Ideas and Warriors

George Packer details the ways in which there's been a bit of a rapprochement between military people and intellectual sorts in the 21st century, bred, primarily, by the exigencies of counterinsurgency: "The soldiers whose reputations have been made and not destroyed in Iraq—General David Petraeus, Colonel H. R. McMaster, Lieutenant Colonel John Nagl—have doctorates in the humanities."

"Desperate times," as he writes "breed desperate measures," including McMaster bringing an anti-war British political scientist to Iraq because he's knowledgeable about the country. Packer says that he's under "no illusion that this rapprochement between guns and brains is widespread or guaranteed to last" but one should probably be more pessimistic than that. As he pointed out, this has largely come about as a result of an Iraq-driven desperation. The trouble is that it hasn't worked. If hawkish intellectuals had understood more about military matters, if understanding of counterinsurgency had been wider-spread inside the military, if US elites had understood Iraqi history and culture better this misguided war never would have come to pass. Instead, this learning has all taken place in the futile context of a mission doomed to failure. The resulting experience is going to be an unpleasant one, and I think the odds favor a return to the post-Vietnam environment where academics deem the military too distasteful to contemplate and the military decides to borrow more deeply into the warrens of conventional firepower-oriented warfare.

Comments

If Packer were a decent human being, he'd acknowledge that the "intellectuals" did a fair bit of heavy lifting in pushing us into this war, that the reconciliation which pleases him so much is being paid for in military blood, and that it remains unclear what the hell the "intellectuals" have to contribute to any intellectual-military partnership beyond a willingness to accept accolades for courage that someone else has. Gawd, what a ponce.

That said, I wish the Dems would push for colleges--especially the name brand ones--to except the military from whatever regulation keeps it from easy integration on campuses. That really does seem like cutting your throat to spite your face.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 23, 2007 9:34 AM

I thought that part of the joy of the whole Reaganite / Gingrich / Bush Jr. counter-revolution was that they never would have to pay no mind to no book learnin' no more.

It wasn't like they just 'forgot' to pay attention to, say, a century's worth of colonial history in the Middle East and Africa -- no, that stuff was for pointy-headed intellectual homosexuals who weren't manly enough to go on the guts and vague sentiments of hawkish nerds geeking out on badly made historical metaphors.

They actively hated real knowledge and anyone interested in seeking it.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 9:37 AM

No, El Cid, the point of the Reagan/Gingrich Revolution was that they would have to pay attention to liberal intellectuals any more. They had their own, thank you very much.

Matt, does George refer to himself at all in the article? As I recall, he was one of the "sensible liberals" in the lead up to the war.

Posted by Clark | July 23, 2007 9:41 AM

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 9:37 AM:"I thought that part of the joy of the whole Reaganite / Gingrich / Bush Jr. counter-revolution was that they never would have to pay no mind to no book learnin' no more."

That may be so, but this war has been the work of the most intellectual of new Republicans - the Neo-Cons who have plenty of book learning and are mostly former Marxists anyway. Intellectuals they are. Soldiers they were not.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 9:37 AM:"It wasn't like they just 'forgot' to pay attention to, say, a century's worth of colonial history in the Middle East and Africa -- no, that stuff was for pointy-headed intellectual homosexuals who weren't manly enough to go on the guts and vague sentiments of hawkish nerds geeking out on badly made historical metaphors."

Again that ignores the divisions within the GOP. It may be the Base couldn't give a damn about what pointy-headed intellectuals thought. But the Neo-Cons are worse. They assumed the wrong thing from a highly intellectual, indeed Leftist point of view. They assumed that human rights were the universal legacy of all mankind. That there was no real difference between Iraqis and Americans - all men are Brothers and want democracy and human rights. Just the sort of thinking that took Napoleon to Moscow and caused the formation of the Comintern. So the rejected those traditional knuckle-dragging Conservatives who said that the Arabs were not ready for democracy, and embraced all the causes of the Left - they too brought Freedom at bayonet point. It didn't work for them as it didn't work in Spain. But that is not a product of their stupidity but their intelligence.

Denying it is to ignore reality.

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 9:45 AM

indeed Leftist point of view.

In the interests of not ignoring reality: Gawd you're jackass.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 23, 2007 9:48 AM

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 23, 2007 9:48 AM:"In the interests of not ignoring reality: Gawd you're jackass."

Perhaps but I am still right. And no doubt this is why Blair supported the war. The Right is not known for going around liberating countries in the name of human rights and democracy. That has been a Left Wing policy. The American Right has been far more often Isolationist (although America also has a mildly isolationist Left as well). Wilson made the biggest foreign policy contribution of any American President (and hence the biggest pull into world affairs for American Presidents) yet he was hardly on the Right was he? Even the most bellicose and aggressive American President, Teddy Roosevelt, was not exactly a Conservative now was he?

The Neo-Cons are mostly former Leftists who are not that sympathetic to the concerns of the Grass roots. They have little time for the Theo-Cons much less the Paleo-Cons. In fact on most issues I expect they have more in common with East Coast intellectual liberals. It is just that on a small handful of issues, of which Israel and the USSR are most obvious, they have been driven out of the Left and into the Right.

Now as much abuse as you care to hurl does not change the fact that this War was not the work of Paleo-Cons like Patrick Buchanan or Libertarians like Ron Paul or even Theo-Cons, but Neo-Cons. Ten seconds research into the background of these people will hit the Democratic Party. Look up Henry M Jackson and get back to me.

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 9:59 AM

Actually, by all accounts, Blair supported the war because he felt it was best for the United States to maintain a "special relationship" (or at least the appearance of such) with the UK rather than risk the United States getting used to the idea of acting like a rogue nation. I think he thought the Bush administration could be controled and negotiated with using this leverage.

