Thoughts on European thoughs on America
"Were these actions reflective of a society more serious, more thoughtful, than the one I’d left? Or did they reveal a culture, or at least a media class, that was so awed by America as to be flattered by even its slightest attentions but that was also reflexively, irrationally belligerent toward it?"
Bruce Bawer writes at the Hudson Review. A tip of the hat to Virginia Postrel for the link.
Monday, July 26, 2004
UN Human Rights Commission
Mark Steyn writes:
"The UN system is broken beyond repair. In May, even as its proxies were getting stuck into their ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan was elected to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. This isn't an aberration: Zimbabwe is also a member. The very structure of the organisation, under which countries vote in regional blocs, encourages such affronts to decency.
The Sudanese representative, by the way, immediately professed himself concerned by human rights abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."
A complete list of states represented on the UN Human Rights Commission is here. Milt Rosenberg writes, "Mark Steyn puts aside his usual ironic stance and offers up, in this article from today's London Telegraph, a true and deeply-felt, "j'accuse" directed at the cynical murderers in Khartoum. "
Mark Steyn writes:
"The UN system is broken beyond repair. In May, even as its proxies were getting stuck into their ethnic cleansing in Darfur, Sudan was elected to a three-year term on the UN Human Rights Commission. This isn't an aberration: Zimbabwe is also a member. The very structure of the organisation, under which countries vote in regional blocs, encourages such affronts to decency.
The Sudanese representative, by the way, immediately professed himself concerned by human rights abuses at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."
A complete list of states represented on the UN Human Rights Commission is here. Milt Rosenberg writes, "Mark Steyn puts aside his usual ironic stance and offers up, in this article from today's London Telegraph, a true and deeply-felt, "j'accuse" directed at the cynical murderers in Khartoum. "
Sunday, July 25, 2004
How People Make their Political Decisions
Victor Davis Hanson has a great article on how some people make their political decisions. Wanted to appear to be on the winning side, they mouth the words that are supported by the news of the past 48 hours. This is only possible with a lack of historical knowledge. When you study the most successful campaigns, indeed the more campaigns of any kind that you study, you see that they all involve setbacks, intelligence failures, moments of brutality, and failure. Victory does not involve perfection, certainly not of a mechanical sort whereby the campaign unfolds like a clock. War involves two sides seeking victory, attempting to thwart the other, hide its secrets, and so forth. If you fail to grasp this essential fact, you might be presuaded that the outcome of the campaign will most resemble the freshest news.
On the other side from those who have no anchor and who drift about on the most recent news, there are the ideologically committed. All across the political spectrum you will find them. Paleocons who opposed the war, neocons who support it, 9/11 democrats, the hard left and so forth. Some of these people may loose faith and join those whose support or objection follows the latest news, but many will hold fast to their long held convictions that the war is either good or bad. Note that its very hard to hold fast to convictions to be indifferent, that tends to devolve into reflecting the lastest news, although possibly without much enthusiasm either way. Hanson doesn't explore the neocons and 9/11 democrats who remain committed, he's looking at the left who is committed to our defeat. Those who want to relive the Vietnam War, or who use that war as a template for all wars, or who otherwise are fighting the last war. I say that because in miniltary history, fighting the last war is a common mode of analysis. Why did France loose so badly in 1940? They were fighting WWI. Why did the Americans have such troubles in Vietnam? They were fighting the war they prepared to fight, a war against the Soviets in Central Europe that they expected to look like WWII. The Army was, anyway, one can look to the Marines and their seperate experience of small wars, but I digress. In many ways, people have lined up on this war, not on the basis of the the merits, but on the basis of long held beliefs about the last war. The neocons see the last war as the Gulf War, and they think about what happened after the withdrawl of the Soviets from Afghanistan, and they focus on the missed opportunities to advance democracy. The left is still fighting Vietnam.
Hanson observes three problems with our remarkable victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, they were so swift that many enemies were not defeated, they were over-run. Like the Japanese soldier on some Pacific Island, the war continues. Second, the American observers who lack firm commitments based on historical knowledge, ideology, or the merits of the case, were flush after the victories and have since slinked over to the other side. Bill O'Reilly is the exemplar of this case. This creates a perception that everyone is turning against the war. Be on the lookout for a Cronkite moment, or perhaps its more like a series of mini-Cronkite moments. Third, the swift victories set the bar fantastically high for what American success looks like. Instant success without any casualties became the standard, and that's impossibly high. So our swift victory created the problems of undefeated Taliban and Baathists still resisting, and unsustainably high expectations from observers and standards, which make the reconstruction look like a failure by comparison, regardless of its actual status.
Hason figures that there is a committed 20% who oppose the war no matter what and a committed 30% who favor the war no matter what. My own guess is that this 30% is a combination of those who favor the war for ideological reasons and those who are committed to the merits of the case. This leaves a 50% block who lacks a basis for judging the merits, generally to be found in some kind of metaphysics, an understanding of how the world works. Two key bodies of ideas that could form such an understanding are a knowledge of history and a well formed ideology. So this 50% is ungrounded, responding to the lastest news, or the most clever observer.
Hanson's conclusion? "Brace yourself: In the next three months we are all in for the ride of our lives."
Victor Davis Hanson has a great article on how some people make their political decisions. Wanted to appear to be on the winning side, they mouth the words that are supported by the news of the past 48 hours. This is only possible with a lack of historical knowledge. When you study the most successful campaigns, indeed the more campaigns of any kind that you study, you see that they all involve setbacks, intelligence failures, moments of brutality, and failure. Victory does not involve perfection, certainly not of a mechanical sort whereby the campaign unfolds like a clock. War involves two sides seeking victory, attempting to thwart the other, hide its secrets, and so forth. If you fail to grasp this essential fact, you might be presuaded that the outcome of the campaign will most resemble the freshest news.
On the other side from those who have no anchor and who drift about on the most recent news, there are the ideologically committed. All across the political spectrum you will find them. Paleocons who opposed the war, neocons who support it, 9/11 democrats, the hard left and so forth. Some of these people may loose faith and join those whose support or objection follows the latest news, but many will hold fast to their long held convictions that the war is either good or bad. Note that its very hard to hold fast to convictions to be indifferent, that tends to devolve into reflecting the lastest news, although possibly without much enthusiasm either way. Hanson doesn't explore the neocons and 9/11 democrats who remain committed, he's looking at the left who is committed to our defeat. Those who want to relive the Vietnam War, or who use that war as a template for all wars, or who otherwise are fighting the last war. I say that because in miniltary history, fighting the last war is a common mode of analysis. Why did France loose so badly in 1940? They were fighting WWI. Why did the Americans have such troubles in Vietnam? They were fighting the war they prepared to fight, a war against the Soviets in Central Europe that they expected to look like WWII. The Army was, anyway, one can look to the Marines and their seperate experience of small wars, but I digress. In many ways, people have lined up on this war, not on the basis of the the merits, but on the basis of long held beliefs about the last war. The neocons see the last war as the Gulf War, and they think about what happened after the withdrawl of the Soviets from Afghanistan, and they focus on the missed opportunities to advance democracy. The left is still fighting Vietnam.
