suspect – you mean “making it more difficult or making it illegal for women who need abortions to get them”, well, that is frequently a source of aggressively discourteous behavior, both online and in real life.)
Item (b) reduces me to purple-faced rage, and causes all manner of irrationality.
It does to me as well.
As what passes for a “right-leaning” commentator around this parts (despite being pro-gay marriage, pro-immigration, etc.), here’s what occasionally annoys me about our left-leaning commentariat: Moral certainty, and the willingness to immediately assume the worst about one’s opponents. E.g.:
No one really opposes abortion based on the belief that it’s murder (or, if not murder, uncomfortably close to it); no, they really want to control women.
There was no legitimate reason to invade Iraq.
You want to cut subsidies on X because you’re racist/classist/hate children, not because you really believe that (in the long run) cutting subsidies will lead to a better result for everyone.
Etc.
What I’d appreciate (but, admittedly, don’t always practice) would be a recognition that many of the issues we debate are hard questions, and there is legitimate room for a wide range of views. Accordingly, the fact that your opponent does not share your view is not an indication that she or he is evil/stupid/lying.
von
p.s. The same two sins — certainty and a willingness to believe the worst — are present in conservative commentators as well (including yours truly), and I have no doubt that they annoy lefties to no end.
hmmm
On Non-Fiscal Issues: Moderate Liberal (26).
On Fiscal Issues: Moderate Liberal (35).
something screwy about that.
For many of the questions, my true response was more nuanced than any of the choices…I tended to choose the more conservative of the options available thinking my overall liberal tendencies would compensate, but I don’t think they did.
Despite RedDan’s penchant for tomfoolery, I have been pleasantly surprised to learnt that he is, counterintuitively, pro-life.
Dunno. There’s a strong pro-life current in some radicalized working class circles. See, e.g., The Sex Pistols, which were a strongly pro-life band.
von: No one really opposes abortion based on the belief that it’s murder (or, if not murder, uncomfortably close to it); no, they really want to control women.
Well, Von, given that so many of the people who oppose abortion also oppose free access to contraception, decent (and compulsory) sex education in schools, free health care for pregnant women and children, guaranteed minimum wage, helpful public transport and child care and other support for working parents…
…and they support the death penalty – even for minors: they support war…
…I think that I can safely say that most people who oppose abortion do so not because they feel it is murder, but because they want to control women.
I think it would be a very good thing if there were fewer, far fewer, abortions. (I doubt if it would ever be possible to get the number down to zero, but I think it very likely it would be possible to greatly decrease it from the present number.)
But criminalizing abortion, or making it much more difficult/expensive for a woman to obtain an abortion, is not an effective means of reducing the number of abortions, still less for taking them down to zero. Where only illegal abortions are available, women will have illegal abortions, and women will die of them – or risk becoming sterile.
Proven-to-be-effective means of reducing the number of abortions exist, and they don’t kill women or render them sterile: and the two most obvious are free access to contraception, and decent (and compulsory) sex education in schools. Secondary but still useful would be to reduce the economic reasons women have for choosing to abort rather than bear: free health care for pregnant women and children, guaranteed minimum wage, helpful public transport and child care.
Anyone who opposes abortion because it’s murder/uncomfortably close to murder, would also have to (as a matter of conscience) oppose IVF, which routinely disposes of unwanted embryos… but I have never seen a “pro-lifer” fulminating against the “mass murder” at an IVF clinic.
For all I know, you may oppose abortion and IVF as a matter of conscience, and I know (or think I remember) that you take a sensible stance on contraception/sex education. But publicly and conspicuously, most “pro-lifers” are for reducing the choices available to women, not for increasing them.
Von: Accordingly, the fact that your opponent does not share your view is not an indication that she or he is evil/stupid/lying.
No. But where the facts have been established (for example, that the Bush administration lied to the US public, to Congress, and indeed to the world, about their plans for making war on Iraq) people who persist in claiming that there is no evidence that Bush told any lies are, well, either (a) uninformed (b) stupid (c) lying. Politely, one assumes (a) and provides the necessary information, of which there is aplenty: but if one provides the necessary information several times over and the other person keeps claiming “there is no evidence” one must (impolitely) conclude (b) or (c).
“Evil” is another judgement call, and not one I suppose one should get into.
Von, you’re projecting here. We’ve seen right-wingers repeatedly deny what the administration has done, the motivations, competancy and results. When a piece of information comes out, it’s an anecdote; when additional pieces come out, the media is biased, yadda yadda yadda.
So, when we don’t show you much respect, please don’t feel that we’re being rude – we’re merely showing you that respect which we feel is merited.
I disagree with Barry. I think people sometimes stereotype von and assume , because he is supposed to be a more right-leaning blogger, that he thinks things which he doesn’t or that he has a rigid mind. He isn’t instapundit.
Barry: What do you mean “we”? Did I miss the moment when the monolithic ‘left’ appointed Barry as its official spokesperson?
For the record, von, despite his unfortunate contribution to the reactionary anti-AI clusterf*ck, is one of the most principled and introspective conservatives in the entire blogosphere (he voted for Kerry, ferchristsake!) He is the wrong outlet for spewing your righteous vitriol. Save it for the REAL partisan wingnuts (most of whom thankfully hang out in online venues other than ObWi).
Since the AI report was released I’ve observed a hardening of the discourse between ‘right’ and ‘left’-leaning posters. All the rhetorical hand grenades and increasingly broad partisan generalizations are, to me at least, not healthy for the expressed purpose of the site, namely constructive and civil dialog between people of varying ideologies.
As for my score on the Political Gauge, I scored 2 for non-fiscal and 13 for fiscal. Being Canadian (and an unrepentant socialist), it amused me to no end to be labeled a ‘strong liberal’.
To paraphrase William Goldman, I don’t think that word means what they think it does. (not in Canada at least.)
I agree with matttbastard: if you’re looking for a rigid, doctrinaire right-wing person, von is not the guy you want.
More generally, I think that everyone, on both sides, would do well to stop imputing motives to people based on their political affiliation. I find it infuriating when people assume that because I’m liberal, I must therefore hate America, want us to lose in Iraq, etc., etc. It’s not only unfair, it also makes me have to work hard not to just dismiss what the person who makes these assumptions is saying.
We are all individuals, she said, with her usual air of profundity; and most of us will display our actual weaknesses soon enough. No need to go around inventing fake ones.
BTW, does the pre-Scoop tacitus.org exist in any meaningful way (other than the Wayback machine)?
In a word, no. All is gone from the Internet. Tac has it in storage somewhere. Big file. Too bad, because there’s been too many occasions when I’d write about something and I wanted to go back and see what I did before on the topic.
Charles, I believe I have been polite to you even though I disagree strongly with some things you have posted. I have noticed, though, that you fail to respond when I pose you a direct question. Why?
I just answered you 😉
I’d like to answer every question, but by the time I finish writing a post, my time for responding is constrained. As you can probably tell from reading this thread, most of the commenters are on the other side of the political aisle and I’m forced to pick a few from the many comments.
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -6.00
Jeez, I thought we were supposed to get more conservative the older we get!?!?! I’m a church going Leftist with a gun!
So, when we don’t show you much respect, please don’t feel that we’re being rude – we’re merely showing you that respect which we feel is merited.
CLASSIC!!!
Hilzoy: if you’re looking for a rigid, doctrinaire right-wing person, von is not the guy you want.
*waves hand* *exerts Jedi mind-whammy* These are not the droids you’re looking for…
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Hilzoy: More generally, I think that everyone, on both sides, would do well to stop imputing motives to people based on their political affiliation. I find it infuriating when people assume that because I’m liberal, I must therefore hate America, want us to lose in Iraq, etc., etc. It’s not only unfair, it also makes me have to work hard not to just dismiss what the person who makes these assumptions is saying.
Mmmm, but that’s an odd counter-example to choose. When we on the left criticize those on the right who are denying proven facts (the Bush administration had decided to invade Iraq, yet for months afterwards were claiming that they hadn’t yet made up their minds: there were no WMD found: Saddam Hussein had no links to al-Qaeda justifying invasion) and who keep denying them regardless of how much additional information is given to them, we are criticizing them because, over a specific issue, they are behaving very badly.