The Right's "intellectuals" weren't actual people who were educated experts in their fields. Rather, they were people who had spent the last several decades confined within their own right-wing intellectual think-tank ghettos, never exposing themselves to the larger community of people who actually knew what they were talking about, where their ideas would be subjected to criticism. In short, a circle jerk of people with Teddy Roosevelt fantasies.

El Cid is closer to the mark than Hei Gou. The Neo cons were primarily concerned about an America that acted in a more macho manner and saw the middle east as a crucible in which this image of masculinity could be proved to be used to good effect.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 10:14 AM

HeiGou:

If I fantasized that because we are all brothers and sisters, my plans for the intense aerial bombardment of China and destruction of all its major infrastructure would lead to the brotherly and sisterly equality and democracy they so deserved -- but the actions my fantasies prompted me to advocate instead led to a situation of warlord chaos hell, with mass suffering and no serious prospect for the solution of that hell, does that make me an admirable humanist intellectual too?

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 10:17 AM

By the way, even the book-based arguments of the Reaganites, Gingrichites, and Bush Jr. neo-Khans were adamantly anti-intellectual.

The U.S. right has for at least the last 30 years shunned any sort of evaluation of their ideas based on evidence or the evaluation of the validity of their arguments or in fact any sort of debate where their irrational declarations of what must be could be challenged by non-toadies.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 10:20 AM

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 10:17 AM:"If I fantasized that because we are all brothers and sisters, my plans for the intense aerial bombardment of China and destruction of all its major infrastructure would lead to the brotherly and sisterly equality and democracy they so deserved -- but the actions my fantasies prompted me to advocate instead led to a situation of warlord chaos hell, with mass suffering and no serious prospect for the solution of that hell, does that make me an admirable humanist intellectual too?"

Your mistake is to confuse your fantasies with the real world. The American invasion was as close to that Liberal dream of a bloodless war as you are likely to see in your lifetime (well Kosovo might have been). Attacking the infrastructure was preferred to avoid, you know, attacking people. The traditional Right has preferred to fight the old fashioned way and I can't think of all that many on the Right who have ever thought otherwise. I can't see Le May or Paton supporting anything less.

As for the Civil War, well obviously no one wanted or planned that. Just as the French Revolutionaries did not plan the bleeding ulcer of Spain. So again your complaint is spurious.

I don't recall using the word "admirable".

What is interesting about the War in Iraq is that as the Right has taken up Leftist positions - on the universal value of democracy and human rights for instance - the Left has adopted Right wing positions on how the "natives" are not entitled to them. You might like this attack on the double standards of Ms Bunting:

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2793079.ece

"Reading Three: The role of the left itself. The pro-war left looked to a left-wing tradition that had fallen dormant: they argued for a self-consciously 1930s Victor Lazlo left rather than a 1960s flower-power one. Quoting Orwell, they pointed out that there are enemies that may need to be fought rather than hugged into submission. This insight stems from the one irreducible left-wing principle: solidarity with suffering strangers. This principle is the reason why it was the left that made the case for fighting fascists in Spain, and it is - we argued - the left that should make the case for fighting fascists in Afghanistan.

"By 2003, much of the left had abandoned this core instinct. For example, Madeleine Bunting is a left-wing who campaigns for women's and homosexuals' rights in Britain. But she demanded to know why protesting left-wingers like me make "a shibolleth" out of women's and gay rights when it comes to Muslims. It's hard to see this as anything other than a form of soft racism: while she finds misogyny repellent in London, it becomes a trivial matter in Damascus. She is happy to wave away the rights of 55 percent of non-Westerners as a "shibboleth". The Eustonites aimed to be the opposite of this."

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 10:24 AM

Five thoughts:

1) Why must one have a degree in humanities to be an intellectual? Are scientists not intellectuals?

2) The military's embrace of "intellectual sorts" long pre-dates the current counter-insurgency in Iraq -- Nagl, McMaster, and Petraeus all got their Ph.D.s on the Army's dime years before this war, after all, and graduate school (a minimum of a masters degree from a civilian university plus study at military post-graduate schools) has long been a requirement for field-grade Army officers.

3) Calling what the military is doing in Iraq "futile" and "doomed" either ignores the progress troops are making in Sunni provinces such as Anbar and Diyala in co-opting mainstream Sunnis and marginalizing Al Qaeda in Iraq, or presumes that domestic politics will let those gains be reversed.

4) Weren't liberal intellectuals such as Packer advocates for the work in Iraq?

5) As impressive as Nagl, McMaster, and Petraeus are, focusing on them obscures what are likely to be more lasting technological innovations from the war in Iraq. Prior to the war, the Army had been working on its "Future Combat System" which would increase use of unmanned, remote-controlled surveillance and weapons systems. The war in Iraq, with the ever-present threat of IEDs, has sped this process up, as various elements of the FCS have already been fielded (e.g., these robots). The military's techie intellectuals may have a more lasting impact than its humanities intellectuals, particularly as they innovate ways to fight wars while putting fewer Americans in harm's way. As we can do more fighting with drones in the air and on the ground, the political restraints caused by the prospect of high American casualties will diminish.

Posted by Fred | July 23, 2007 10:30 AM

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 10:20 AM :"By the way, even the book-based arguments of the Reaganites, Gingrichites, and Bush Jr. neo-Khans were adamantly anti-intellectual."

The enormous mistake in that, again, is to include the Neo-Cons. There is a deep anti-intellectual tradition running through the Republican Party. In part this is Know-Nothing-ism, but in part it is a dislike of where modern intellectuals have gone. I do not doubt that Reagan was surrounded by people fairly well informed about the thinkers of the past. Just not the recent past. They hated Harvard's faculty now, but not that 100 years ago. The best example of this is the fight against Evolution.

However none of that applies to the Neo-Cons who are haute-intellectuals. You ask them to talk about Habermas or Marcuse and I have no doubt that they could. In the original.