Hanson observes three problems with our remarkable victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. First, they were so swift that many enemies were not defeated, they were over-run. Like the Japanese soldier on some Pacific Island, the war continues. Second, the American observers who lack firm commitments based on historical knowledge, ideology, or the merits of the case, were flush after the victories and have since slinked over to the other side. Bill O'Reilly is the exemplar of this case. This creates a perception that everyone is turning against the war. Be on the lookout for a Cronkite moment, or perhaps its more like a series of mini-Cronkite moments. Third, the swift victories set the bar fantastically high for what American success looks like. Instant success without any casualties became the standard, and that's impossibly high. So our swift victory created the problems of undefeated Taliban and Baathists still resisting, and unsustainably high expectations from observers and standards, which make the reconstruction look like a failure by comparison, regardless of its actual status.
Hason figures that there is a committed 20% who oppose the war no matter what and a committed 30% who favor the war no matter what. My own guess is that this 30% is a combination of those who favor the war for ideological reasons and those who are committed to the merits of the case. This leaves a 50% block who lacks a basis for judging the merits, generally to be found in some kind of metaphysics, an understanding of how the world works. Two key bodies of ideas that could form such an understanding are a knowledge of history and a well formed ideology. So this 50% is ungrounded, responding to the lastest news, or the most clever observer.
Hanson's conclusion? "Brace yourself: In the next three months we are all in for the ride of our lives."
Friday, July 23, 2004
Problems with lawyers
Watching how lawyers are responding to the 9/11 Commission is troubling. Jeff Jarvis makes note that lawyers are part of the problem.
"Lawyers are necessarily a suspicious breed. They live by rules. They think in terms of us vs. them. They think contention. They argue for sport. They always think they can appeal to a higher authority. They aim for victory. They are patient.
All those traits have an impact on American society -- many or most of them not good."
Jarvis is making a broad point about society in general and is contrasting the lawyer world view to that of programmers. I'm interested in borrowing Jarvis' analysis on lawyers, looking at the 9/11 Commission and contrasting it with historians.
The lawyers I hear commenting on the 9/11 Commission, at least from the right, are making the argument that Wilson lied, Berger stole, Gorelick was judging her own policies, and Richard Ben-Veniste was a rabid partisan. Since it is a principle among lawyers that one's credibility tends to be established by one's least credible statement, they saw the Commission and its Report as thoroughly comprimised by these somewhat less than disinterested public servants. Hugh Hewitt has been especially lawyerly here. And the lawyers have conformed to Jarvis' analysis, suspicious, looking to rules of courtroom evidence, us vs them, argumentative, claiming that all of this is authorotative, seeking to win the argument, and I presume patient as well.
Historians are aware that all sources are full of bias. We know that Einhard did not write an objective account of the life of Charlemagne. That the historiography of Napoleon is strongly for or against. That the answer you get depends as much on the evidence you consult and on the questions you ask as it does on what really happened. We are not witnesses of the past, but have to rely on written accounts that are full of the author's own intent and understanding of events. But historians have a method. The historical method, developed during the Rennaisance and advanced in the centuries since, aims to get at the truth despite the presence of bias and the problem that 1st person accounts will tend to protect the interests of the author/speaker. I have a much greater level of confidence that I can read the 9/11 Commission Report and find useful knowledge than the lawers seem to. Its a product of historical rather than legal training.
Watching how lawyers are responding to the 9/11 Commission is troubling. Jeff Jarvis makes note that lawyers are part of the problem.
"Lawyers are necessarily a suspicious breed. They live by rules. They think in terms of us vs. them. They think contention. They argue for sport. They always think they can appeal to a higher authority. They aim for victory. They are patient.
All those traits have an impact on American society -- many or most of them not good."
Jarvis is making a broad point about society in general and is contrasting the lawyer world view to that of programmers. I'm interested in borrowing Jarvis' analysis on lawyers, looking at the 9/11 Commission and contrasting it with historians.
The lawyers I hear commenting on the 9/11 Commission, at least from the right, are making the argument that Wilson lied, Berger stole, Gorelick was judging her own policies, and Richard Ben-Veniste was a rabid partisan. Since it is a principle among lawyers that one's credibility tends to be established by one's least credible statement, they saw the Commission and its Report as thoroughly comprimised by these somewhat less than disinterested public servants. Hugh Hewitt has been especially lawyerly here. And the lawyers have conformed to Jarvis' analysis, suspicious, looking to rules of courtroom evidence, us vs them, argumentative, claiming that all of this is authorotative, seeking to win the argument, and I presume patient as well.
Historians are aware that all sources are full of bias. We know that Einhard did not write an objective account of the life of Charlemagne. That the historiography of Napoleon is strongly for or against. That the answer you get depends as much on the evidence you consult and on the questions you ask as it does on what really happened. We are not witnesses of the past, but have to rely on written accounts that are full of the author's own intent and understanding of events. But historians have a method. The historical method, developed during the Rennaisance and advanced in the centuries since, aims to get at the truth despite the presence of bias and the problem that 1st person accounts will tend to protect the interests of the author/speaker. I have a much greater level of confidence that I can read the 9/11 Commission Report and find useful knowledge than the lawers seem to. Its a product of historical rather than legal training.
Thursday, July 22, 2004
Jumping the Gun?
Watching CNN, and Anderson Cooper's poll today is "Do you agree with the conclusions of the 9/11 commission?" My question is, who knows what it says? I know what I have been told about it, but much of that information is inconsistent and contradictory, so I really have very little idea what the conclusions are themselves, just how various people want them spun. So I guess the real question being asked is, "Do you agree with what opinion leaders have been saying the 9/11 commission says?"