When those on the right criticize those on the left for “hating America”, and “wanting us to lose in Iraq” they are usually not pulling up specific behavior on a specific issue, but responding with generalized abuse to specific criticisms.
The two are not comparable. It would be comparable behavior if I were to argue that (for example) because A.N.Republican supports torturing al-Qaeda, he therefore hates America and wants the US to lose in Iraq.
Charles: most of the commenters are on the other side of the political aisle and I’m forced to pick a few from the many comments.
Which is fair enough. But why do you never (hardly ever) seem to pick the substantive, fact-based criticisms to respond to?
Jes: when I wrote that, I had originally meant to add (to the para. you quoted): and I can’t imagine it feels any better for them, when it comes from us. I was talking about von’s remark, which is mostly about such assumptions.
Myself, I tend to resist ‘dishonest’, partly because I think there’s lots and lots of room for things like: forgetting some bit of information, inadvertently deleting it from your mind because it doesn’t square with your basic beliefs about what’s going on, not having put together a lot of different facts into a pattern, etc., etc. I also think it’s a lot harder to persuade people when you put them on the defensive.
Hilzoy: I also think it’s a lot harder to persuade people when you put them on the defensive.
True.
But my point is, you were describing and equating two different kinds of behavior: annoyance at those who persist in claiming that [the Earth is flat*], versus annoyance at those who persist in making criticisms you don’t agree with.
*Anything. If I were to persistently claim “There are only three Star Wars movies”, and went on claiming this at every possible opportunity, asserting that this was a fact and those who claim there are six are wrong, I would be engaging in one kind of annoying behavior – the same kind that those on the right engage in when they claim that Bush never lied about the war with Iraq.
If I were to criticise the last three SW movies on the grounds that they’re utter trash and ought never to have been made, I might be annoying, but at least I’d be engaging in a reasonable kind of argument: you can agree or disagree about a movie’s quality, but if you deny the movie even exists, it is impossible to move on to discussing its quality. It’s a showstopper.
On Non-Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Strong Liberal (12).
On Fiscal Issues, you rank as a Moderate Liberal (28).
Economic Left/Right: -4.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56
i’m a -4.25, -4.25, on the Compass. again, perfect in every way.
Mattbastard, I meant ‘we’ in the sense that a bunch of ‘us’ were getting down on CB; not ‘we’ in the sense of ‘my followers’. Not exactly an easy mistake to make, but we all make such mistakes, even myself, I’m afraid.
Might as well weigh in here with my scores: Non-Fisc “Strong Lib” (19), Fiscal: “Mod Lib” (33) – values which, I notice seem to put me right in the range with most of my fellow commenters here; and values, which, JFTR, I think are wildly off (especially in the “fiscal” part) – since I don’y really view my own opinions on such matters as all that “liberal” (I am a “deficit hawk”, fwiw, and believe most government spending is a huge waste). I suppose these online “tests” have to quantify the opinions they tally in some fashion, but should carry a useful disclaimer such as “For Entertainment Purposes Only” since they are fairly unsubtle in their analyses.
I will not re-fight the lead up to the Iraq War …
I will not re-fight the lead up to the Iraq War …
I will not re-fight the lead up to the Iraq War …
Except to note that there has been no credible evidence, none, that Bush knew going in that WMDs did not exist in Iraq. Yes, absolutely, some evidence was overstated. But — in a world of uncertainties — it was reasonable to err on the side of caution with a man like Saddam. Perhaps not the right decision, from your perspective; perhaps demonstrably wrong, to you. But a decision that be explained rationally and logically, and in a manner consistent with our best interests and ideals.
Indeed, I return to something I back in November 2002, when the debate was over the UN should endorse a US led attack against Iraq.*
My reasoning may have been (and may continue to be) wrong, but I have yet to see it proven “unreasonable.”
von
*No link, because I posted under my real name.
von,
“The United Nations’ Security Counsel should endorse a U.S.-led attack on Iraq if Iraq does not fully comply with the U.N.-mandated inspections regime.”
And yet, when Iraq complied and nothing was found, why was the correct response to attack then?
And yet, when Iraq complied and nothing was found, why was the correct response to attack then?
If Iraq fully complied, and granted the UN full and immediate access at every turn (remember, Hans Blix repeatedly complained that Iraq was not fully cooperating), and nothing was found (including materials that could be quickly reassembled into WMDs), then, yes: War would not have be justified.
Incidentally, I’m now on record as calling the War in Iraq a mistake, although one that we must not magnify by pully out, drawing down, or whatever euphemism you propose to a grace(less) exit.
But why do you never (hardly ever) seem to pick the substantive, fact-based criticisms to respond to?
I do. Obviously, your opinion is otherwise.
von,
Blix’s final report is here. While not “full and immediate access at every turn” it is certainly more consistent with providing such access than trying to evade such access. For example:
“Inspections in Iraq resumed on the 27th of November 2002. In matters relating to process, notably prompt access to sites, we have faced relatively few difficulties, and certainly much less than those that were faced by UNSCOM [U.N. Special Commission] in the period 1991 to 1998. This may well be due to the strong outside pressure.”
or
“One can hardly avoid the impression that after a period of somewhat reluctant cooperation, there’s been an acceleration of initiatives from the Iraqi side since the end of January. This is welcome. But the value of these measures must be soberly judged by how many question marks they actually succeed in straightening out.
This is not yet clear.
Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated, “immediately, unconditionally and actively,” with UNMOVIC, as is required under Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441. The answers can be seen from the factor descriptions that I have provided.
However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. It has not, however, so far persisted in this or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.
It is obvious that while the numerous initiatives which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some longstanding, open disarmament issues can be seen as active or even proactive, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute immediate cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are, nevertheless, welcome. And UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.”
Against this background, and with the knowledge that Blix was asking Washington to provide specific sites to inspect and the few sites Washington suggested turned out to be dry holes, I came to the conclusion that war was not justified before it started. I do think based on this, starting a war when we did and with the background that was present was unreasonable.
i don’t think von is the person who should be held accountable for once supporting the war; it’s those Democrats in Congress who to this day won’t admit to a mistake, who piss me off.
i don’t think von is the person who should be held accountable for once supporting the war; it’s those Democrats in Congress who to this day won’t admit to a mistake, who piss me off.
I do. Obviously, your opinion is otherwise.
*cough*
See above.
[And pity about the loss of pre-Scoop Tac.]
We needed to kill tens of thousands of people to show the world 9-11 meant somethin’!!!
Since Bush has decided to leave Bin Ladden alone, Iraq & Hussein would be the closest things (in a hillbilly worldview sort of way) to recieve devine and democratic punishment.
I will not re-fight the lead up to the Iraq War …
FWIW, and (currently) without prejudice, it’s easier to make this resolution when your case has turned to ashes than when you were proven right all along.
I will not re-fight the lead up to the Iraq War …
There’s no reason to re-fight it on this thread — regardless of one’s opinion about it, it’s hardly justified to consider the “Bush lied” theory as fact rather than opinion. I’m not saying that the evidence is just as strong on both sides, just that to equate it with the question of how many Star Wars films there are is overstating things by quite a bit.
I break my Bird Dog resolution because Cosmo quizzes are irresistable.
And the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with me. Honestly, just try it. You’ll like it.
And the world would be a better place if everyone agreed with me. Honestly, just try it. You’ll like it.
I guess I do like it — I got 33/51. Although based on some of the answers I was more or less forced to select, I’m not sure I even agree with myself.
kenB–Although based on some of the answers I was more or less forced to select, I’m not sure I even agree with myself.
That usually sums up my views on politics as well.
PG
NF = 40
F = 54
PC
E = 0
Social = -1.79
Well, I came out as a moderate liberal, but I cheated.
Well, I came out as a moderate liberal, but I cheated.
Whose paper did you copy from?
Whose paper did you copy from?