I'd also say that it is only half-true of many of the people around Bush Junior. He came with a weak but significant following of Catholic Social Justice thinkers. That is of course a long and strong tradition even if it is weak in the US and weaker in the modern world. It formed a basis for Compassionate Conservatism. Of sorts. Whether George Junior ever took it seriously or even understood it is another issue, but there is no denying that Catholics do not do Know-Nothing-ism in quite the same way the other Theo-Cons do.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 10:20 AM:"The U.S. right has for at least the last 30 years shunned any sort of evaluation of their ideas based on evidence or the evaluation of the validity of their arguments or in fact any sort of debate where their irrational declarations of what must be could be challenged by non-toadies."

This is utterly untrue. On the contrary if that can be applied to anyone it is the Liberals who support the Great Society and every other welfare reform. People like John Lott, whatever else you can say about him, crunches the numbers. The Right are pretty much the only people producing in depth analysis of the ideas of the recent past. The Left has consistently refused to engage in that debate at all. Rather they have hurled abuse about racism by and large. I don't know where Clinton got his ideas for Welfare Reform from but I'll bet they were not from the Left. You'd have to go back to Tip O'Neill to find a Liberal willing to do serious analysis I'd guess.

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 10:36 AM

HeiGou,
Yes we all know this. So what are you going to do to cleanse the radicals from the GOP, because not only are they in charge, they seem to have taken over the spirit of the party. Who among the GOP candidates for President (except Mr Paul) are not pro intervention?

I think your case for conservatism as the non-intervention philosophy hides more than it illuminates. It is a bit like calling the modern Democratic party the pro slavery party. Yes the family tree shows the connection, but the content has flipped, the southern rejectionists are all republicans now and have been since 1972.

The point I wish to make is that radical interventionism has been a part of the republican party since WWII. It was WWII and the onset of the cold war that changed the GOP from a no war party to an inherently pro war party. The "who lost China" debate, MacArthur's desire to use nukes during the Korea War, the push for military intervention in Cuba and later Vietnam. All these had far right intellectual support. And what rings hollow in you attempt to paint Iraq as an essentially left wing intellectual phenomenon is this conservative interventionist cold war heritage; if you look at right wing speaches from the period they are full of praise for defending freedom and democracy.

It's a nice way to make liberals defensive, trying to tie the neocon trotskyites around our necks, but really as with the legacy of slavery in America, an ideology is as an ideology does, and military intervention has been a conservative champion for over 60 years now. It predates the neo conservatives and will outlast their fall from grace.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM

The Right are pretty much the only people producing in depth analysis of the ideas of the recent past.

Oh, I get it now, you're a satirist.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 10:40 AM

Fred, from what I remember, military academy students are generally tracked towards the study of engineering on the premise that this gives them an in-depth practical knowledge of the systems they'll be dealing with. That's the group that the generals with a humanities background are being contrasted with. But yeah, mostly, I'd agree that scientists do not get enough credit for being intellectuals, even though they're the ones facing the true "put up or shut up" daily confrontations about their research, while a bunch of public intellectuals in the humanities leverage their public failures into increasingly higher-profile sinecures.

In any case, Republicans are fine with intellectuals (Rice, Kissinger, etc.) when those intellectuals come down firmly on the side of power. Because, ultimately, that's all the modern conservative Republican movement has been about.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 10:45 AM

I suppose, given the incredibly bowel-loosening definitions of "right" and "left" used here that it must be the New Gospel to believe that the continual historic combination of humanitarianism, Christian imperatives, and outright nationalist greed of, say, the British imperialists with regard to, say, Africa -- whom I have read in the original too, just like your fantasy right wingers -- are "leftist" too.

Presumably the Berlin Conference was pretty much akin to a proxy Marxist revolution in the name of the Great Powers.

It's interesting to note that when I gave an analogy of the Iraq war to an attack which happened to similarly destroy China, with exactly similar results, exactly as was clearly anticipated with regard to Iraq, somehow this clear and simply analogous accuracy therefore makes my complaint "spurious".

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 10:47 AM

Tyro,

There was a time when military academies eschewed the study of the humanities, but that was a long time ago. In any case, I wasn't referring to the military academies, but to the mid-career education tracks of officers. Although Army officers, for example, have long been required to get masters degrees from civilian universities as part of their career progression, they haven't been restricted to science and engineering fields. Some have opted for techie masters degrees -- IIRC, Gen. Schwartzkopf's masters was in missile technology, and the first head of the SDI was an Army general with a Ph.D. in physics -- but other officers got degrees in subjects like geography (Powell, IIRC). Still others get MBAs or MPAs.

Also, the Army in particular has long respected the humanities as subjects worth studying for their insights into people, and, by extension, leadership. I read about this in the Army's leadership manual when I was in the Army Reserve in the early '90's. Joshua Chamberlain, the professor of languages who became the most decorated officer in the Civil War, was featured prominently in that manual as well.

Posted by Fred | July 23, 2007 10:59 AM

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"Yes we all know this. So what are you going to do to cleanse the radicals from the GOP, because not only are they in charge, they seem to have taken over the spirit of the party. Who among the GOP candidates for President (except Mr Paul) are not pro intervention?"

Well no we do not all know this. Go back and read the replies. The radicals are doing a damn fine job of cleansing themselves. The Neo-Cons are in the garbage bin of history. The candidates are in favor of sticking with *this* intervention, but I see no stomach for any more fighting from anyone. As much as the Neo-Con cheer leaders may bang the drum for it. We will see if Giuliani gets the nomination, but I don't see it. At least if he does, it will be because of the Theo-Cons hatred of the Mormons.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"I think your case for conservatism as the non-intervention philosophy hides more than it illuminates."