Watching CNN, and Anderson Cooper's poll today is "Do you agree with the conclusions of the 9/11 commission?" My question is, who knows what it says? I know what I have been told about it, but much of that information is inconsistent and contradictory, so I really have very little idea what the conclusions are themselves, just how various people want them spun. So I guess the real question being asked is, "Do you agree with what opinion leaders have been saying the 9/11 commission says?"
Sloppy?
Have you noticed that nearly everyone who has come out in support of Berger has followed a formula? They use the word sloppy, and they identify with that sloppiness. With such a formula, this screams spin.
Have you noticed that nearly everyone who has come out in support of Berger has followed a formula? They use the word sloppy, and they identify with that sloppiness. With such a formula, this screams spin.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Who Lied?
Instapundit is linking to Just One Minute, where the Wilson's CNN appearance is examined. Wilson wants to have his cake and eat it too. He claims in the interview that Niger was not involved in any uranium talks with Iraq, but he also claims that any errors or untrue statements attributed to him are, "either misquotes or misattributions." Lord Butler's report puts poor Wilson in quite a conundrum. Mark Steyn is describing Wilson as a serial liar, and as usual, the evidence is with Steyn.
Instapundit is linking to Just One Minute, where the Wilson's CNN appearance is examined. Wilson wants to have his cake and eat it too. He claims in the interview that Niger was not involved in any uranium talks with Iraq, but he also claims that any errors or untrue statements attributed to him are, "either misquotes or misattributions." Lord Butler's report puts poor Wilson in quite a conundrum. Mark Steyn is describing Wilson as a serial liar, and as usual, the evidence is with Steyn.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Jaw Dropping
AP is reporting that Sandy Berger removed highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from a secure reading room while preparing for the 9-11 commission hearnings. He apparently concealed them in his jacket, pants, and portfolio. While the documents he concealed in his pants were obviously intentional, he claims that those placed in his portfolio were unintentional. What kind of panic motivates a former national security adviser to try and walk out with hand written notes of classified documents from the National Archive? This is stunning.
Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for passing along this wire.
AP is reporting that Sandy Berger removed highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from a secure reading room while preparing for the 9-11 commission hearnings. He apparently concealed them in his jacket, pants, and portfolio. While the documents he concealed in his pants were obviously intentional, he claims that those placed in his portfolio were unintentional. What kind of panic motivates a former national security adviser to try and walk out with hand written notes of classified documents from the National Archive? This is stunning.
Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for passing along this wire.
Sunday, July 18, 2004
Libertarians and Social Conservatives
There is growing evidence of disaffection between Libertarians and Social Conservatives. Red State puts it just right when they observe, "If we were not at war right now, the pressures in the Republican Party would be much, much closer to the surface than they are right now ... particularly when Democratic foreign policy positions are not notably reassuring."
Given the presence of folks on the Left who have a cultural agenda, there are two common responces, get your government out of our culture, and rally around the cross. In the negative sense, they agree, neither want to see the cultural agenda of the Left imposed by a regulatory state. But, there are two problems. The Libertarians object to the impossion by a regulatory state, and could care less about the agenda itself. The Conservatives object to the agenda and are not particularly riled by the regulatory state. This distinction is obvious when talking about prayer in schools. Libertarians will reject both the multiculti-indoctrination and the state endoursement of prayer. Conservatives have no problem with the state nurturing a Biblical social order. The second problem should be obvious. Not only do they both disagree about where the problem is but should the Conservatives find themselves in a position to push their agenda, they will find the Libertarians are now in opposition.
My party preserving plan is Adamsian. Adams compared America and Britian and argued that state support undermined the individually found commitment possible in America. Certainly there was some state support for various churches in Adams day, but its a comparative argument. If the party adopts the Libertarian position, that the state will not be in the business of advancing or restricting anyone's cultural agenda's, religion will flurish, conservatives will avoid a backlash that goes with authority (no matter who has it), and culture will fade from political significance as its issues cease to be political ones.
There is growing evidence of disaffection between Libertarians and Social Conservatives. Red State puts it just right when they observe, "If we were not at war right now, the pressures in the Republican Party would be much, much closer to the surface than they are right now ... particularly when Democratic foreign policy positions are not notably reassuring."
Given the presence of folks on the Left who have a cultural agenda, there are two common responces, get your government out of our culture, and rally around the cross. In the negative sense, they agree, neither want to see the cultural agenda of the Left imposed by a regulatory state. But, there are two problems. The Libertarians object to the impossion by a regulatory state, and could care less about the agenda itself. The Conservatives object to the agenda and are not particularly riled by the regulatory state. This distinction is obvious when talking about prayer in schools. Libertarians will reject both the multiculti-indoctrination and the state endoursement of prayer. Conservatives have no problem with the state nurturing a Biblical social order. The second problem should be obvious. Not only do they both disagree about where the problem is but should the Conservatives find themselves in a position to push their agenda, they will find the Libertarians are now in opposition.
My party preserving plan is Adamsian. Adams compared America and Britian and argued that state support undermined the individually found commitment possible in America. Certainly there was some state support for various churches in Adams day, but its a comparative argument. If the party adopts the Libertarian position, that the state will not be in the business of advancing or restricting anyone's cultural agenda's, religion will flurish, conservatives will avoid a backlash that goes with authority (no matter who has it), and culture will fade from political significance as its issues cease to be political ones.
Hmm, color
Looks like the blogger people have updated their interface.
Looks like the blogger people have updated their interface.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Fighting the Wrong Fight pt3
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett is summing up a debate between Richard Epstein and Stephen Bainbridge on the use of judicial review. This is a discussion of the kind of institutional arrangement that might lead to fruitful reform. Epstein wrote at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), and Baimbridge replied on his weblog, including generous quotes of Epstein's article. Further, Epstein has a reply at Bainbridge's site.
As I reveal in pt 1 (just below), my sympathies are with the libertarian side here, specifically, "guarantees of individual rights [pushed] to their logical conclusion." However, I recognize the concerns of the social conservatives (advocating a majoritarian democracy) that this is dangerous with a radical bench and schools. These radical institutions put us in a give-them-an-inch- and-they-take-a-mile situation. While I am loath to enshrine a Christian view of marriage in law, I am drawn to the conservative argument which Russel Kirk makes in an excerpt by Bainbridge, "Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order," because the will and appetites of those who would re-define the family appears infinite.