Maybe she looked into the soul of girl sitting next to her?
kenB: regardless of one’s opinion about it, it’s hardly justified to consider the “Bush lied” theory as fact rather than opinion
It’s not a theory: it’s a fact.
Do you happen to remember for how many months after July 2002 Bush was still claiming, publicly, that he didn’t intend to make war on Iraq unless it was forced on him? He lied.
Well, it was. The mid-term elections, a bad economy, people asking about Osama bin ^H^H^H^H He Who Shouldn’t Be Mentioned, people asking for outrageous things like an investigation into how 9/11 happened – wouldn’t you have had a war, under that much pressure?
lily: i don’t think von is the person who should be held accountable for once supporting the war;
I agree, and I don’t.
But before Von can rationally discuss why he once supported the war, he would need to acknowledge that Bush, as is known the world round, lied about the reasons for having the war with Iraq.
Von: Except to note that there has been no credible evidence, none, that Bush knew going in that WMDs did not exist in Iraq.
But considerable and credible evidence (Downing Street memo, cited above, merely being the latest piece) that Bush didn’t care whether or not there were WMDs in Iraq. His constantly moving-goalposts were clear indicators at the time: as we now know, he had made up his mind to invade by July 2002. Further, while you may feel that lying about what evidence existed is excusable (“some evidence was overstated”? Can you point to a single piece of solid evidence cited by Bush re. WMD in Iraq that wasn’t overstated?) I don’t.
Incidentally, I’m now on record as calling the War in Iraq a mistake, although one that we must not magnify by pully out, drawing down, or whatever euphemism you propose to a grace(less) exit.
How many more Iraqis have to die, and how many more Americans, before you finally agree that at least a graceless exit is better than continuing to wantonly kill in the name of “bringing democracy”? It was well over a million Vietnamese, as I recall off the top of my head, the last time the US got into this kind of pointless war.
Anyone,
What is the difference between the practical application of the following two positions?
1)“the War in Iraq [is] a mistake, although one that we must not magnify by pull[ing] out”
2) The war in Iraq is not a mistake, therefore we must not pull out.
The end result of both of these positions is the same, no? Do they not both amount to support for the continuation of the war?
Incidentally, I’m now on record as calling the War in Iraq a mistake,
A day late & a dollar short!
although one that we must not magnify by pully out, drawing down, or whatever euphemism you propose to a grace(less) exit.
Are you willing to go there and put your ass or that of your children on the line to get a gracefull exit?
In as far as I can figure out, there is no gracefull exit and the consequence of this war are pretty much unknown and unknowable, but I seriously doubt that Democracy will be the outcome.
It was well over a million Vietnamese, as I recall off the top of my head, the last time the US got into this kind of pointless war.
It’s closer to three, not counting the consequences of our secret bombing of Cambodia.
“What is the difference between the practical application of the following two positions?
1)“the War in Iraq [is] a mistake, although one that we must not magnify by pull[ing] out”
2) The war in Iraq is not a mistake, therefore we must not pull out.”
I guess if you hold the former belief then in the case of any potential future conflict you’ll take the lesson from Iraq and maybe not get into it.
However, human nature being what it is, there’s a good chance that whenever that potential future conflict comes, the same people who said ‘maybe we shouldn’t get into it’ before will do it again, and will be branded weak appeasers on Fox New Channel 2.0, and the same people who said ‘I don’t want to be affiliated with the hippies. I’m Strong on Defense(tm)’ will do so again, and we’ll get to do it again.
So no, in the long run, I don’t think there’s any difference between the two positions.
But before Von can rationally discuss why he once supported the war, he would need to acknowledge that Bush, as is known the world round, lied about the reasons for having the war with Iraq.
Why must he acknowledge this? The demand sounds rather Inquisitorial to me.
The end result of both of these positions is the same, no?
Yes. So what. These are two separate questions, one of history, one of policy.
A day late & a dollar short!
Easy for you to say, since you’ve never misjudged a political situation.
since we seem to be comparing scores:
on the Political Gauge:
On Non-Fiscal Issues, I rank as a Strong Liberal (15).
On Fiscal Issues, I rank as a Moderate Liberal (27).
which sounds about right.
and on Political Compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00
which also sounds about right.
As to the war, as far as i’m concerned it’s been pretty obvious since Powell’s speech to the UN and the followup (remember the drone planes and the mobile poison gas generators?) that the admin simply didn’t CARE what the evidence showed. war was inevitable.
now, the more interesting question is why. Why did Rumsfeld apparently think, just hours after the WTC attack, that the appropriate response was to “go massive” and finish off Saddam?
Economic -0.38
Social -1.03
I’m smack dab in the middle on that scale, possibly even more than crionna.
Jes: But before Von can rationally discuss why he once supported the war, he would need to acknowledge that Bush, as is known the world round, lied about the reasons for having the war with Iraq.
Bernard Why must he acknowledge this? The demand sounds rather Inquisitorial to me.
I agree. IMHO, this could be construed as an attempt at point scoring.
It’s not a theory: it’s a fact.
As suggestive as the memo is, it’s still not a slam-dunk. It’s the memo-writer’s version of the impressions that a couple of British politicians were left with after a meeting. To you and me, it just confirms the obvious, but imagine for a minute that the memo suggested instead that Bush & friends were still hoping for a peaceful resolution — would that on its own have been “proof” enough to convince you of their sincerity? Or would you be finding many reasons to be skeptical of the memo?
IMO, real proof is Bush or a member of his inner circle ‘fessing up, or being caught on tape. Without that, all you have is the preponderance of the evidence — still enough wiggle room to allow someone to deny that Bush was lying without being necessarily labelled a liar him/herself.
I have never been entirely convinced that Bush lies, for what it’s worth, except in very rare cases, like the one I wrote about here. But that’s because I am not convinced that he’s sufficiently concerned about the truth to notice one way or the other, which is scary. — I mean, I don’t think the reality principle is his long suit. I can easily imagine him just not being concerned with the details of e.g. Social Security or Iraq, and operating on instinct, without really caring about the facts one way or the other.
Needless to say, this isn’t an attempt at exoneration; just comprehension.
Easy for you to say, since you’ve never misjudged a political situation.
Never on that scale, 100,000 Dead Iraqis, lord knows how many wounded or crippled, or how much genetic damage all the DU we have dumped thru out the countryside will cause.
1,500+ Dead Americans, 12,000+ Wounded, lord knows how many crippled for life.
Ever since George has been selected, political judgement is not necessary, if he ‘s for it you should be against it based upobn the fact that he is an incompetant lying sack of sh*t whose sole interest is making as much money as possible for his friends and the Carlyle Group.
You know, Hilzoy, you really are a fine person and an American in the original sense of the term, as maybe de Tocqueville or someone or other meant it.
This I know from e-mail exclusively, which goes to show how shallow I am.
But, I’ve been thinking about Rilkfan’s insistent little jabs that maybe the gibbering voices of the Left (weird, since I voted for Nixon in 1972 (forgive me, I was up close and personal with the rhetoric of the hard left then) and Reagan in 1980 (absolve me)) are a little too over represented here and maybe it’s time to give Sebastian and Von a little breathing room, and even Charles, so I’m backing off for a time, not that it matters.
Don’t misundertand me; I recognize the voices I hear today from the hard folks in the Republican Party; they are very similar to the Hard folks in the Left all those years ago. They wanted something awful.
So, Hilzoy, you go for it. Convince them. I think you are wrong about Bush. But, I hope rational discourse works. I’m done for now.
Easy for you to say, since you’ve never misjudged a political situation.
Never on that scale, 100,000 Dead Iraqis, lord knows how many wounded or crippled, or how much genetic damage all the DU we have dumped thru out the countryside will cause.
1,500+ Dead Americans, 12,000+ Wounded, lord knows how many crippled for life.
The problem with that is that those were the stakes in either case. By which I mean that if the arguments for the war had been valid opposition would have been a mistake as least as big as that, probably bigger. Your claim is like saying that, while you may have bet wrong some of the time, you never have when the amount of money at stake has been large. Unconvincing, I’d say.