I wouldn't say that they are non-interventionist although in America the Right has tended to be so. It is just this form of intervention is something they would not waste time on - and most of them have not. A war for oil they might support but not democracy for Arabs.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"The point I wish to make is that radical interventionism has been a part of the republican party since WWII. It was WWII and the onset of the cold war that changed the GOP from a no war party to an inherently pro war party."

Although Wilkie was accused of being a Fascist for "appeasing" Hitler by Mrs Roosevelt so it was post-WW2. Radical intervention? I am not sure that the record would support that. The Democrat Truman took America into Korea. The Republican Eisenhower brought America out. Kennedy took America into Vietnam. And it was Kennedy who backed the Bay of Pigs.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"And what rings hollow in you attempt to paint Iraq as an essentially left wing intellectual phenomenon is this conservative interventionist cold war heritage; if you look at right wing speaches from the period they are full of praise for defending freedom and democracy."

Defending freedom and democracy. Not always imposing it. There is a radical Right in America and they do tend to support intervention. But America did not support Rollback, but rather the ultra-conservative Containment. It may ring hollow to you, but there is no denying it in this case. Iraq was not about oil. It was about a radical transformation of the Middle East.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"It's a nice way to make liberals defensive, trying to tie the neocon trotskyites around our necks"

You may feel that way. I am more interested in the factual record and the issue of where the Left is going to go. Bush will be gone soon. Will Right and Left revert to their normal states? I wonder. I find the Left's new indifference to human rights in the Third World troublesome and the all-too-frequent cozying up to the Islamists down right scary. These are real issues. Who is to blame for Iraq is not as we all know wherever the Neo-Cons came from, Bush took them in and followed their policies.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 10:45 AM:"from what I remember, military academy students are generally tracked towards the study of engineering on the premise that this gives them an in-depth practical knowledge of the systems they'll be dealing with. That's the group that the generals with a humanities background are being contrasted with."

Although the famous counter-example is the German Army which has had a long long tradition of being focused on history.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 10:45 AM:"In any case, Republicans are fine with intellectuals (Rice, Kissinger, etc.) when those intellectuals come down firmly on the side of power. Because, ultimately, that's all the modern conservative Republican movement has been about."

I don't think Rice is an intellectual and a hell of a lot of people on the Right have never been fine with Kissinger. Look at Conrad Black's lovely sustained assault on him. Much less what Nixon had to say about him.

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 11:05 AM

HeiGou, since the Republican party has purged anyone who won't tow the neo-con line, does that mean you will be voting Democrat from now on?

Posted by walt | July 23, 2007 11:15 AM

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 10:20 AM:"The U.S. right has for at least the last 30 years shunned any sort of evaluation of their ideas based on evidence or the evaluation of the validity of their arguments or in fact any sort of debate where their irrational declarations of what must be could be challenged by non-toadies."

This is utterly untrue. On the contrary if that can be applied to anyone it is the Liberals who support the Great Society and every other welfare reform. People like John Lott, ... The Right are pretty much the only people producing in depth analysis of the ideas of the recent past. The Left has consistently refused to engage in that debate at all ... I don't know where Clinton got his ideas for Welfare Reform from but I'll bet they were not from the Left. Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 10:36 AM

ElCid was not specific enough. The right has produced an avalanche of studies. So the willigness to present new ideas is there. The problem comes from the fact that conservative argumentation starts from first principles and then finds the facts to support the argument rather than by observing the data first and drawing conclusions later. We know this from the repeated discovery of statistical trickery in conservative studies, the Bell Curve being the most famous. Conservative arguments can't survive peer review and when liberals point this out, we are attacked as being "unwilling to debate". Well when you debate with someone who you know is lying, what exactly are you doing? You are validating his lies.

This point also explains two things about the nature of current American conservative arguments. First most of these conservative intellectual breakthroughs are produced outside of Academe because they use a lower evidence standard to make truth claims and are incapable of surviving peer review. Second, debate with conservative 'thinkers' is a little pointless after intial contact, since once the inherent falseness of their research is established, what is left to debate? Usually when I do see a liberal academic debating on tv with these conservative idea merchants, I basically see the AEI fellow and the "moderator' yell at the liberal academic professional until he a) shuts up or b) agrees with the conservative, if only on the smallest side point not connected to the main argument. It's bullshit, in the philosophical sense of the term.

The other large point I would like to make is that many "liberal" ideas that are being produced have not been reported. Recently at TPM there was a multi day posting on hederodox economics that was very interesting. I had no idea that the entire economics profession had moved leftward from its more rightwing ideological position in the 1970s. Let's just say that Krugman is the centrist norm now where back when he started he would have been considered center left. But does any of this get reported? Are these new ideas about the economy circulated? No. There is a huge propaganda gap between the right and the left in America. The right has the machine to get its ideas out into the public sphere. The left has ... Harpers? There is a real imbalance here.

As for Clinton, well yes that was a deliberate policy choice on Clinton's part to triangulate. It also speaks volumes of the flexibilty and honesty of liberal politicians and administrators that in the case of Welfare, where conservative ideas had held up on experimentation and review, we were willing to change our position and accept the other sides policy perscription. Conservatives have not been as flexible since Goldwaters activists changed their party into an ideological party instead of a centrist one. You will not see conservatives recognize the soundness of social security, despite the mountains of evidence, because this would contredict their 'first principles' You see them having trouble running the FDA because of their ideological take on regulation. The same for the environment. One can see where this has led to with Karl Rove using the DOJ for political purposes because it is for the 'greater good' and they are the 'good guys'. That is ideology run amuck, it is a poor service to America and it pollutes the country's political culture.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM

Posted by walt | July 23, 2007 11:15 AM:"since the Republican party has purged anyone who won't tow the neo-con line, does that mean you will be voting Democrat from now on?"

They got rid of Patrick Buchanan but they did not purge everyone. See Ron Paul.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"The right has produced an avalanche of studies. So the willigness to present new ideas is there."