There is much truth in the conservative motivations which Bainbridge espouses, and it may be sufficient to win my support for the marriage amendment as a last resort to block the actions of radical judges. Nevertheless, the better solution is an attempt to forge a somewhat more majoritarian order, not to rely on stop gap measures like this one. The schools and the courts must be reformed to bring them more into line with the popular will. Once that has been accomplished, it will be safe to apply Epstein's principle, that "The path to social peace lies in the willingness on all sides to follow a principle of live-and-let-live on deep moral disputes." That's why the marriage amendment is the wrong fight. We need to re-establish an order capable of retraining overweening appetites, so that the greatest and most expansive liberty can be extended free from the fear that abuses of liberty will undermine the very social order that preserves it.
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett is summing up a debate between Richard Epstein and Stephen Bainbridge on the use of judicial review. This is a discussion of the kind of institutional arrangement that might lead to fruitful reform. Epstein wrote at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required), and Baimbridge replied on his weblog, including generous quotes of Epstein's article. Further, Epstein has a reply at Bainbridge's site.
As I reveal in pt 1 (just below), my sympathies are with the libertarian side here, specifically, "guarantees of individual rights [pushed] to their logical conclusion." However, I recognize the concerns of the social conservatives (advocating a majoritarian democracy) that this is dangerous with a radical bench and schools. These radical institutions put us in a give-them-an-inch- and-they-take-a-mile situation. While I am loath to enshrine a Christian view of marriage in law, I am drawn to the conservative argument which Russel Kirk makes in an excerpt by Bainbridge, "Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order," because the will and appetites of those who would re-define the family appears infinite.
There is much truth in the conservative motivations which Bainbridge espouses, and it may be sufficient to win my support for the marriage amendment as a last resort to block the actions of radical judges. Nevertheless, the better solution is an attempt to forge a somewhat more majoritarian order, not to rely on stop gap measures like this one. The schools and the courts must be reformed to bring them more into line with the popular will. Once that has been accomplished, it will be safe to apply Epstein's principle, that "The path to social peace lies in the willingness on all sides to follow a principle of live-and-let-live on deep moral disputes." That's why the marriage amendment is the wrong fight. We need to re-establish an order capable of retraining overweening appetites, so that the greatest and most expansive liberty can be extended free from the fear that abuses of liberty will undermine the very social order that preserves it.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Fighting the Wrong Fight Pt 2
Called the Hugh Hewitt Show and gave a brief summary of the post immediately below. Hugh's response was that the structural problems can't be solved, the Marriage Amendment is the only practicable approach. That may well be true in this instance, since thorough going reform would take a long time. Nevertheless, if these out of step institutions are not made somewhat more responsive, than these kinds of fights are now a perennial feature of American society. Its not satisfactory to just accept constant discord over social issues where the preponderance of will is so one-sided, and where neither of the two contending political positions reflects the great mass of Americans. So, I contend that we must continue to explore the nature of desirable reform so that the will of the people is not thwarted by institutionalized power in the hands of radicals.
In a related note, Hewitt argued there was no long term solution, at least to the judge problem. "Its a republic, if you can keep it." Hugh reminds us of one of Franklin's last pronouncements. But the early republic was far more legislative than our current system. The legislature has given way to the courts and the executive over the last two centuries. I do not think that this is inevitable or unsolvable. I'd much rather be posting on an Amendment to tilt power back to the legislature than on one to address the symptoms of a larger problem.
Called the Hugh Hewitt Show and gave a brief summary of the post immediately below. Hugh's response was that the structural problems can't be solved, the Marriage Amendment is the only practicable approach. That may well be true in this instance, since thorough going reform would take a long time. Nevertheless, if these out of step institutions are not made somewhat more responsive, than these kinds of fights are now a perennial feature of American society. Its not satisfactory to just accept constant discord over social issues where the preponderance of will is so one-sided, and where neither of the two contending political positions reflects the great mass of Americans. So, I contend that we must continue to explore the nature of desirable reform so that the will of the people is not thwarted by institutionalized power in the hands of radicals.
In a related note, Hewitt argued there was no long term solution, at least to the judge problem. "Its a republic, if you can keep it." Hugh reminds us of one of Franklin's last pronouncements. But the early republic was far more legislative than our current system. The legislature has given way to the courts and the executive over the last two centuries. I do not think that this is inevitable or unsolvable. I'd much rather be posting on an Amendment to tilt power back to the legislature than on one to address the symptoms of a larger problem.
Fighting the Wrong Fight
My thoughts on so-called "gay marriage."
I have no problem with what arrangements people want to make for themselves, so that property is managed, significant others are recognized as such. So in that regard, civil unions is a no-brainer.
I am uncomfortable with an amendment to cast in stone a Christian definition of marriage, in a government which claims to welcome all ideas and peoples, including, non-Christians. In this regard, the best solution would be to take marriage entirely out of the hands of the state, give it entirely over to the churches, and leave in the state's hands only the civil union for all. Marriages would refer to the religious understanding, the civil union would refer to the state's understanding. Churches would regulate marriage, the state unions.
Social conservatives do have a point, however. The social understanding of the institution is critical because of the effect it has on children. The arrangements for raising children; for teaching children what is normal, or ideal, or functional; for giving children the best chance for a happy life is at stake. There is no one right way to raise children, and no ideal of companionate marriage should be imposed. Likewise, the traditional system is based on a wealth of experience and should not be cast aside for an alternate ideal of some "new definition of family." These issues should be promulgated by families, schools, churches, and communities in cooperation.
But, these institutions are not in cooperation. Social conservatives argue that judges take no account of the traditional understanding of the laws or customs of marriage, and push a radical agenda. That they do so trumping legislatures is troubling. Judicial oligarchy. Social conservatives argue that schools will take the most radical models of family and project them as normal. Anyone who has seen what schools have done with models of family to date will appreciate the potential for school-as-social-engineer.
The problem isn't that somewhere a gay couple wants to legally identify itself as a couple, nor is it that somewhere a social worker might find such a couple to be parents suitable for adoption. The problem is that no matter where Americans want to set the standard, radical judges will force a shift to the left, and that public schools will promulgate the most radical interpretation of the family. The problem isn't a gay couple looking for legal protections, the problems are our radical judges and public schools. That's where the efforts would be better spent.
My thoughts on so-called "gay marriage."
I have no problem with what arrangements people want to make for themselves, so that property is managed, significant others are recognized as such. So in that regard, civil unions is a no-brainer.
I am uncomfortable with an amendment to cast in stone a Christian definition of marriage, in a government which claims to welcome all ideas and peoples, including, non-Christians. In this regard, the best solution would be to take marriage entirely out of the hands of the state, give it entirely over to the churches, and leave in the state's hands only the civil union for all. Marriages would refer to the religious understanding, the civil union would refer to the state's understanding. Churches would regulate marriage, the state unions.