The problem with that is that those were the stakes in either case. By which I mean that if the arguments for the war had been valid opposition would have been a mistake as least as big as that, probably bigger.
How exactly was Iraq ever a threat to the US? It had no air force, no navy and no ability to project force outside of it’s borders.
In re the Downing Street memo and kenB’s 9:30 comment:
What does anyone make of the comment by Wolfowitz (spring 2003?) that the WMD rationale was “the one thing we could all agree on”?
Muslims had to pay for Bin Ladden’s move.
The rest of the world sees this “coalition of the willing” for the paranoid and greedy lynch mob it is.
Since the main “darky” was off limits, the other “darkys” could pay for it.
I think this is called “moral certainty” .
Bernard Yomtov,
Thanks for the call (9:08). My question was more the result of a biased assumption and an emotional response (apologies to von) than a desire to ask an honest and non-rhetorical question.
kenB: but imagine for a minute that the memo suggested instead that Bush & friends were still hoping for a peaceful resolution — would that on its own have been “proof” enough to convince you of their sincerity?
It would certainly have made me look at Bush’s public behavior (moving the goalposts, etc) in a new light. As best I recall, at the time that memo was written, several of my American friends were hopeful that the whole threat-of-war was a gigantic bluff to let the US inspectors finish the job they started. Had the memo been solid on “we hope for a peaceful resolution” and “we must first get access to more information” it would have made me (at least) seriously consider that perhaps my friends were right: Bush did intend a gigantic bluff that got away with him. (At the time, I was respectful of their hopes; and I did hope that UN inspectors getting back into Iraq would change things.)
Since the main “darky” was off limits, the other “darkys” could pay for it.
Oh good grief, DQ, knock it off already.
Hilzoy: But that’s because I am not convinced that he’s sufficiently concerned about the truth to notice one way or the other, which is scary.
Well, yes: it sounds like you think Bush really is insane, if he literally cannot tell that he’s lying.
“Well, yes: it sounds like you think Bush really is insane, if he literally cannot tell that he’s lying.”
Without arguing about Bush, with whom I have no telepathic contact, and thus prefer not to argue mind-reading conclusions (nor to, you know, defend), have you ever run into people whom you have some respect for whom, nonetheless, don’t seem interested in the details of the truth of a particular debate that, nonetheless, you know perfectly well you are right and they are wrong about? But, yet, without concluding they are “insane,” as opposed to, say, that they are wrong, or not clearly thinking about the issue?
I realize that it’s hard to give G. W. Bush any benefit of any doubt, and I’m not much inclined to do so these days, but surely there’s some excluded middle between “insane” and consciously lying, here and there? From time to time? (Yes, yes, I’m being hopelessly middle-of-the-road, etc., here, and therefore laughable.)
” surely there’s some excluded middle between “insane” and consciously lying”
Yes, I suspect Hilzoy did imagine a middle of the road position between probity and insanity, namely the one explored in Harry Frankfurt’s book “On Bull****”. I quote from the editor’s blurb:
“Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it’s true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter’s complete disregard for whether what he’s saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he “does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.””
I suspect it was phrases like Frankfurt’s that lay behind hilzoy’s formulation.
“Yes, I suspect Hilzoy did imagine… […] that lay behind hilzoy’s formulation.”
Did I miss Jesurgislac posting as her little-known pseudonym of “hilzoy”?
I have heard of Frankfurt, although this doubtless sounds more disrespectful than I feel after the number of essays on his work I’ve read (although not the book, alas, which I’ve neither been offered or asked a review copy of, nor otherwise afforded).
I’m going to write a book entitled ‘On Grabassing’, which should guarantee near-constant citing, regardless of content.
I don’t recall, incidentally, what was the line at which Charles said he was going to accept results in Washington State (though I recall he stating it, and, incidentally, could a blog-owner please fix the search engine, and if no one feels inclined, could you please find someone who feels moved to bother, pretty pretty pretty pretty pretty please?; it just takes cutting and pasting a few lines of archive URL, I suspect, last I looked, as I last mentioned some time ago — to be honest, I have no idea who is in charge here these days, and thus whom to hold responsible — who feels up to stepping up?), along with suggesting that we all needed to do so elsewhere in 2000 and 2004, so I kinda just mention this in dropping.
Gary
While it is a bit of a pain, if you go to Google and click on advanced search, you can enter obsidianwings.blogs.com into the domain.
In fact, you simply type
site:obsidianwings.blogs.com
into google after your search terms, voila, you are set. As always, using quotes and minus signs can narrow down your search much faster.
The only caveat is don’t search handles, because every “posted by: whoever” will come up in your search.
Tad: Yes, I suspect Hilzoy did imagine a middle of the road position between probity and insanity, namely the one explored in Harry Frankfurt’s book “On Bull****”. I quote from the editor’s blurb:
Sure. But if Hilzoy is arguing that in private Bush is saying (as we know) “Let’s attack Iraq!” and in public Bush is saying (as we know) “Let’s hope that Saddam Hussein will let the US inspectors in and we won’t have to make war on Iraq” and that Bush is absolutely unaware that there is any difference between the two statements, then Bush is insane. If he is sane, then he is lying.
“While it is a bit of a pain, if you go to Google and click on advanced search….”
…you’ll find that in my very limited experience, it misses endless amounts of stuff. This is why I never adapted it as a personal search engine. Because, in my limited experience, it works very poorly for individual sites. I may, to be sure, merely be guilty of limited and faulty experience in this. (Also, when it works at all, it takes days to update.)
Because, in my limited experience, it works very poorly for individual sites.
Really? I admit it’s not good for active threads, but anything that is finished (like Charles’ WA gubernatorial musings) pop up pretty readily. (jftr I punched in Charles Bird Rossi)
Since the main “darky” was off limits, the other “darkys” could pay for it.
Oh good grief, DQ, knock it off already.
While I don’t entirely disagree with the sentiment, it wasn’t my observation. I can be plenty offensive on my own, I don’t need anyone’s help.
First off, to our loyal liberal commentators: please don’t “lay off”. One of the advantages of dealing with conflict every day (yes, Virginia, it’s not all pumpkins and puppy dogs in Lawyer-land) is that you develop a pretty thick skin.
Second, to Jes (and others): I can’t “admit” that Bush has been lying because I don’t know whether Bush has been lying. Nor do I necessarily see goalpost shifting on his part. Here’s what I do see:
1. Bush offered a variety of reasons to support the invasion of Iraq, and has emphasized different reasons based on his audience and the facts best known to him at the time. Indeed, as you can see from my November, 2002, quote (above), democracy building was a feature of the pre-war arguments; it wasn’t all about WMDs.
2. I do think it reasonable to assume that Bush reached a decision that Saddam must go before publicly announcing it — unless, that is, Saddam did some pretty extraordinary things (things that, as a practical matter, Saddam probably could not do and continue to run Iraq). I don’t have a problem stating that Bush may have feigned more contemplation and deliberation then there actually was.
3. I’m still left with the nagging issue of what else could we have done with Iraq. The no-fly zones were becoming a farce. Sanctions were increasiningly unpopular, and there was a great deal of talk about lifting them. In other words, the containment policy — which turned out to be fairly successful — was about to disappear. Yet, Saddam remained Saddam, and there should be very little doubt in anyone’s mind that he would move to acquire WMDs at his earliest opportunity.
4. In short, it seemed (and still seems) that the Iraqi status quo was untenable, and that there were no good options. All that existed were a range of less bad and more bad options. This is not to say that invasion was the least-bad option; but it is to say that leaving Saddam in place would not have generated an abundance of happy-faces or make us more secure.
5. All that said, the conduct of the War in Iraq has been hopelessly mismanaged. We tried to fight on the cheap, and we’re in real danger of losing. I can excuse the failure to find WMDs on bad intelligence; I can explain the Bush Administration’s occasional overstatements on the basis of realpolitik. I cannot, however, excuse or explain incompetence — which is why, ultimately, I voted for Kerry. (Despite the fact that I have serious doubts that he would have been any better.)
The sentiment, among many pro-war types, was exactly that!!!
