Ah, Ideas

There was this blog dust-up last week involving Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Sullivan, and Ross Douthat all kicking around some ideas from a David Brooks column and since two of the participants are smart, interesting writers it made for good reading. Goldberg wrapped things up: "[Ross is] biased toward new ideas, I'm inclined toward being a stick in the mud." Ross let things go at that, but the difference, clearly, is that Goldberg -- like a lot of people drawn to the conservative movement -- is drawn to it specifically because a faux-Burkean fussy aversion to "new ideas" provides a decent cover for the fact that he lacks the capacity to grapple with actual ideas.

Which is fine. His role in the conservative movement is as a propagandist -- smugly policing the ideological orthodoxy, slandering the opposition, and offering up brilliant sophistry like this reply to Ben Adler's assertion that NR's Planet Gore blog is "devoted entirely to stopping any reasonable movement to prevent climate change." Are you ready? Here's Goldberg's counterargument: "there is no such thing as a "reasonable" movement to prevent climate change because climate changes by definition. Saying we can prevent climate change is like saying we can prevent tides, tectonic drift, or rain. And no one would say any movement to stop rain is 'reasonable.'"

Yes, Jonah, we surrender! Your powers of deliberate obtuseness are too strong for us liberals!

Comments

I'm not sure how much of it is deliberate. The evidence suggests that he's just not very bright.

Posted by Ginger Yellow | April 2, 2007 10:14 AM

The evidence suggests he's the son of Lucianne Goldberg and not much else.

Posted by Murph | April 2, 2007 10:18 AM

This sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I've been reading MY's blog for a while, and I haven't seen much in the way of real ideas -- just tactics and snark.

OK, so you think Republican proposals on Social Security are garbage -- do you have any ideas to offer? Let's hear 'em.

Likewise, your posts on Iraq -- on how the Dems should keep giving Bush 3 months of funding. Sounds great. Let's say that gets you a deadline on withdrawal. Then what? How do you rationalize leaving a vacuum in Iraq and not Afghanistan? If you don't plan to leave a vacuum there, what do you plan to do instead? Leave troops? How many? With what mission(s)?

Posted by Fred | April 2, 2007 10:21 AM

I'm having flashbacks to my teenage years, when my brother would alway's try to win arguments by purposefully interpreting things I said in an overly literal way. Its an extremely annoying, but (partly for that reason) a surprisingly effective tactic.

Posted by Jim W | April 2, 2007 10:22 AM

"How do you rationalize leaving a vacuum in Iraq and not Afghanistan?"

My response is, since Iraq does not exist within an airtight container, it is physically impossible to create a vacuum there.

Maybe I should start writing for NRO.

Posted by Jim W | April 2, 2007 10:26 AM

kicking around some ideas from a David Brooks column

Explain to me again why this is worth doing?

Posted by CJColucci | April 2, 2007 10:27 AM

Likewise, your posts on Iraq -- on how the Dems should keep giving Bush 3 months of funding. Sounds great. Let's say that gets you a deadline on withdrawal. Then what? How do you rationalize leaving a vacuum in Iraq and not Afghanistan? If you don't plan to leave a vacuum there, what do you plan to do instead? Leave troops? How many? With what mission(s)?

Ah, yes, the old "we broke it so how are you gonna fix it?" gambit.

Posted by Bill | April 2, 2007 10:41 AM

I'm having flashbacks to my teenage years, when my brother would alway's try to win arguments by purposefully interpreting things I said in an overly literal way.

Exact words! Those were Ben Adler's exact words!

Posted by Jan-ah Brady-Goldberg | April 2, 2007 10:44 AM

As for Goldberg, like many conservatives most of his intellectual pride seems to be invested in the feel-good allure of doubting liberal orthodoxy wherever it might crop up. It just feels right to him. And let's face it, where climate change is concerned the easier political road is the skeptical one. Means you get to duck proposing tough sacrifices and appear cleverer than all the chicken littles.

Posted by Bill | April 2, 2007 10:46 AM

Here's a relevant definition of climate from Merriam-Webster: "The average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation ."

So, climate does not, "by definition", change. I think Jonah is confusing climate with weather. Even in his attempts to be an annoying sophist, Jonah is a miserable failure.

Posted by Jim W | April 2, 2007 10:48 AM

"kicking around some ideas from a David Brooks column"

Explain to me again why this is worth doing?

Because if you kick them hard enough, they might not be able to get back up?