Social conservatives do have a point, however. The social understanding of the institution is critical because of the effect it has on children. The arrangements for raising children; for teaching children what is normal, or ideal, or functional; for giving children the best chance for a happy life is at stake. There is no one right way to raise children, and no ideal of companionate marriage should be imposed. Likewise, the traditional system is based on a wealth of experience and should not be cast aside for an alternate ideal of some "new definition of family." These issues should be promulgated by families, schools, churches, and communities in cooperation.
But, these institutions are not in cooperation. Social conservatives argue that judges take no account of the traditional understanding of the laws or customs of marriage, and push a radical agenda. That they do so trumping legislatures is troubling. Judicial oligarchy. Social conservatives argue that schools will take the most radical models of family and project them as normal. Anyone who has seen what schools have done with models of family to date will appreciate the potential for school-as-social-engineer.
The problem isn't that somewhere a gay couple wants to legally identify itself as a couple, nor is it that somewhere a social worker might find such a couple to be parents suitable for adoption. The problem is that no matter where Americans want to set the standard, radical judges will force a shift to the left, and that public schools will promulgate the most radical interpretation of the family. The problem isn't a gay couple looking for legal protections, the problems are our radical judges and public schools. That's where the efforts would be better spent.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Had Chevy Chase been commenting on politics in 1944
"I'm frightened by FDR, if you want to know the truth. He's a narcissist, as are we all. But, eh, he's managed to, ah, you know, form a few fascist kooks into a, ah, an entire world war, and I, ah, I don't trust him. I don't like him. And I think he's venal, and I just don't like him, for the record. I want him out. I want Norman Thomas in."
Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for posting the transcript of Chase's yammering.
"I'm frightened by FDR, if you want to know the truth. He's a narcissist, as are we all. But, eh, he's managed to, ah, you know, form a few fascist kooks into a, ah, an entire world war, and I, ah, I don't trust him. I don't like him. And I think he's venal, and I just don't like him, for the record. I want him out. I want Norman Thomas in."
Hat tip to Hugh Hewitt for posting the transcript of Chase's yammering.
Senate Intelligence Committee Report
Bill Bennett was lamenting this morning the fact that the intelligence failures surrounding the WMD's (and I might add the post war estimates) might have the pernicious effect of raising the bar so high that we'll never be able to act until its to late to do so.
But I suspect this may not be so. There are two reasons for this. One is that I'm not floored by the intelligence failures. Knowing too well the history of war, serious intelligence failures are a dime a dozen. They are a subset of Clauswitzian friction. Another group of humans is trying to defeat our efforts, in this case hiding their secrets, and so to a great extent our efforts are cancled by theirs. Some things are easier to detect, and so we'll be right more often than wrong. A secret weapons program, however, is the type of thing that we'll be wrong about more often than not. For example, we had no idea of the Japanese warplane development through the 30's until the end of the war when we discovered the prototypes of quite advanced designs. Keep in mind that we had broken several Japanese codes and that the Second World War is generally a war characterized by intelligence successes. Had they been working on gas or biological weapons it would have been as much a surprise as our own atomic weapons had been to the Japanese.
Another point to be made here is that the extent of our intelligence failures is over-estimated. Perhaps the most famous example is the sixteen words Bush included in his State of the Union Speech in early 2003. Lord Butler's report (officially out in two days) is previewed in the Financial Times (registration required) this way: "People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler has concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence." As we look over the paperwork in Bagdad, we find that we over-estimated some threats and under-estimated others. Anyone whose tried anyting as simple as vacationing with a family of four will acknowledge that this is pretty much par for the course. While its true that we have a vast, expensive intelligence service, never forget that on the other side are people endevoring to keep their secrets secret.
The second point is the one made by John Podhoretz in his Post column. And that is that no one relied only on the WMD argument, and so the role of the intelligence failures are only a leg to one part of the argument. Consider, you want to drive to a friend's wedding, but encounter unexpected highway construction. Had you known about the contruction you still would have gone to the wedding, you just would have altered your decision making about whether or not to drive. As Podhoretz writes, "Those who supported the war, in overwhelming numbers, believed there were multiple justifications for it." For those who opposed, the WMD arguments were not persuasive as a cause of war when they accepted the arguments as true.
So the problem of the intelligence failures is one of methods, not one of justifications. We must seek to improve intelligence not in order to justify the next action, but to save lives and speed up the process. This is not to say that the intelligence failures didn't cost some supporters or won't raise the bar a bit the next time the intelligence is examined closely, but that this is a shift on the margins. The next case that needs to be made in the war on terror will find most of the same supporters and most of the same opponants.
Bill Bennett was lamenting this morning the fact that the intelligence failures surrounding the WMD's (and I might add the post war estimates) might have the pernicious effect of raising the bar so high that we'll never be able to act until its to late to do so.
But I suspect this may not be so. There are two reasons for this. One is that I'm not floored by the intelligence failures. Knowing too well the history of war, serious intelligence failures are a dime a dozen. They are a subset of Clauswitzian friction. Another group of humans is trying to defeat our efforts, in this case hiding their secrets, and so to a great extent our efforts are cancled by theirs. Some things are easier to detect, and so we'll be right more often than wrong. A secret weapons program, however, is the type of thing that we'll be wrong about more often than not. For example, we had no idea of the Japanese warplane development through the 30's until the end of the war when we discovered the prototypes of quite advanced designs. Keep in mind that we had broken several Japanese codes and that the Second World War is generally a war characterized by intelligence successes. Had they been working on gas or biological weapons it would have been as much a surprise as our own atomic weapons had been to the Japanese.
Another point to be made here is that the extent of our intelligence failures is over-estimated. Perhaps the most famous example is the sixteen words Bush included in his State of the Union Speech in early 2003. Lord Butler's report (officially out in two days) is previewed in the Financial Times (registration required) this way: "People with knowledge of the report said Lord Butler has concluded that this claim was reasonable and consistent with the intelligence." As we look over the paperwork in Bagdad, we find that we over-estimated some threats and under-estimated others. Anyone whose tried anyting as simple as vacationing with a family of four will acknowledge that this is pretty much par for the course. While its true that we have a vast, expensive intelligence service, never forget that on the other side are people endevoring to keep their secrets secret.