ALL Muslim nations were so screwed up, that they all had to reform themselves for Bin Ladden’s crime. And the United States was the self-righteous nation to get the ball going.
And we were prepared to act like a nation of hillbillies from the cast of Deliverance .
“C’mon boy! Squeal like a piggy!” was our battle cry.
Not exactly the right forfula for liberty and justice.
A better background on my metaphor:
Deliverance.
Most lynch mobs were filled with self-righteous anger, when they went to get their “justice” and “protect their way of life” among the darker members of the republic.
And if some blood-lust could be quenched while protecting their mis-understood culture…so be it.
Excellent taste in strawmen, Neo.
“1. Bush offered a variety of reasons to support the invasion of Iraq, and has emphasized different reasons based on his audience and the facts best known to him at the time. Indeed, as you can see from my November, 2002, quote (above), democracy building was a feature of the pre-war arguments; it wasn’t all about WMDs.”
As said best by Julian Sanchez, if you wanted a red sports car with a hot sound system for $30K, and ended up with a (rust) red junker, with a hot sound system, for $200K, the fact that the sound system was indeed good wouldn’t count for much. And that analogy should be extended to that the car and the sound system were ‘hot’ in the ‘stolen’ sense, and you’re now in a mess of trouble, from which you won’t get out soon.
“2. I do think it reasonable to assume that Bush reached a decision that Saddam must go before publicly announcing it — unless, that is, Saddam did some pretty extraordinary things (things that, as a practical matter, Saddam probably could not do and continue to run Iraq). I don’t have a problem stating that Bush may have feigned more contemplation and deliberation then there actually was. ”
IIRC, Bush, in various speeches, offered Saddam a chance to avoid war – all he had to do is to disarm.
If Bush had decided to go to war at that point, then he was certainly deceiving the American people about matters of war, which makes him worthy of impeachment and removal from office, at the very least.
“3. I’m still left with the nagging issue of what else could we have done with Iraq. The no-fly zones were becoming a farce. Sanctions were increasiningly unpopular, and there was a great deal of talk about lifting them. In other words, the containment policy — which turned out to be fairly successful — was about to disappear. Yet, Saddam remained Saddam, and there should be very little doubt in anyone’s mind that he would move to acquire WMDs at his earliest opportunity. ”
4. In short, it seemed (and still seems) that the Iraqi status quo was untenable, and that there were no good options. All that existed were a range of less bad and more bad options. This is not to say that invasion was the least-bad option; but it is to say that leaving Saddam in place would not have generated an abundance of happy-faces or make us more secure.”
I wouldn’t accept the argument that the status quo had significant problems, as an excuse for screwing up things by a factor of 100.
“5. All that said, the conduct of the War in Iraq has been hopelessly mismanaged. We tried to fight on the cheap, and we’re in real danger of losing. I can excuse the failure to find WMDs on bad intelligence; I can explain the Bush Administration’s occasional overstatements on the basis of realpolitik. I cannot, however, excuse or explain incompetence — which is why, ultimately, I voted for Kerry. (Despite the fact that I have serious doubts that he would have been any better.)”
Von, by now it’s clear that any bad intelligence was ordered up by the Bush administration (extra stinky, with a side of aged BS). That’s not an excuse for the administration, or its supporters; it’s an additional crime, and an additional reason to distrust the honesty of anybody who continues to support the administration.
They didn’t even bother to secure suspected WMD sites, which implies that the administration either knew that they didn’t exist, or that they were criminally incompetant.
And the administration’s ‘overstatements’ strikes back at #1. Take away any involvement of Saddam in 9/11, and any WMD threat by Saddam to the US, and the case (to the American people) for putting 100K+ troops in Iraq collapses. The smoking gun mushroom cloud of propaganda wasn’t an incidental; it was central to the fraud.
And if there had been good intelligence, it likewise would have been ordered up by the Bush administration. Intel doesn’t just deliver itself, you know.
Von: Bush offered a variety of reasons to support the invasion of Iraq, and has emphasized different reasons based on his audience and the facts best known to him at the time.
Well, that’s another possibility. When Bush claimed there was a real risk that Saddam Hussein might have nuclear weapons, he wasn’t lying: it’s just that Bush staffers have no idea how to use Google, and therefore Bush was seriously uninformed. Yes. So, okay, your argument is “Bush wasn’t lying: he was badly served. He thought the guff he was peddling was true.” Perhaps staffers were lying to him?
Indeed, as you can see from my November, 2002, quote (above), democracy building was a feature of the pre-war arguments; it wasn’t all about WMDs.
Except that – again, as we now know, from the Downing Street memo, and as was clear from at least six months into the occupation – “democracy building” was not anything the Bush administration had actually thought about it in any more than hot air terms.
But, again, Bush may not have known this. So, again, not actually lying: he was just being lied to by his staff. (None of whom have actually been fired as a result of this consistent program of lying to the President.)
do think it reasonable to assume that Bush reached a decision that Saddam must go before publicly announcing it
Okay, fair enough: you don’t have a problem with Bush lying about his decision to invade Iraq. That is rational. (I don’t agree with it: but it’s more rational than asserting that you don’t know that Bush lied. We know he did: you’ve just acknowledged that.)
I’m still left with the nagging issue of what else could we have done with Iraq.
I can think of a number of options, none of which – I can pretty much guarantee – would have entailed killing thousands of Americans or over a hundred thousand Iraqis, or all the other horrible consequences of deciding to invade instead. Many of them have been described in detail on anti-war sites.
All that existed were a range of less bad and more bad options. This is not to say that invasion was the least-bad option; but it is to say that leaving Saddam in place would not have generated an abundance of happy-faces or make us more secure.
And – as I think you implicitly acknowledge – invading Iraq and occupying it has not generated “an abundance of happy-faces” and has, it is generally acknowledged, probably made the US less secure.
Point 5 we agree on completely, so leave that aside. I will acknowledge that I didn’t expect Bush & Co to make such a mess of the invasion and occupation: to take just two instances – (A) with all their talk of WMD, it would have seemed a basic CYA act to ensure that all known stockpiles of WMD were secured, and that an action team was ready to secure freshly-discovered stockpiles. But, as we knew back in October, no such plan was made – either because Bush & Co knew, by the time of the invasion, that there were no such stockpiles as they had repeatedly claimed, or because Bush & Co are so hopelessly incompetent they are unfit to run a whelk stall. And (B) it would have seemed just a basic immediately post-invasion to have units ready to carry out basic policing tasks and prevent looting, rather than have the army actively encourage looting of government ministries (except of course the Ministry of Oil) and refuse to protect hospitals and museums even when asked.
(A) wasn’t just an obvious contingency: it was the public rationale for the invasion. (B) was an obvious contingency that the merest amateur could have pointed out. I never expected Bush & Co to be so incompetent that they didn’t even think to cover their tracks over (A). But then, given that so many people were so willing to overlook even that failure, I guess they were right: they didn’t have to bother.
SO, just to be clear on what I meant about Bush above (since, whatever Quine said, I do not have to mindread myself):
The passage from Frankfurt that Tad quoted does sum up my view: “Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it’s true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter’s complete disregard for whether what he’s saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he “does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” (Fwiw, it’s odd to see frankfurt getting all this celebrity for this essay, since I first encountered him as the author of essays like ‘Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person’, and as the inspiration for a whole cottage industry involving the creation of what are called ‘Frankfurt-style counterexamples’ by people who write on freedom of the will.)
To engage in pure speculation for a moment: I think a couple of things are crucial to George Bush’s psychology. One is that he was, for years, the disappointing son of a famous father, and he plainly both minded this and did not react to it by e.g. sitting down and thinking: OK, then, how can I become less disappointing, since it matters so much to me? I have known people like this, and since my extended family made it possible that I might become one of them, I devoted a lot of thought to the question: what are they doing? and how can I avoid it? Bush reminds me a lot of them, especially in his early years.