Posted by Stu | April 2, 2007 10:54 AM

This sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I've been reading MY's blog for a while, and I haven't seen much in the way of real ideas -- just tactics and snark.

This sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I've been reading Fred's comments for a while, and I haven't seen much in the way of real ideas -- just tactics and snark.

Posted by Fredo And The Boat | April 2, 2007 11:02 AM

"Ross let things go at that, but the difference, clearly, is that Goldberg -- like a lot of people drawn to the conservative movement -- is drawn to it specifically because a faux-Burkean fussy aversion to 'new ideas' provides a decent cover for the fact that he lacks the capacity to grapple with actual ideas."

Damn straight. It is sad that smart people like Burke and Oakeshott have had their elegant prose and subtle points appropriated by the crude anti-intellectuals on the contemporary right.

Nonetheless, the fact that Burke and Oakeshott are so easily corrupted might be a point against the arguments they were making. They both went after abstract ideas and rationalism in politics, but judging by their self-proclaimed heirs these days, it might turn out that if you don't begin with a discussion of abstract ideas in a rationalist framework all you have left to duel with are the ugly resentments and tag-you're-it bullshit of a Jonah Goldberg.

Posted by Ashish George | April 2, 2007 11:02 AM

Not to defend Goldberg, about whom I could care less, but you are a half-assed sophist yourself, Jim W. Perhaps Goldberg shouldn't have said "by definition", but it is true that the Earth's climate has not been constant over its history; on the contrary it has continually changed -- warm periods, ice ages, etc. Likewise, Goldberg is right that there is no reasonable argument that climate change can be stopped; in fact, ardent Kyoto advocates only argue that the global warming they fear can only be slowed.

Rather than splash around with semantics, wouldn't it be more interesting to address some obvious questions? For example: Would a slight warming in the earth's average temperature necessarily be a disaster? If so, how will you convince the Chinese to stop producing greenhouse gases? They will be producing more than us in a year or two. What are the moral implications of limiting the industrial development of countries like China and India? Is it worth consigning billions to perpetual poverty to shave a few degrees off of average temperatures a hundred years hence?

Posted by Fred | April 2, 2007 11:08 AM

I'm not sure haw smart Goldberg amy or not be, but one very important thing to remember is that to continue with the 'grapple with new ideas' metaphor is that most people who grapple with new ideas, certainly north of 95%, generally spend their time pinned to the mat, and given the nature of the enterprise, don't realize it, which, continuing the metaphor, is the ultimate state of being pinned.

The most important thing about new ideas to remember is that they are almost always bad old ideas in new costume, almost always being more than 95% of the time. Continuing with the metaphor, people who don't spend their time pinned to the mat, are people who do realize that.

Posted by j mct | April 2, 2007 11:08 AM

"His role in the conservative movement is as a propagandist".

I think technically, his role in the movenemt is defined as the guy who will finish up the box of donuts from the last meeting before they go stale.

His secondary role is to remind the movement of its glorious,wire-wearing, intern-sandbaggin 90s glory days, when one momma's boy's momma could threaten a presidency, baby.

Every soldier has his part to play in this conservative war of ideas (which is to say a war about why they have to be fighting for ideas instead of riding shotgun in a humvee where their beautiful mind couldn't handle the difference between a AEI talking point being blastfaxed to talk radio hosts and reality)

Posted by chris | April 2, 2007 11:13 AM

Interesting that he cites tectonic drift. That's one of those inconveniences to the anti-evolutionists. However...to deny that we cannot change climate is to deny Krakatoa and Mount St. Helen's..in addition to industrial effects. There are ways. We can stop tides by destroying the moon which is quite possible. Besides, change is a "delta" and science and technology can impose small "deltas" on many natural systems.

All of this is to say, even Goldberg's immutable examples are not entirely immutable. But folks such as he are immune to nuance.

Posted by Mudge | April 2, 2007 11:17 AM

"Is it worth consigning billions to perpetual poverty to shave a few degrees off of average temperatures a hundred years hence?"

The people in the Third World are going to suffer the most from global warming. Is it worth flooding the entire country of Bangladesh, and depleting the fresh water supplies to India (two of the many catastrophic consequences of global warming) in order to save a couple percentage points in GDP?

Posted by Jim W | April 2, 2007 11:26 AM

Is it worth consigning billions to perpetual poverty to shave a few degrees off of average temperatures a hundred years hence?