The second point is the one made by John Podhoretz in his Post column. And that is that no one relied only on the WMD argument, and so the role of the intelligence failures are only a leg to one part of the argument. Consider, you want to drive to a friend's wedding, but encounter unexpected highway construction. Had you known about the contruction you still would have gone to the wedding, you just would have altered your decision making about whether or not to drive. As Podhoretz writes, "Those who supported the war, in overwhelming numbers, believed there were multiple justifications for it." For those who opposed, the WMD arguments were not persuasive as a cause of war when they accepted the arguments as true.
So the problem of the intelligence failures is one of methods, not one of justifications. We must seek to improve intelligence not in order to justify the next action, but to save lives and speed up the process. This is not to say that the intelligence failures didn't cost some supporters or won't raise the bar a bit the next time the intelligence is examined closely, but that this is a shift on the margins. The next case that needs to be made in the war on terror will find most of the same supporters and most of the same opponants.
Friday, July 09, 2004
Virginia Postrel comments on defections
The dynamist herself comments on Jacob Levy and Andrew Sullivan and others who consider Kerry because Bush has ushered in a giant new medical entitlement, flirted with tariffs, and smiles at ag subsidies.
She observes that if dissatisfaction with the Bush economic policy bothers some on the right, Kerry is not the answer. Indeed her post is called the "Kerry Delusion." Postrel suggests that the flirtation with Kerry is fasionable.
Levy objects.
Postrel responds.
The dynamist herself comments on Jacob Levy and Andrew Sullivan and others who consider Kerry because Bush has ushered in a giant new medical entitlement, flirted with tariffs, and smiles at ag subsidies.
She observes that if dissatisfaction with the Bush economic policy bothers some on the right, Kerry is not the answer. Indeed her post is called the "Kerry Delusion." Postrel suggests that the flirtation with Kerry is fasionable.
Levy objects.
Postrel responds.
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
I'm ready to strangle somebody
Its been several hours since Kerry named Edwards as his running mate, and already I am ready throttle whoever has decided that they need to bash Edwards because he lacks foreign policy experience. I find this argument both intellectually dishonest and politicaly offensive. It intellectually dishonest because the former governor of Texas, and for that matter, Arkansas, California, and Georgia, didn't have foriegn policy experience. To attempt to deflect the question to Dick Cheney's experience, as Laura Ingraham ignore the fact that someone on the Dem ticket, Kerry, does have foriegn policy experience. He's no Dick Cheney, but to expect that you have to gave the foriegn policy experience of a Dick Nixon, a GHWB, or a Dick Cheney to run excludes a heck of a lot of candidates. Which leads me to my second reason for rejecting this argument, I find it politically offensive.
Its part of the American myth that anyone can grow up to be president. (By myth I mean that its a fundamental idea, regardless of its truth value. Obviously very few people will be president, but since men like Lincoln, Nixon, and Clinton rose from obscurity to become president, there is something to the notion that anyone could grow up to be president.) Under the theory of democracy, anyone can hold office. The Athenians really belived this. Most offices in Athens were allocated by lottery. That's a commitment to the capacity of every citizen. The Romans, on the other hand, had an office holding class, the patricians, but eventually allowed the rest of the citizens to decide which patrician would get elected. This theory assumes that some people are better suited to office than others, and the pool of candidates should be limited to some criteria.
As a classicist, I think there is a golden mean between these positons. Nevertheless, I think that anyone who serves a term of a statewide office, such as senator or governor, is eligable for consideration for the presidency. If the people want to consider someone seriously, I think that suggests that he person is qualified. Edwards was a Senator, so I think he's qualified to put himself forward for the highest office. Edwards ran a strong second in the primary, certainly that qualifies him to be veep. If you think he's not qualified, I have two words for you: Abraham Lincoln. Failed businessman, failed politician, some rank him as the top president. Edwards may very well fall short of Lincoln's stature, but the option to give him the chance belongs to the voters.
Its been several hours since Kerry named Edwards as his running mate, and already I am ready throttle whoever has decided that they need to bash Edwards because he lacks foreign policy experience. I find this argument both intellectually dishonest and politicaly offensive. It intellectually dishonest because the former governor of Texas, and for that matter, Arkansas, California, and Georgia, didn't have foriegn policy experience. To attempt to deflect the question to Dick Cheney's experience, as Laura Ingraham ignore the fact that someone on the Dem ticket, Kerry, does have foriegn policy experience. He's no Dick Cheney, but to expect that you have to gave the foriegn policy experience of a Dick Nixon, a GHWB, or a Dick Cheney to run excludes a heck of a lot of candidates. Which leads me to my second reason for rejecting this argument, I find it politically offensive.
Its part of the American myth that anyone can grow up to be president. (By myth I mean that its a fundamental idea, regardless of its truth value. Obviously very few people will be president, but since men like Lincoln, Nixon, and Clinton rose from obscurity to become president, there is something to the notion that anyone could grow up to be president.) Under the theory of democracy, anyone can hold office. The Athenians really belived this. Most offices in Athens were allocated by lottery. That's a commitment to the capacity of every citizen. The Romans, on the other hand, had an office holding class, the patricians, but eventually allowed the rest of the citizens to decide which patrician would get elected. This theory assumes that some people are better suited to office than others, and the pool of candidates should be limited to some criteria.
As a classicist, I think there is a golden mean between these positons. Nevertheless, I think that anyone who serves a term of a statewide office, such as senator or governor, is eligable for consideration for the presidency. If the people want to consider someone seriously, I think that suggests that he person is qualified. Edwards was a Senator, so I think he's qualified to put himself forward for the highest office. Edwards ran a strong second in the primary, certainly that qualifies him to be veep. If you think he's not qualified, I have two words for you: Abraham Lincoln. Failed businessman, failed politician, some rank him as the top president. Edwards may very well fall short of Lincoln's stature, but the option to give him the chance belongs to the voters.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Divisions on the Right pt. IV
Daniel Drezner takes notice of Jacob Levy's post (see below) on his problem's with Bush. He then goes on to quote Andrew Sullivan's recent post on "the looming Republican [civil] war."
My own sense is that Sullivan is over-stating the effect of divisions within a coallition. If contradictory, conflicting factions blew parties apart, the democrats would have exploded a dozen times by now. Parties have ways of managing diverse opinions. As Drezner notes, "it's telling that the Bush administration has decided to award prime time slots at the GOP convention to a lot of Republicans that have had strained relations with the White House. It's also telling that they've accepted." Bithead posted in the comments section of Drezner's blog that its, "mere wishful thinking on Sullivan's part." That seems pretty accurate to me.