There’s the oscillation between attempts to emulate one’s father in what I think of as the wrong ways (going to the same school, getting into the same industry, etc., to a much greater degree than could be predicted by chance; not: trying to figure out how to live one’s own life in a genuinely impressive way) and conduct that it’s hard not to see as attempts to torpedo the comparison or escape from its burdens (alcoholism and the various bits of unfortunate behavior that resulted from it); also, the willingness to use his father’s connections to get by, and to let himself be seen largely as his father’s son, because (I generally suspect) people like this are really unsure how they could function without those props, while simultaneously striking out against them in various ways, since this stuff really is corrosive to one’s self-esteem. And so forth.
Now: if one is a person like this, among one’s most basic motives is: to avoid the recognition of being a disappointment, of having failed to measure up. This is a motivation that at times requires the active suppression of the truth, and that more generally gets one into the business of trying to present a good front, even to yourself, at the expense of serious and realistic self-examination (e.g., of asking yourself: so am I, in fact, a disappointment? if so, what should I do about it?) It takes a kind of confidence to examine yourself while being open to the possibility of really bad answers, and people like this do not have that kind of confidence, though they often have a kind of bluster instead. This motive, in other words, is exactly the sort of motive that leads to bullshit, in Frankfurt’s sense. (As does alcoholism, with its many and various attempts to conceal the truth, from oneself and from others.)
Now: lots of people undergo temptations of this sort, and many of them get over it one way or another. One thing that can help you get over the hostility to truth is the recognition that you are at risk of really, truly failing, and failing completely. That thought, as they say, concentrates the mind, and forces one to look honestly at one’s situation and say: OK, what is the truth here? and what do I really and truly have to do to avoid this failure?
But because of his background, Bush never really had to encounter a moment like this, at least not in either financial or social terms. He could always “fail up”, and when you fail up, you can kid yourself about what’s really going on. The closest thing, I think, was when Laura gave him the ultimatum about drinking. That was for real, and he couldn’t bullshit his way out of it. But that didn’t require him to really, seriously think about what was actually going on, in the way that (for instance) trying to figure out how to avoid bankruptcy might. The answer was simple and straightforward: stop drinking. So this ultimatum gave him a reason to stop drinking, but not a reason to think seriously about what was actually true and what was just (in Frankfurt’s sense) bullshit.
For these (and other) reasons, I tend to think of Bush as someone who is fundamentally defensive towards, not curious about, reality; and as someone whose basic modus operandi is, in Frankfurt’s sense, bullshit, not truthfulness. I think that he was almost certainly lying about being open to the possibility of non-military solutions in Iraq, but I am much less clear on whether he was lying about the reasons for military intervention, because I am not sure that that wasn’t just, in Frankfurt’s sense, bullshit. And I’m not sure he had any clear conception of the reasons, as opposed to various lines of bullshit.
I should also say something that I should have said earlier, namely: I really do not regard this as exoneration. I think that there are people in whom one can excuse this sort of attitude towards the truth. Children leap to mind. But we expect adults to have some concern for the accuracy of what they say, and if they don’t, that’s not any sort of excuse; in its way, it’s a lot more damning than a real lie. Moreover, the more responsibility you assume, the more obvious is the question, am I really doing the right thing here? Have I thought it through? If not, shouldn’t I? And for this reason, the more responsibility you have, the less excusable this sort of attitude towards the truth is.
Analogy: when, in some corporate scandal, the CEO says: heavens, I had no idea what was going on in my company, I tend to think: if what’s at issue is something tiny, like the fact that someone once stole a paperclip, then this is a good response. A CEO is not supposed to be literally omniscient. But if what’s at issue is (for instance) the fact that your company said for years that it was profitable, but only because creative accounting allowed it to conceal the fact that it was hemorrhaging money, then this supposed “excuse” says much worse things about you than the claim that you did know would say. If you did know, then you are a liar. If you didn’t, however, you are a complete and total failure as a CEO, since it ought to be as basic as breathing that a CEO should know the basic financial situation of his or her company. Moreover, the idea that this is an ‘excuse’ shows that you don’t take your responsibilities seriously at all.
Likewise here. Lying is one moral failing. Having no real regard for the truth at all is another, especially in someone who is old enough to know better, and who has assumed a truly enormous set of responsibilities. I think the second is far worse. I should have been clearer about that.
“I can think of a number of options, none of which – I can pretty much guarantee – would have entailed killing thousands of Americans or over a hundred thousand Iraqis, or all the other horrible consequences of deciding to invade instead. Many of them have been described in detail on anti-war sites.”
Fortunately, since this is a topic everyone agrees upon, that description makes solutions so obvious, they simply need not be described here, nor any cites given, on this site where everyone reads and agrees with all “anti-war” sites, which we all agree provide preferable solutions in detail.
Although possibly there’s a flaw in the above paragraph. Possibly. (A careful reader might even note that this doesn’t necessarily suggest that I, in fact, necessarily disagree, although a less careful reader might find that evidence of either my personal dishonesty or writerly incompetence, rather than evidence of my simply suggesting elaboration.)
With respect to “what do do” with Iraq:
I defer to Gary Farber‘s perception,
and adopt the same as my own objection —
if the record would so reflect.
Von: and adopt the same as my own objection —
if the record would so reflect.
To be honest, I simply didn’t want to create an even longer comment with a list of all the possible alternatives to war. That those alternatives existed, I assumed to be a known fact, but one should never assume….
If the record will permit, I will go write this up for my own livejournal, and link to it from here. 😉
And, the record now “clear,” I will now take it one step further:
Tell me what we should have done with Iraq, knowing that “doing nothing” would most likely have resulted in Saddam-led Iraq, unconstrained by sanctions and/or no-fly zones. Really: I’m interested.*
von
*Again, for those interested in debating persons other than me: Please recall that I, for one, have not said (with the benefit of hindsight) that war was the “least bad” option. Indeed, I rather suggested to the contrary.
von: I thought, at the outset, that Saddam had WMD, although (as I’ve said earlier) I came to doubt this before the war began. I also thought he was revolting and vile, and that the world would be a much better place if he were not in it. On the other hand, he did not pose anything like a direct threat to the US, nor was he involved with al Qaeda — and the idea that he was always seemed to me bizarre, both because of their huge ideological differences but also, more importantly, because I did not think that Saddam would have tolerated a group so obviously uncontrollable operating in an area he controlled, since he wanted to control everything.
That said, I saw nothing wrong with continuing the regime of intrusive inspections. Especially after we got Blix in, inspections were doing a really good job of containing Saddam, and I never saw why we should do anything else, given the costs. And to me, the costs very specifically included both the costs in terms of our future freedom of action (military occupied with Iraq, reputation squandered, etc.), and also the costs of taking our focus off al Qaeda.
I thought we should have maintained the Blix inspections, while taking advantage of the time that gave us to really do a good job of reconstructing Afghanistan, which would have been both the right thing to do, a prudent thing to do in terms both of denying al Qaeda one of its favored bases and of the drug trade, but also a very good thing in terms of Middle Eastern public opinion. (Do a great job of reconstructing it; then leave, attaching no strings. That would confound anti-Americans in the region at large, and especially in neighboring countries like, oh, Pakistan and Iraq, whose people would come into contact with Afghans and hear about it firsthand.)
To the reply, but maintaining the inspections would just have kicked the can down the road, I say, so what? With the Blix inspections in place, Saddam would not have been able to take advantage of delay to strengthen his position; it would have been pure delay. And time would have been on our side. Saddam is mortal. We had other things to do. And the costs of invading were enormous.
To the further reply, but we only got those concessions by moving all our troops into position etc., I say, what good are threats if, once made, you think you have to act on them, whether it makes sense or not? I would much rather have moved the troops into position and then moved them out again whenever it made sense to do so than have the war we have now.
Me:
” Von, by now it’s clear that any bad intelligence was ordered up by the Bush administration”
Slartibartfast:
“And if there had been good intelligence, it likewise would have been ordered up by the Bush administration. Intel doesn’t just deliver itself, you know.”
Slartibartfast, I meant ordered up in the sense of ordering that the analysts agree with pre-ordained conclusions.