And hence El Cid is wrong.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"The problem comes from the fact that conservative argumentation starts from first principles and then finds the facts to support the argument rather than by observing the data first and drawing conclusions later."

This is simply an ad hominem smear. I see no reason to even bother with it.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"We know this from the repeated discovery of statistical trickery in conservative studies, the Bell Curve being the most famous."

Repeated? Some studies have been shown to be flawed but so what? If this was true the tide would not be running so strongly against the Left. And it undeniably is.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"This point also explains two things about the nature of current American conservative arguments. First most of these conservative intellectual breakthroughs are produced outside of Academe because they use a lower evidence standard to make truth claims and are incapable of surviving peer review."

And because of the inherent bias of American academia - which gives Chomsky praise and makes him the most cited living human being, and protects people like Ward Churchill even when they are shown to be liars, plagiarists etc etc.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"debate with conservative 'thinkers' is a little pointless after intial contact, since once the inherent falseness of their research is established, what is left to debate?"

My approach with Chomsky in a nut shell. However if this was the case, the Right would not be winning so many policy debates. And they are. It follows that this is a smear - indeed what some might call projection.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"Recently at TPM there was a multi day posting on hederodox economics that was very interesting. I had no idea that the entire economics profession had moved leftward from its more rightwing ideological position in the 1970s. Let's just say that Krugman is the centrist norm now where back when he started he would have been considered center left."

What? You're kidding me. Economics has moved solidly to the Right for a generation. There is no way that any credible academic economist, outside Chicago, would have accepted massive payments from Enron in the early 70s. Krugman is hardly an opponent of the Market and compared to the Keynesians of the past he is on the Right of the 70s norm. I see no reason to take any other claim you make seriously if you are genuinely maintaining that the "inflation does not matter, government is all good, there is no difference with the Soviet Union" economists of the 1970s were more right wing than they are today.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"There is a huge propaganda gap between the right and the left in America. The right has the machine to get its ideas out into the public sphere. The left has ... Harpers? There is a real imbalance here."

And CBS. And ABC. And the NYT. The MSM is solidly Left in orientation except for individual owners like Murdoch. Not very Left, but Left nonetheless.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"As for Clinton, well yes that was a deliberate policy choice on Clinton's part to triangulate."

Indeed. Which in turn proves it is not all about propaganda but the inherently conservative nature of the voters.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"It also speaks volumes of the flexibilty and honesty of liberal politicians and administrators that in the case of Welfare, where conservative ideas had held up on experimentation and review, we were willing to change our position and accept the other sides policy perscription."

Honesty? Since when is selling out all your principles for power honest? Nor do I accept that anyone on the Left has accepted the evidence of Clinton's reforms. The policies were accepted as the price of the White House but there has been no mental shift at all.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 11:16 AM:"You will not see conservatives recognize the soundness of social security, despite the mountains of evidence, because this would contredict their 'first principles'"

And yet you will also not see them do a damn thing about abortion despite the fact this contradicts their first principles because they know it is a third rail. The Republicans have become Believers with all that entails, but they are not yet entirely irrational about it - as the Left still is on race and welfare and crime.

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 11:38 AM

Very impressive, HeiGou. And true, though it may not seem so to those inside the lefty echo chamber. To them, the '06 election was an endorsement of bringing back to life the War on Poverty, nationalizing health care, etc., and not an expression of the public's frustration with the war in Iraq.

Posted by Fred | July 23, 2007 11:50 AM

Some studies have been shown to be flawed but so what? If this was true the tide would not be running so strongly against the Left. And it undeniably is.

Another great, strong endorsement of the deep and enduring intellectualism of the right.

After all, if a tide is going in a certain direction, that tide must be correct, right?

How could powerful governments and other influential institutions be wrong about anything if they consistently agree with each other?

The very fact that the right wing's arguments have been in the ascendancy for a historical period in and of itself means that those arguments are correct.

Q.E.D.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 11:55 AM

I wish the Dems would push for colleges--especially the name brand ones--to except the military from whatever regulation keeps it from easy integration on campuses.

"Whatever regulation" = no recruiting on campus for employers who practice discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

HeiGou, while you are busy explaining that Iraq is all the fault of the left, don't forget to point out that Hitler was a socialist . . .

Posted by rea | July 23, 2007 11:55 AM

Posted by Fred | July 23, 2007 11:50 AM:"Very impressive, HeiGou. And true, though it may not seem so to those inside the lefty echo chamber. To them, the '06 election was an endorsement of bringing back to life the War on Poverty, nationalizing health care, etc., and not an expression of the public's frustration with the war in Iraq."

Are we talking about the same 2006 election?

You know, the one where Hillary ran as a Neo-Con?

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 11:58 AM

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"And what rings hollow in you attempt to paint Iraq as an essentially left wing intellectual phenomenon is this conservative interventionist cold war heritage; if you look at right wing speaches from the period they are full of praise for defending freedom and democracy."

Defending freedom and democracy. Not always imposing it. There is a radical Right in America and they do tend to support intervention. But America did not support Rollback, but rather the ultra-conservative Containment. It may ring hollow to you, but there is no denying it in this case. Iraq was not about oil. It was about a radical transformation of the Middle East.

My point was that the American radical right had been a key mover in pushing American foreign policy to choose intervention over non intervention regardless of the humanitarian intentions of liberal intellectuals. This is as true of Bush43 as it was of Truman or Kennedy. It was radical right that wanted Truman to take it to China. It was radical right that wanted Kennedy to fix Cuba. Containment was the liberal policy position. You've acknowledged that.
As for Iraq being about transforming the Middle East, I don't think that it the whole story. In fact I believe that is a neocon 'noble lie' designed to sell the policy to the American public. I think the true motivations for Iraq can be seen in the original Project for a New American Century document. I think the Iraq intervention has less to do with Iraq then it does with America. I agree with the Chalmers Johnson trillogy. There is a culture of war in America now and it will take deliberate political effort to change that.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"It's a nice way to make liberals defensive, trying to tie the neocon trotskyites around our necks"

You may feel that way. I am more interested in the factual record and the issue of where the Left is going to go. Bush will be gone soon. Will Right and Left revert to their normal states? I wonder. I find the Left's new indifference to human rights in the Third World troublesome and the all-too-frequent cozying up to the Islamists down right scary. These are real issues. Who is to blame for Iraq is not as we all know wherever the Neo-Cons came from, Bush took them in and followed their policies.