Where is the proof that this will happen(the perpetual poverty)? There is this assertion from people who are skeptical of reducing emissions that to do so would keep people poor throughout the world and destroy the US economy...where is this coming from? Who are the true doomsayers in the argument? Why is it so hard to imagine that China/India can develop under a more environmental model than has been achieved in the past? Haven't we learned anything throughout the years? If they can't develop, maybe we need to rethink out model of development and wonder why it requires us to pollute the planet.

Posted by Rambuncle | April 2, 2007 11:29 AM

Matt didn't even have to bring up how Jonah started the post by saying, basically, "Well, Crichton is better informed than Leonardo DiCaprio, and liberals don't get mad when DiCaprio talks about climate change!" Somehow he fails to realize that liberals do not tend to CITE DiCaprio as an EXPERT on climate change like Planet Gore does with Crichton.

Posted by AP | April 2, 2007 11:39 AM

So, Goldberg doesn't go to the doctor when sick, doesn't try to avoid falling pianos, doesn't wear coats when it's cold, doesn't eat when he's hungry? Fatalism is bad enough, but the phony fatalism of well-paid fops is intolerable.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 2, 2007 11:54 AM

"Nonetheless, the fact that Burke and Oakeshott are so easily corrupted might be a point against the arguments they were making."

Isn't that true of all idealogies though? Or in this case anti-idealogies.

Posted by Korha | April 2, 2007 11:54 AM

I have to say I'm heartened by the relative lack of serious engagement with Fred's vacuous comments.

You have to wonder about people who claim to have read a blog for months and months despite finding absolutely nothing useful there.

Posted by Steve | April 2, 2007 12:06 PM

which of the idea's typically identified as liberal would you consider new?

Posted by the invisible pimp hand | April 2, 2007 12:22 PM

Andrew "Bareback" Sullivan is a hack.

And Johan Goldberg is an idiot. He did not even know what the Austro-Huntarian Empire was.

See:
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/rockfordfiles.cgi/Sweet%20Neocon/The_Invincible_Igno.writeback

Posted by Howard J | April 2, 2007 1:11 PM

The Corner has become the Howard Stern shock jock crowd for the right wing punditry. There is little to distinguish them from Rush and Anne.

The “Torture Is Righteous” crowd” (Levin being the most disgusting) has betrayed the National Review’s legacy of thoughtful conservative dialog. Many of them in support of Bush’s war ventures will savage any critic regardless of the merits.

They have become unthinking pure ideologues and political butchers.

Posted by erict | April 2, 2007 1:16 PM

Andrew "Bareback" Sullivan is a hack.

Classy.

Posted by Freddie | April 2, 2007 2:30 PM

How come no one ever calls ME faux-Burkean? I'm not quite sure what it means, but it sounds like a cool thing to be called.

Better than a half-assed sophist, anyway.

Posted by jonathan | April 2, 2007 3:39 PM

Matt didn't even have to bring up how Jonah started the post by saying, basically, "Well, Crichton is better informed than Leonardo DiCaprio, and liberals don't get mad when DiCaprio talks about climate change!" Somehow he fails to realize that liberals do not tend to CITE DiCaprio as an EXPERT on climate change like Planet Gore does with Crichton.

Posted by: AP on April 2, 2007 11:39 AM

After reading "Travels", where Crichton asserts faith healing, astral projection, astrology, having two-way conversations with plants, and mind over matter all as FACT, it's really hard to take him seriously as an expert on any kind of science, regardless of his skills as a storyteller.

Posted by jonathan | April 2, 2007 3:42 PM

Fred, those are excellent questions that should be investigated. But, since we all know that global warming is just an invention of liberals to achieve what the carbon regulation that Marx dreamed of, there's no reason to.

Posted by Skyler | April 2, 2007 4:11 PM

Nice to see you've come around on Goldberg, Matt. I remember watching your early wine-tasting sessions with him on bloggingheads and wishing you'd find the courage to put the odious twerp in his place. Goldberg's frivolity often distracts from his deep dishonesty, which makes him one of the more dangerous writers on the right. He deserves no better than the treatment you're giving him these days.

Posted by vaskeli | April 2, 2007 7:46 PM

kicking around some ideas from a David Brooks column

What say we cut out the middle man and just start kicking David Brooks around, hmm?

Posted by Death of Rats | April 3, 2007 12:27 AM

So Jonah doesn't eat when he's hungry - Jeffrey Davis

I think you may have gone one step too far on that logic train Jeff. Unless, of course, he eats so much that he is in fact never hungry. Hmmmm, maybe you're right.

Death of Rats -- Funny and tempting. I'd like to put the boot in first.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | April 4, 2007 2:16 PM