Now, this is a tricky point, and I wouldn’t blame you for missing it; my humor tends to ironic, and most people miss it. However, the next phrase was:
“(extra stinky, with a side of aged BS)”, which should have made my point clear.
Perhaps you didn’t see it? Perhaps your cut-and-paste just happened to miss a crucial part of what I wrote?
In all seriousness, I do think that “do nothing” would have been a better starting point than what we got. But even better…
My own personal concern is the arrest and public trial of Osama bin Laden and as many members of his organization as possible. That should always have been job #1. And doing it right should have been a much larger engagement with the reconstruction of Afghanistan, along with the continuing rooting out of Al Qaeda, and its network of sympathizers and supporters. I think that a genuine commitment to Afghanistan would have radically changed our options with regard to Iran – much better intelligence, and the presence of a lot of folks in position to handle things like the distribution of aid to the needy.
On the other hand, that wouldn’t have happened under Bush. I don’t see any reason to believe they’d have handled Afghanistan any better than Iraq. Which makes me fall back on “do nothing” as a fairly good alternative, until such time as a competent and interested-in-results administration comes along.
You mean that Bush ordered the fabrication of said intel before he even became President? Or was there some radical shift in the story regarding Iraq that happened while I wasn’t paying attention?
I try to respond to statements that have something resembling clear meaning. “Extra stinky” and “Aged BS” don’t fit the description, although “aged” in this context might be worthy of pursuing.
I second Hilzoy’s 12:36 PM post.
Oh, and BTW:
Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.79
Although I found myself disagreeing with statements whos meaning changed radically depending on what word I chose to emphasize. So maybe I’m actually closer to Hitler.
I think the test might be better if there was another option for an answer; maybe something like “That’s a value judgement that I would not impose on others”. But I don’t feel strongly enough about that to design my own test.
Slarti, your comment brings into focus my other objection to that quiz, and many like it: often I’d like to say “I want to do that…but not for the reasons you gave”. Decoupling policy and motives would help clarify a lot of issues, I think.
Slarti: You mean that Bush ordered the fabrication of said intel before he even became President?
I don’t know if I speak for anyone else, Slarti, when I say: “Huh?” But I sincerely don’t get what you’re getting at, unless your argument is that Bush – intending to invade Iraq, and knowing he would be appointed President – had infiltrated supporters into the various intel agencies to give him the right answers to support his decisions rather than as much information as possible from which to make his decisions… but now this is beginning to sound like a bad movie, a worse one than Joss Whedon would ever make…
so I’ll just say “Huh?”
This is not my argument, Jesurgislac. Barry made some comments to the effect that Bush had Iraq intel manufactured to order, and I was simply wondering how he’d done that without the benefit of time travel. Because that’s the only explanation I can come up with for the notion that Iraq had WMDs already having been in place for years when Bush took the oath of office.
“I don’t know if I speak for anyone else, Slarti, when I say: “Huh?” But I sincerely don’t get what you’re getting at….”
My bet would be on those whole “Bill Clinton attacked Iraq because of WMD” and “Bill Clinton more or less supported both the general idea of invading Iraq, and the need to win there” notions that tend to, I note, often be conveniently forgotten by my fellow Clinton voters. (Note: Clinton leaves, thankfully, plenty of room to club Bush over both execution and other minor details.)
I could be all wrong, of course, as to whatever it is Slarti had in mind.
“I don’t know if I speak for anyone else, Slarti, when I say: “Huh?” But I sincerely don’t get what you’re getting at….”
My bet would be on those whole “Bill Clinton attacked Iraq because of WMD” and “Bill Clinton more or less supported both the general idea of invading Iraq, and the need to win there” notions that tend to, I note, often be conveniently forgotten by my fellow Clinton voters. (Note: Clinton leaves, thankfully, plenty of room to club Bush over both execution and other minor details.)
I could be all wrong, of course, as to whatever it is Slarti had in mind.
Slartibartfast, perhaps you weren’t paying attention in 2002-03. Or have caught the same ‘causality disorder’ which we’ve seen affect the Nixon apologists.
During the Long Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity that lay between the Bush Reigns, there had been a quite reasonable belief that Saddam had some chemical weapons, maybe bio, and nukes were alway a low-level worry. Which is another thing entirely from a belief strong to require invasion. For those of us who are members of the reality-based community, at least.
During 2003 an Evul Librul UN-ist named Hans Blix, with some UN comrades (if you know what I mean, wink wink) went into Iraq, and checked out a bunch of sites which were high on the US intelligence list of suspected WMD sites. The results, as in ‘new data’, didn’t support the previous beliefs (I believe that the phrase ‘chicken shit was removed by the editors of the report’). One technical phrase for this would be ‘dry wells’, something that Bush II was very familiar with. These were supposed to be the most likely sites, so this was disturbing to those of us in the reality-based community. Those of you in the faith-based community were, of course, not bothered in the slightest.
The Bush administration also came up with new novelty items, such as the aluminum tubes, attempted niger yellow-cake purchases, and the really great, highly deniable phrase ‘British Intelligence has learned’.
A music teach demonstated to me, way back in junior high, how important rhythm is to a piece of music – it makes all of the difference in the world. Similarly, understanding the timeline of things can be very important, as well.
Ease up, Barry. While you’re easing up, I’m going to try to subtract the content-free invective from what you wrote and perhaps respond. I sincerely hope that your point doesn’t reduce to something like “we went to war over aluminum tubes and yellowcake”.
Because that’s the only explanation I can come up with for the notion that Iraq had WMDs already having been in place for years when Bush took the oath of office.
There’s subsequent bad intel, however — e.g. the fiasco involving the aluminum tubes and supposed Iraqi centrifuge designs — that is specific, WMD-related and not found prior to Bush’s oath. Don’t confuse the general assertions re Iraq’s WMD programs found in, say, 1999 (that is, post-bombing) with the specific assertions being stovepiped post-9/11.
Sure, I’m not disputing that. There was bad intel before 9/11, too, that went accepted as fact until events showed otherwise.
I defer to Gary Farber’s perception,
and adopt the same as my own objection —
if the record would so reflect.
Haiku are precise;
Learn to count syllables, von –
Please try that again.
Sure, I’m not disputing that. There was bad intel before 9/11, too, that went accepted as fact until events showed otherwise.
Assuming you’re talking about WMD, “Events” == Hans Blix’s inspections, though; the invasion of Iraq and subsequent explorations only confirmed what was already known (or, to be more accurate, what had been deduced from what was already known) prior to March 2003.
I take issue with “deduced”; I’d say that some had made that conclusion, while others declined to make that conclusion. The idea that Iraq had destroyed its unaccounted-for materials without the required UN oversight was not all that popular even in the (D) party, as I recall.
von and hilzoy, regarding the “status quo” and “intrusive inspections,”
A scenario I don’t see discussed, but that seems at least plausible to me, is that with intrusive inspections backed up by U.S. troops on the border, it might have come to light that really Saddam didn’t have much of anything in the way of WMD.
A question has been posed repeatedly, usually in the context of explaining why “everyone thought Saddam had WMDs”: why was Saddam playing a game of cat and mouse if he really had disarmed? He could have avoided the war that way. As I recall it, Colin Powell (or maybe Condoleeza Rice) said something like this, contrasting the nuclear disarmament of South Africa with the obstructionism of Iraq.
The best answer I know is that much of Saddam’s power within Iraq rested on the belief that he could use WMDs against his own population if necessary to retain power. If that bubble had been popped, he might well have been deposed without the need for an attack by the U.S.
That result would have been a real triumph for President Bush.
von: “All that said, the conduct of the War in Iraq has been hopelessly mismanaged. We tried to fight on the cheap, and we’re in real danger of losing.”
If one accepts the argument that the US went to Iraq for reasons of security against a dangerous, otherwise uncontrollable (by means other than military, a blind spot in American problem solving and a hallmark of Cold War thinking) bad man, where it would fight a short war, set up a stable democratic government and then leave, then yes, the war has “been hopelessly mismanaged.” If the reasons were control of Iraqi resources and regional hegemony with the US’s principal imperial rival in mind, China, then the war is going less poorly.