This is interesting. I have the same concern with an opposite focus. My question is where is the right going to go? As I said earlier, I don't like what I am seeing in the Republican primary. Too much consensus on the current intervention. I don't like the amount of Bill Kristol I see on TV or his words in Republican politicians mouths.
As for the left, here is my prediction, liberal interventionism is finished for the foreseable future. In fact this is precisely why the writers at TNR are so pissed with Bush. He's demolished the prospect of all intervention for the forseable future. I think this is fine. I see a little contrediction in criticising the left for not being concerned about human rights in the thrid world, yet also blaming the left for beeing too pro interventionist. How are we to care? Is it not the left that is bitching and moaning about Darfur?

As for the islamists I think there is a sense of caution as to doing what will work as opposed to making things worse. Iraq made things worse. How do we make things better? It is an open ongoing discussion. How do we make more Islamic countries like Turkey and less like Saudi Arabia? As for the antics of the International Socialists who march with Islamists in the streets of London, well I would not confuse you as a member of the American Nazi party, so I don't think conservatives should confuse Liberals with the International Socialists, despite how much fun it can be to do so.
The liberal public of the Western World have the ability to deal with the Islamists at home. Show by example and imprison the fanatical. I think more countries will move to a French solution which is active monitoring of every mosque in the contry with the power to deport foreign trained immams. Personally, I think we should be careful about sunni immigration to the West. Let the apostates and the islamic oppressed come to the West, the larger islamic community should resolve its issues with modernity before we have an open exchange of people. I know this is a minority position but I would not be surprised if many Western point based immigration systems have moved to reflect this in their selection criterea. I haven't researched it though.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 12:02 PM

Northern Observer is tracking reality, Hei Gou is trying desparately to free contemporary conservatism from the stain of the Iraq war. The only refutation required is listening to one of the Republican primary debates, where the candidates compete with each other to threaten Iran and expand torture.

Posted by mq | July 23, 2007 12:30 PM

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 11:38 AM
Very disappointed in your content and tone in this post. I see you are also in thrall to many silly ideas.
1) Your depiction of American Universities.
2) Your understanding of current poicy debates and ideas in the economics profession.
3) Your depiction of network television as liberal.
4) Your leap to abortion as a moral trump card.

Based on your response I would say that I touched a nerve, which probably indicates that at some level you know my points have some validity as much as it pains you to think it. You can say adhominem all you want or you can look at the record. When you do you will see sloppiness and uncorrected errors. I notice that you did not address the FDA problem ... e.coli conservatism indeed.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 12:30 PM

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 11:55 AM:"Another great, strong endorsement of the deep and enduring intellectualism of the right."

Don't forget, I never claimed to be an intellectual.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 11:55 AM:"After all, if a tide is going in a certain direction, that tide must be correct, right?"

If more people are being convinced, the people doing the convincing must be pretty convincing.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 11:55 AM:"The very fact that the right wing's arguments have been in the ascendancy for a historical period in and of itself means that those arguments are correct."

Not correct. I don't think I used that word. More credible. See the point about convincing above.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"My point was that the American radical right had been a key mover in pushing American foreign policy to choose intervention over non intervention regardless of the humanitarian intentions of liberal intellectuals."

I would be hard pushed to think of a single case where the Right got intervention not supported by the Left except perhaps the original Lebanon one. That is the Right as a whole, not the Radical Right. Was the Korean War taken to China? Was Chiang "unleashed"? Did anyone try to intervene in Hungary?

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"This is as true of Bush43 as it was of Truman or Kennedy."

Truman and Kennedy being Leftists of the old fashioned sort (you know, not ashamed of America).

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"It was radical right that wanted Truman to take it to China."

And they lost that argument.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"It was radical right that wanted Kennedy to fix Cuba."

And they lost that one too.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"Containment was the liberal policy position. You've acknowledged that."

I have done no such thing. Kennan was an arch conservative - a traditionalist. It was as conservative a policy as you could get.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"As for Iraq being about transforming the Middle East, I don't think that it the whole story. In fact I believe that is a neocon 'noble lie' designed to sell the policy to the American public. I think the true motivations for Iraq can be seen in the original Project for a New American Century document."

And what do you think that document says that is not compatible with the transforming of the entire Middle East?

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"I agree with the Chalmers Johnson trillogy. There is a culture of war in America now and it will take deliberate political effort to change that."

Johnson, of course, being another conservative. There is a culture war and there is no sign that anyone is going to change that - as can be seen by the vitriol spewed here - utterly unchallenged - against people on the Right. It is a serious problem IMO.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"My question is where is the right going to go? As I said earlier, I don't like what I am seeing in the Republican primary. Too much consensus on the current intervention. I don't like the amount of Bill Kristol I see on TV or his words in Republican politicians mouths."

Kristol is gone. He may not know it yet but he is yesterday's fish. There is a lot of consensus but this is early. You'll have to see what happens when someone wins the primary and tacks left. Besides, "consensus"? Giuliani is talking about how the Constitution cannot be allowed to get in the way and you think there is a consensus?

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"As for the left, here is my prediction, liberal interventionism is finished for the foreseable future. ... I see a little contrediction in criticising the left for not being concerned about human rights in the thrid world, yet also blaming the left for beeing too pro interventionist. How are we to care? Is it not the left that is bitching and moaning about Darfur?"