Sullivan writes, "The FMA battle now looks more and more like an attempt by Santorum to identify Republican social moderates so he can use primary hardliners to challenge them in the future." Perhaps, but I think it looks more like an attempt to force Kerry to clash with the pro-gay-marriage forces in his own party, possibly sending them to Nader. If Bush makes enough of an issue of it, it may rally some parts of the base. The question of whether it can do so without alienating other parts of the base relies on how its done. Levy mentioned it by writing, "The President doesn't play a direct role in amending the Constitution and anyway I feel sure that the FMA will never pass." Likewise, I discount it as so much pandering, all fluff. Not the direction I would take, since I would just take the state out of the marriage business altogether, but no one is asking me.
Drezner thinks that a Bush win will salve party divisions: "Nothing eases internal party divisions like winning." Though he also suggests a loss will produce, "internecine conflict [...] bloodier than [Sullivan] projects." Sullivan is clearly unhappy with the influence of the Religious Right in Republican circles, as he wrote in the Sunday Times. Sullivan misses one key part in the telling of this story, however, the hostility toward faith by the Left, and more and more by the Democratic Party. The Dems, as Sullivan points out, once had Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Jews. They have lost nearly all of the faithful because of their absolutist position on abortion, their strict seperationist politics, and their approval at the purging of religion from public life.
Plenty of Republicans accept the need for legal, safe abortions, but they don't feel the need to be absolutists. Plenty of Republicans favor an accomodation of religion far short of Roy Moore and would defend the principle of seperation of church and state without the need to purge the seal of the county of Los Angeles of its mission past. As a result one party is more hospitable to faith than the other. That is something the Dems did to themselves. He concludes by writing, "The partisan fusion of politics with religion in this campaign is poisoning an already toxic cultural atmosphere. God help us if it makes its way onto the altar itself." I think its a long accomplished fact and is a legacy of the New Left, not the New Right.
Daniel Drezner takes notice of Jacob Levy's post (see below) on his problem's with Bush. He then goes on to quote Andrew Sullivan's recent post on "the looming Republican [civil] war."
My own sense is that Sullivan is over-stating the effect of divisions within a coallition. If contradictory, conflicting factions blew parties apart, the democrats would have exploded a dozen times by now. Parties have ways of managing diverse opinions. As Drezner notes, "it's telling that the Bush administration has decided to award prime time slots at the GOP convention to a lot of Republicans that have had strained relations with the White House. It's also telling that they've accepted." Bithead posted in the comments section of Drezner's blog that its, "mere wishful thinking on Sullivan's part." That seems pretty accurate to me.
Sullivan writes, "The FMA battle now looks more and more like an attempt by Santorum to identify Republican social moderates so he can use primary hardliners to challenge them in the future." Perhaps, but I think it looks more like an attempt to force Kerry to clash with the pro-gay-marriage forces in his own party, possibly sending them to Nader. If Bush makes enough of an issue of it, it may rally some parts of the base. The question of whether it can do so without alienating other parts of the base relies on how its done. Levy mentioned it by writing, "The President doesn't play a direct role in amending the Constitution and anyway I feel sure that the FMA will never pass." Likewise, I discount it as so much pandering, all fluff. Not the direction I would take, since I would just take the state out of the marriage business altogether, but no one is asking me.
Drezner thinks that a Bush win will salve party divisions: "Nothing eases internal party divisions like winning." Though he also suggests a loss will produce, "internecine conflict [...] bloodier than [Sullivan] projects." Sullivan is clearly unhappy with the influence of the Religious Right in Republican circles, as he wrote in the Sunday Times. Sullivan misses one key part in the telling of this story, however, the hostility toward faith by the Left, and more and more by the Democratic Party. The Dems, as Sullivan points out, once had Catholics, Southern Baptists, and Jews. They have lost nearly all of the faithful because of their absolutist position on abortion, their strict seperationist politics, and their approval at the purging of religion from public life.
Plenty of Republicans accept the need for legal, safe abortions, but they don't feel the need to be absolutists. Plenty of Republicans favor an accomodation of religion far short of Roy Moore and would defend the principle of seperation of church and state without the need to purge the seal of the county of Los Angeles of its mission past. As a result one party is more hospitable to faith than the other. That is something the Dems did to themselves. He concludes by writing, "The partisan fusion of politics with religion in this campaign is poisoning an already toxic cultural atmosphere. God help us if it makes its way onto the altar itself." I think its a long accomplished fact and is a legacy of the New Left, not the New Right.
Keeping an eye on discontent on the Libertarian Right
Jacob Levy on the Volokh Conspiracy weighs in on his Presidential fitness calculations. As I argued here, satisfaction on the right for Bush depends on how your prioritize policy. Levy is a Libertarian who has here to fore not voted for a major party candidate. So, he is somewhat outside of the point I was making last month. Nevertheless, he does reflect the dissatisfaction of the Right with Bush for not pursuing a certain parts of the agenda Bush seems to favor. We writes, "And, man oh man would I prefer to be supporting a pro-Social Security privatization, pro-voucher, pro-tax cut incumbent president who was serious about fighting the war on terrorism and democratizing the Middle East and who might appoint Supreme Court justices who would enforce a strict reading of the Commerce Clause." Further, he identifies what attracts him to Bush, as tax cuts, his hawkishness, and a desire not to find himself assisting certain parts of the Left. But, he is steeling himself for a Kerry vote because there is no Social Security privatization movement, no voucher effort, and the tax cuts are meaningless without spending cuts, and he believes the administration to be "terrible incompetent" all the while making decisons on political rather than policy grounds.
Its a serious set of charges. Its also further evidence that there are people on the Right (as Levy described himself) who are dissatisfied with Bush. My earlier consideration focused on social issue conservatives, which Levy certainly is not. He's on the libertarian side of the right wing, as his own policy wish list should make clear.
The question is, are we just watching the normal cross-over up close? I'm really only interested in the divisions on the right. I accept that there are plenty of pro-war democrats who will be crossing over. Ed Koch is only the most obvious example, a fellow who proudly proclaims he opposes Bush on everything except the war, and then affirms that the war is more important than everything else, so supports the President. Its certainly possible that these two groups simply are part of the normal crossover of any election. Its certainly possible that one group or the other will be substantially larger than the other. Some of this can be revealed by closely watching the polls and taking clues from certain responces, not just the summary numbers. Some of this will be revealed as the election nears. Some may require post election analysis.
I'll keep watching the dissatisfaction on the right, hoping to make some sense of it, as well as looking out to see if the left is up to anything interesting.