There seems to be a tendency by many from both the Right and Left to dismiss the Administration’s public arguments for the war but then to use those very arguments as a reference point to explain why the US is “failing.” For example, if the illustrations of US behavior in Iraq that Jeurgislac offers above are legitimate, why does one then judge the war by a different standard instead of asking what this behavior might tell them about the reasons for the war? I appreciate that American exceptionalism is an article of faith for many, but such a perspective works to inhibit a thorough understanding of this war.
For the looting question, this was not an example of poor planning. The US military knows very well that this sort of thing occurs. They have at least the recent example of Panama in which to refer.
Although I don’t agree with the way Don Quijote and NeoDude framed it, the white man’s burden element of this war is pretty strong.
As far as the non-military options to the problem of Saddam are concerned, it was not so much that no one offered any or that a military solution was necessarily the least bad option, but that they did not receive the same treatment nor did they have the rhetorical power or influence among the American people (why?) of the military solution offered. Appeasement and negotiation were roundly trashed by the Administration, Neo-cons, and many others from both the Left and Right in the lead-up to the war – the US did not want to appear as a Chamberlain.
What exactly is wrong with a “Saddam-led Iraq”? Was there nothing that could have been done to contain Saddam other than military force? Why the tendency to view Saddam as an irrational actor? This appreciation is similar to the excuse often heard in military circles that the only thing the Iraqis understand is force, which is a justification for its use, not an accurate reflection of Iraqi national character (this argument not infrequently pops up when the US is dealing militarily with racial “others” or third-world nations). Assessments of Saddam by both the British and the US from his emergence in the Ba’ath Party to just prior to his invasion of Kuwait paint a different picture of the man than we have gotten since (“I should judge him, young as he is, to be a formidable, single-minded and hard-headed member of the Ba’athist hierarchy, but one with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business.” – from a telegram from the British ambassador to Baghdad, Dec 1969.). But now he has morphed into an irrational boogeyman who “we all agree” needed to be removed or could only be dealt with by military means. While this may indeed be the case, I am suspicious.
Ral,
Indeed. How was Saddam to project the impression to neighboring nations, and to his own people (he wants to remain in power, of course), that Iraq was still a militarily formidable nation if he was supposedly emasculated by UN?
Raj, Saddam did (laregly) cooperate with UN inspectors. He released (IIRC) 12,000 pages of documents, 8,000 of which were so sensitive that the Bush administration grabbed them, lest the wrong eyes see them (what I called ‘Saddam-level clearance’, which US citizens don’t have).
Slart, as for the theory that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s being unpopular amongst Democratic politicians, please review your decision theory.
Ok, done. Next?
“Ok, done. Next?”
This couldn’t possibly be a response anyone finds unsatisfactory or unresponsive. In fact, no one could ever find that sort of response or style unresponsive or unsatisfactory. In fact, one could make a huge number of insults, and then cover them with such a response. In fact, I’m damn sure I could make quite a few number of statements that this sort of thing covers, and yet you might not be happy with them. Why? Done. Next?
Haiku are precise;
Learn to count syllables, von –
Please try that again.
Eh, ain’t a haiku. Just a rhyming thingamakig.
Incidentally, I’m paraphrasing an actual exchange between counsel and judge in federal District Court — before Judge Hinojosa of the Southern District of Texas (McAllen Division — not a bad Sheraton Four Points in town, as such things go). It was a moment of spontaneous poetry, from the best lawyer with whom of I’ve ever had the privilege of working.
I think given his abrasiveness up to and including the comment I wrote that in response to, I’m being the very model of decorum, Gary. Besides, what sort of response would you suggest might be appropriate to “please review your decision theory”?
Gary,
I think its called “moral certainty”
Gary Farber: …(although not the book, alas, which I’ve neither been offered or asked a review copy of, nor otherwise afforded).
Gary, you can read a long excerpt here (perhaps you have already done so).
I’m sorry, Slartibartfast; I need to make things more explicit.
Many people assumed that Saddam had *something* which could be called “WMD’s”;
which, I think that I need to add, doesn’t by itself justify an invasion. Publicly opposing the invasion, or the idea that Saddam had WMD’s, carried risk. Applying a minimax loss function explains the rest.
Back on topic, the other test…
As expected. Well, at least I’m in good company (the Dalai Lama) according to the diagram.
“Haiku are precise;
Learn to count syllables, von –
Please try that again.”
Electrons swim the summer wind
Between your terminal and wikipedia
Returning, they carry word of Jiyuritsu
Every position carries risk. The question of whether the risk is considerable, though, probably need substantiation.
I think you need to elaborate, here. It may explain it to you.
I’ll try to explain it even more clearly. This will be my last attempt for you.
Publicly objecting to the war carried a signficant risk of being tossed out of office if the war went ‘well’. This has been demonstrated quite thoroughly by the 2004 election, where Bush and the GOP won, even though their predictions were, how should I put it, ‘no longer operative’, and explaining them away was a thriving business.
So there was quite an incentive for Democratic politicians to go along with the administration.
So, it’s your contention that the war was going “well” by last November? Interesting; this is probably going to be a point of disagreement between you and the more liberal commentators here.
Of course, the incentive appearing after the decision to go to war makes it look as if you’ve got your time sense all mixed up. Seriously, if Democrats knew that opposing the war could get them oustered, why take half measures? And is the possibility of losing one’s office ever a decent excuse for abdication of one’s principles?
This is simply supposition. Dressing it up as an inevitable result of some optimization process doesn’t make it any less of a supposition.
Slartibartfast:
“So, it’s your contention that the war was going “well” by last November? Interesting; this is probably going to be a point of disagreement between you and the more liberal commentators here.”
Slart, are you capable of non-deceptive comments?
By this point, the idea that I’m not be clear or that you are misinterpreting is gone; you are clearly being dishonest.
In terms of time sense, people are able to anticipate likely future results. I would be asking why you can’t perceive that, but that your perception is clearly not the issue here.
It was obvious **beforehand** that if the war went well, that opposition would be dangerous. It was also a d*mn good bet **beforehand** that it’d take a major disaster to make pre-war opposition safe. As it turned out, a major disaster, in slow motion, wasn’t enough; the GOP did very well in the 2004 election.
Nothing mysterious, just common sense and honesty.
Slart, are you capable of non-deceptive comments?
By this point, the idea that I’m not be clear or that you are misinterpreting is gone; you are clearly being dishonest.
Barry,
I think you have a point (the quotations around ‘well’ clearly require the reader to take it as a contrary to fact assertion), but I believe you could have made your point separately. I say this because I would prefer not to see you bounced from here.
Are you calling me a liar, Barry?
I agree! If everyone had simply voiced their views on the war instead of abdicating responsibility for their views by pasting them to some perceived future probable outcome, there wouldn’t have been a problem. That said, I recall a great deal of opposition to the war from the very point that we committed ourselves. Where was the fear? If it had any effect at all, how could we tell? Is there anything at all to this supposition that you can hang your hat from? Any observable at all?
And I agree, mostly because I would prefer not to bounce him. Even temporarily.
calling folks “liars” is a bouncable offense here though…Barry, please stop short of that. Slarti has more than earned the right to have his opinion accepted as earnest.
Reading Barry’s 7:24 comment, I thought of this:
There’s a line from a new song out (“Road to Joy” by the band Bright Eyes) that goes, “So when you’re asked to fight a war that’s over nothing, It’s best to join the side that’s gonna win.”
My response to that, otto, is “oops”.
Edward_, I apologize to you, for causing you undeserved trouble, and abusing your hospitality.
I will refrain from calling people liars.
I got 83 on fiscal issues (strong conservative) and 68 on non-fiscal issues (moderate conservative). I’m still not sure whether the term “moderate conservative” is the same as saying “right-leaning moderate” or if moderate conservative is more conservative or what. I mean, can you classify john mccain, someone who is often termed a moderate, as a moderate conservative? He is pro-life, pro-war, pro-free trade, pro-death penalty, moderate-right on illegal immigration, strong fiscal conservative, and a little bit of a neocon.