The Left, or parts of it, are moaning about Darfur. Look at George Clooney. But that hardly leaves them with a credible position. If Darfur, why not Afghanistan or Iraq? Or even Iran? The Left has shifted from being concerned, not being utterly unconcerned about human rights in the Third World. I don't think that the main drum beaters over Darfur are on the Left at all. It has been pro-southern Christian groups that have led the charge for years. But we will see.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"As for the islamists I think there is a sense of caution as to doing what will work as opposed to making things worse. Iraq made things worse. How do we make things better?"

I am still unconvinced that the long term impact of Iraq will be for the worse. The whole world has seen what Islamism is and what it does. There has been a shift from support in dozens of places. CAIR is bleeding members. Iraq is a disaster, but the ME is a place where most people grab defeat from the jaws of victory or the other way around.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"As for the antics of the International Socialists who march with Islamists in the streets of London, well I would not confuse you as a member of the American Nazi party, so I don't think conservatives should confuse Liberals with the International Socialists, despite how much fun it can be to do so."

Except it is not just the Trotskyites. Those protesters are echoed by two main British papers for instance - the Guardian and the Independent. The NYT is not quite as bad but it is not far off. If the Weekly Standard was printing arguments from the Nazis I would be concerned. But they don't.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"The liberal public of the Western World have the ability to deal with the Islamists at home. Show by example and imprison the fanatical."

On what charges? The liberal courts in the English speaking West have consistently shown they have no such ability or will. They release them on bail. They refuse to extradite. Simply being fanatical is not a crime after all.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 10:38 AM:"I know this is a minority position but I would not be surprised if many Western point based immigration systems have moved to reflect this in their selection criterea. I haven't researched it though."

I am inclined to agree with you but the law needs to be changed first as that would be mildly discriminatory don't you think?

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 12:36 PM

Dude, how fucking hard is it to italicize.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 23, 2007 12:38 PM

Posted by mq | July 23, 2007 12:30 PM:"Hei Gou is trying desparately to free contemporary conservatism from the stain of the Iraq war."

Isn't it interesting how people only hear what they want to? In this case, how I have repeatedly made it clear where I think the blame for the Iraq War belongs, and yet you hear something entirely different. Strange, no?

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 12:30 PM:"I see you are also in thrall to many silly ideas.
1) Your depiction of American Universities."

Anyone who thinks that American Universities are not very Left Wing and wouldn't be even more so if not for the Alumni is not dealing with a full pack. Where do former terrorists go after getting out of prison? College of course! As Faculty.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 12:30 PM:"2) Your understanding of current poicy debates and ideas in the economics profession."

My comments remain true and I do not retreat from them. Economics has strongly shifted to the Right since 1970. No one defends inflation and deficit spending any more.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 12:30 PM:"3) Your depiction of network television as liberal."

A simple statement of fact.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 12:30 PM:"4) Your leap to abortion as a moral trump card."

In what sense did I use it as a trump card much less a moral one? It is simply an example of how subtle and nuanced (ie gutless) the GOP is. They make a big fuss over it but they have no intention whatsoever about doing anything about it.

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 12:43 PM

HeiGou,
I disagree with your understanding of reality as depicted in your posts. I hope that you have the ability to change your mind in the future.
I am sure the feeling is mutual.
That's all for today, gotta go earn a living.
Regards,
Northern Observer.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 12:59 PM

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 11:55 AM:"After all, if a tide is going in a certain direction, that tide must be correct, right?"

If more people are being convinced, the people doing the convincing must be pretty convincing.

But, then, "convincing" and "correct" may be two entirely different things.

Apparently a lot of people are convinced that there are many pseudoscientific treatments for illnesses, from faith healing to rose quartz crystals to little magnets.

But whether those "convinced" people represent 1, 50, or 100% of the population is irrelevant to the correctness of the argument.

So the fact that certain right wing arguments have been in ascendancy for some time is evidence only that some number of people have been "convinced", and is irrelevant to the correctness, incorrectness, or even complete insanity and inanity of those "ideas".

If one day "left" wing arguments gained in the ascendancy, and suddenly "socialist" aspects of the economy became more and more common, I would expect that right wingers would similarly (and correctly) refuse to take this "convincing" reality as evidence of the soundness or validity of those economic arguments.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 1:09 PM

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 1:09 PM:"So the fact that certain right wing arguments have been in ascendancy for some time is evidence only that some number of people have been "convinced", and is irrelevant to the correctness, incorrectness, or even complete insanity and inanity of those "ideas"."

I think you are finally getting it. Now notice how I utterly fail to make much of an argument about the correctness of the Right's arguments and instead point out the fact that they have been making all the important policy arguments for the last two decades. Whether or not they are "right".

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 1:09 PM:"If one day "left" wing arguments gained in the ascendancy, and suddenly "socialist" aspects of the economy became more and more common, I would expect that right wingers would similarly (and correctly) refuse to take this "convincing" reality as evidence of the soundness or validity of those economic arguments."

No doubt. But the quality of the Left's arguments would undoubtedly be better. The Left did have a long ascendency over ideas, but it has been on the back foot for a while. That says nothing about how right they are, just how sophisticated their arguments are. The Right is winning because they have the best arguments at the moment.

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 1:22 PM

"...and the military decides to borrow more deeply into the warrens of conventional firepower-oriented warfare."

I think you meant burrow?

Posted by Joseph | July 23, 2007 1:36 PM

The Right is winning because they have the best arguments at the moment.

And that's why academia leans liberal-- because their jobs depend of having correct data. Advancement in a conserative think tank depends on your ability to create good marketing and get coverage in the popular press.