Jacob Levy on the Volokh Conspiracy weighs in on his Presidential fitness calculations. As I argued here, satisfaction on the right for Bush depends on how your prioritize policy. Levy is a Libertarian who has here to fore not voted for a major party candidate. So, he is somewhat outside of the point I was making last month. Nevertheless, he does reflect the dissatisfaction of the Right with Bush for not pursuing a certain parts of the agenda Bush seems to favor. We writes, "And, man oh man would I prefer to be supporting a pro-Social Security privatization, pro-voucher, pro-tax cut incumbent president who was serious about fighting the war on terrorism and democratizing the Middle East and who might appoint Supreme Court justices who would enforce a strict reading of the Commerce Clause." Further, he identifies what attracts him to Bush, as tax cuts, his hawkishness, and a desire not to find himself assisting certain parts of the Left. But, he is steeling himself for a Kerry vote because there is no Social Security privatization movement, no voucher effort, and the tax cuts are meaningless without spending cuts, and he believes the administration to be "terrible incompetent" all the while making decisons on political rather than policy grounds.
Its a serious set of charges. Its also further evidence that there are people on the Right (as Levy described himself) who are dissatisfied with Bush. My earlier consideration focused on social issue conservatives, which Levy certainly is not. He's on the libertarian side of the right wing, as his own policy wish list should make clear.
The question is, are we just watching the normal cross-over up close? I'm really only interested in the divisions on the right. I accept that there are plenty of pro-war democrats who will be crossing over. Ed Koch is only the most obvious example, a fellow who proudly proclaims he opposes Bush on everything except the war, and then affirms that the war is more important than everything else, so supports the President. Its certainly possible that these two groups simply are part of the normal crossover of any election. Its certainly possible that one group or the other will be substantially larger than the other. Some of this can be revealed by closely watching the polls and taking clues from certain responces, not just the summary numbers. Some of this will be revealed as the election nears. Some may require post election analysis.
I'll keep watching the dissatisfaction on the right, hoping to make some sense of it, as well as looking out to see if the left is up to anything interesting.
Sunday, July 04, 2004
Essay on Schools, Nerds, and the Social Pathologies of Students
Something of an object lesson on how the internet works, this. I started off reading the Volokh Conspiracy, in which Eugene questions the foundations of statutory rape laws. Find updates here, here, here, and here. The second "here" includes a link to Glenn Reynolds' Fox piece on our disfunctional schools and the resulting student pathologies. Over at Reynold's Instapundit, he has this post. In it, he included links to this essay, by Paul Graham on how school induced pathologies are a problem for nerds. There is also a link to Kimberly Swygert's site, Number 2 Pencil.
I have seen four theories. The envy theory, the puberty theory, the distopian theory, the distraction theory, and the awareness theory. The envy theory and the puberty theory are popular out there somewhere, but these reviewers here are not fond of them. I think they have some truth to them, but are very limited in their explanatory ability. Providing more explanation are the distraction and the awareness theories. The distraction theory, which is argued by Graham, is that bright kids have other interests that distract them from putting forth the effort to be popular. The awareness theory, which I heard argued at a presentation for parents of gifted children, is that bright kids are aware of things not known to average kids, and are thus thought to be weird, boring, or otherwise odd. There is a lot of similarity between the distraction and awareness theories, except that the distraction theory suggests that bright kids could be popular if they wanted to prioritize popularity over their other pursuits, while the awareness theory would require not only priority, but concealing their awareness as well. Both argue different things, so I distinguish between them. Both are limited to explaining why people who achieve success as adults were so often not popular in high school, but does little to explain the sex, drugs, or violence that are the more serious problems in the school.
The final theory is the distopian. Glenn Reynolds is mostly arguing the distopian theory, although it is also lurking right behind the curtain in Paul Graham's essay. The distopian theory argues that schools are environments that select for disfunctional behaviors. Reynolds cites the way society infantilizes adolescents, the way marketers exploit their leisure, and the peer socialization. Graham takes issue with the pointlessness of the time spent in school, from which flows an artificial society based on popularity. He points to analogs like prison and the idle rich. Graham writes, "Teenagers now are neurotic lapdogs. Their craziness is the craziness of the idle everywhere."
Its the distopian theory that carries the most weight the longest distance. It may or may not rise to the level of dominancem let's see what the critics of it can muster, but it can't be counted out.
Something of an object lesson on how the internet works, this. I started off reading the Volokh Conspiracy, in which Eugene questions the foundations of statutory rape laws. Find updates here, here, here, and here. The second "here" includes a link to Glenn Reynolds' Fox piece on our disfunctional schools and the resulting student pathologies. Over at Reynold's Instapundit, he has this post. In it, he included links to this essay, by Paul Graham on how school induced pathologies are a problem for nerds. There is also a link to Kimberly Swygert's site, Number 2 Pencil.
I have seen four theories. The envy theory, the puberty theory, the distopian theory, the distraction theory, and the awareness theory. The envy theory and the puberty theory are popular out there somewhere, but these reviewers here are not fond of them. I think they have some truth to them, but are very limited in their explanatory ability. Providing more explanation are the distraction and the awareness theories. The distraction theory, which is argued by Graham, is that bright kids have other interests that distract them from putting forth the effort to be popular. The awareness theory, which I heard argued at a presentation for parents of gifted children, is that bright kids are aware of things not known to average kids, and are thus thought to be weird, boring, or otherwise odd. There is a lot of similarity between the distraction and awareness theories, except that the distraction theory suggests that bright kids could be popular if they wanted to prioritize popularity over their other pursuits, while the awareness theory would require not only priority, but concealing their awareness as well. Both argue different things, so I distinguish between them. Both are limited to explaining why people who achieve success as adults were so often not popular in high school, but does little to explain the sex, drugs, or violence that are the more serious problems in the school.
The final theory is the distopian. Glenn Reynolds is mostly arguing the distopian theory, although it is also lurking right behind the curtain in Paul Graham's essay. The distopian theory argues that schools are environments that select for disfunctional behaviors. Reynolds cites the way society infantilizes adolescents, the way marketers exploit their leisure, and the peer socialization. Graham takes issue with the pointlessness of the time spent in school, from which flows an artificial society based on popularity. He points to analogs like prison and the idle rich. Graham writes, "Teenagers now are neurotic lapdogs. Their craziness is the craziness of the idle everywhere."
Its the distopian theory that carries the most weight the longest distance. It may or may not rise to the level of dominancem let's see what the critics of it can muster, but it can't be counted out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)