Earlier in this very thread, however, you claimed that obviously studies weren't in general flawed from conservatives because otherwise the tide wouldn't be running conservative. Now you merely say that their studies and ideas are flawed, but merely that their arguments are "the best." So which is it?

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 1:42 PM

The Right is winning because they have the best arguments at the moment.

In whose eyes? In what bizarre, drug-addled, Head-On applying mind are the right's arguments in any way better than the nonsense they have ever been? Popularity and best may or may not be connected.

There's not even any anthropological or historical imperative to suggest such a thing. A foolishly teleological outlet might suggest that the "best" arguments triumph in a given time period. But then this predicts the outcome on the dependent variable, i.e., the very measures of argument popularity for which one is simultaneously arguing for their "best" nature.

Posted by El Cid | July 23, 2007 1:44 PM

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 1:42 PM:"And that's why academia leans liberal-- because their jobs depend of having correct data. Advancement in a conserative think tank depends on your ability to create good marketing and get coverage in the popular press."

I'll give you any money you like that those parts of any University which rely on correct data, Engineering Departments for instance, are more Right wing than those that do not, History for instance. Academia does not depend on having correct data, it relies on having the same data as everyone else. As can be seen, for instance, in the apologies for the USSR in the 1970s and for the Cultural Revolution. Everything they said was more or less wrong, but everyone else was saying it too so it passed peer review.

Think tanks on the other hand get picked over by bloggers and your political enemies. Nothing like the friendliness of peer review.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 1:42 PM:"Earlier in this very thread, however, you claimed that obviously studies weren't in general flawed from conservatives because otherwise the tide wouldn't be running conservative. Now you merely say that their studies and ideas are flawed, but merely that their arguments are "the best." So which is it?"

Some studies probably are flawed. But they are still convincing people despite the effort put into discrediting them. Therefore they must be better than any alternatives. It is not that people like MY is ignoring liberal alternatives. So often there just are none.

Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 1:48 PM

Think tanks on the other hand get picked over by bloggers and your political enemies.

Whose critiques have nothing to do with whether those think tank publications get any more or less money or acclaim. Studies from prominent right wing think tanks are universally regarded as BS by anyone who actually knows what they're talking about... but the audience for these studies is not the experts. The audience is journalists and casual partisans. And in that sense, the data doesn't matter and being picked over by your political opponents don't matter. But you already knew that, didn't you, and you were just grasping for a counterargument to what we pointed out-- right-wing think tank studies are not based in reality.

You point blank admitted that "conservative intellectuals" were nothing of the sort and simply said they were poopular because of a zeitgeist. When we basically agreed with you, you then had to retreat to, "oh, well, yeah, they're also correct, even though I earlier said they weren't."

But they are still convincing people

Much like advertising. And isn't that the problem? We're supposed to concentrate on having good data, not on being marketers. But the right-wing think tanks realized that simply putting out press releases and being available to answer journalists' questions is better than having good data, because there are no consequences to having bad data. Whereas in academia, bad data kills you and dries up your funding.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 2:05 PM

Packer: "Some soldiers will return from Iraq convinced that they’ve been stabbed in the back on college campuses and in the liberal media. "

Yes, of f*cking g*dd*mned course - right-wing wh*resons will be telling them so, 24/7.

I guess Packer doesn't want to burn his bridges back to the right.

Posted by Barry | July 23, 2007 4:30 PM

Matt~

There is a long history of intellectualism in the military, as I have pointed out in my most recent posting (shameless plug). The bigger problem is that said well-educated officers are frozen out of positions of influence. Lt. Col. Paul Yingling gives a blow-by-blow of the how and why in a recent article in Armed Force Journal that may have cost him his career. This might be a back-lash against the academy's treatment of soldiers during the Vietnam War, which was in some cases deplorable, or to General Maxwell Taylor's failure despite his massive education.

I'd also like to comment on the level of vitriol towards Packer in this comment space. The man was wrong about Iraq in the lead up to war, and he has admitted as such. As it stands, he is now one of the more articulate and influential critics of the present quagmire. We would all be better suited promoting his intellectual swing as evidence of the gross lies and incompetencies of the Bush administration rather than vilifying him for it.

Patrick

Posted by Patrick | July 23, 2007 4:42 PM

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 2:05 PM:"Studies from prominent right wing think tanks are universally regarded as BS by anyone who actually knows what they're talking about... but the audience for these studies is not the experts."

Which reflects badly on the experts. Time and time again I have seen "experts" proclaim there is nothing wrong with whatever Great Society-style program they are talking about that a little bit more money couldn't fix, and yet when something like Clinton's welfare reforms come along they show the experts were wrong. Even I expected a jump in the poverty rate - but look at the rapid decline of teenage single mothers.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 2:05 PM:"And in that sense, the data doesn't matter and being picked over by your political opponents don't matter."

Sorry you feel that way but of course there is a market place for ideas and I do not agree with your comments at all.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 2:05 PM:"You point blank admitted that "conservative intellectuals" were nothing of the sort and simply said they were poopular because of a zeitgeist."

Sorry but where and when did I make that first claim? Or even the second?

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 2:05 PM:"We're supposed to concentrate on having good data, not on being marketers. But the right-wing think tanks realized that simply putting out press releases and being available to answer journalists' questions is better than having good data, because there are no consequences to having bad data. Whereas in academia, bad data kills you and dries up your funding."

Well it has not hurt Ward Churchill yet. Those think tanks do a better job of that and perhaps you ought to follow what they do a little more closely. Nor is it true that the Right discovered it is more important to sell than craft a message. The Left has been doing that for generations with claims the Right wants to starve babies and force crack addicts into concentration camps.

There is good research and there is bad research. Neither is monopolized by one side in politics. There is political research on the Left and the Right - it is just that more of the Left comes from Academia and more of the Right from the private sector. These seem uncontroversial claims to me.

Posted by HeiGou | July 24, 2007 11:47 AM