The War of Ideas

Jon Chait takes the chance to revisit the subject of conservatives perpetually proclaiming themselves to be winning the war of ideas:

These days, of course, the Republican Party has been routed and conservatives are beset by panic and gloom. You'd think this would, at minimum, give us a small respite from boasts about the right's victory in the War of Ideas. But no. They're still at it. The new line, put forward by the likes of Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby and Hoover Institution fellow Peter Berkowitz, is that conservatives are more intellectually serious because they're having deep debates over first principles, while liberals enforce stultifying conformity. As Jacoby puts it, "[T]he right churns with serious disputes over policy and principle, while the left marches mostly in lockstep." Berkowitz bemoans "the absence on the left of debate or dissent," which he attributes in part to liberals being "blinded by rage at the Bush administration." [...]

Third, it's certainly true that conservatives today are more divided than liberals about whether the Iraq war has been a fiasco. I simply disagree about what this fact tells us. Conservatives see their split on this proposition as evidence of intellectual acuity. I see it as evidence that roughly half of all conservatives are barking mad. On last year's National Review cruise, as Johann Hari reported in these pages, Norman Podhoretz called the war "an amazing success" and insisted that "it couldn't have gone better." To believe this, you have to believe it was worth 3,500 American military deaths, many times that number wounded, tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and hundreds of billions of dollars to convert a brutal secular Sunni thugocracy into what may be, in a best-case scenario, a somewhat less brutal, but far more theocratic, Shia thugocracy. Maybe it's the blind Bush hatred talking, but I'm not terribly embarrassed that liberals are united in rejecting this notion.

See also Chait's longer essay on the subject of ideas which combines this sort of quality mockery with more of a positive case about how the political system actually operates.

Comments

Since I refuse to subsidize Martin Peretz by subscribing, I can't view the longer essay. You might have warned me.

Posted by beckya57 | July 23, 2007 1:53 PM

Liberals may not agree on the complete list of things they want to see happen, but they are quite sure what they don't want to occur: wars that don't make sense and executive power outrages at home.

I do like to see the 'barking mad conservatives' label though. The visual/audial is spot on - one can immediately see Bill O'Reilly and Larry Kudlow running from one to the other of their padded cells howling.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | July 23, 2007 1:53 PM

This post would have been better titled "The War of War of Ideas Ideas".

Also, the linked article doesn't require a subscription, just free registration at the website. Beckya57 is not just expressing knee-jerk smug attitude, but is doing it in a stupid and mistaken way.

Posted by Cryptic Ned | July 23, 2007 2:05 PM

When I hear conservatives talking about the intellectual depth of their movement, all I can think is "trying too hard."

Literary studies tried very hard to connect some 'weighty' ideas to progressive politics in the 80's. Fat lot of good it did us.

Posted by Justin | July 23, 2007 2:06 PM

not just expressing knee-jerk smug attitude, but is doing it in a stupid and mistaken way.

"This Article is Available to Subscribers Only"

Posted by UN Plaza | July 23, 2007 2:15 PM

Liberal policies are concerned with two things-- do the policies work and do they make people better off/happier?

Since conservative policies are the sort that are going to hurt a lot of people, they have to spend a lot of time making philosophical/moral justifications for why this is an acceptable thing to do.

So while liberals say, "the iraq war isn't working, let's stop," the conservatives are saying, "whether it's working or not is not the point. we need to continue the war because it serves a tenet of conservative first principles, and thus we have to follow them," and the conservatives debate this issue.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 2:18 PM

Yes- the idea that conservatism is intellectually vibrant at this point is pretty ridiculous. But isn't it true that liberalism today (or at any other period after LBJ) amounts to greater or lesser support for expanding the New Dea/Great Society?

I mean, liberals argue about which is the better plan to expand health care coverage, but the argument that the "government should be doing things to alleviate economic problems for people who can't afford economic problems" is presupposed and has been since FDR.

And liberals might have a little disagreement over gay marriage v. civil unions, but the idea that "minority rights should be protected by the state from majority discrimination/disenfranchisement" is an assumption made before the debate begins.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with this- intellectual vibrancy isn't a good in itself- it has to be producing GOOD ideas, not just A LOT of different crappy ones (double Gitmo!). The point is, though, that the debates within liberal policy circles don't deviate from two pillars established long ago. And that means its not technically "intellectually vibrant", because everyone agrees on the basic idea of the social welfare state and rights protection...

Posted by P | July 23, 2007 2:22 PM

Yes- the idea that conservatism is intellectually vibrant at this point is pretty ridiculous.

Someone should probably define "intellectually vibrant." If it means "wears black and strokes chin thoughtfully," I see a fair number of Dems doing that.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 23, 2007 2:26 PM

I may be wrong, but didn't Chait originally support the invasion? Did he, like, overlook the fact that Bush was president? Have any idea that invasion implies occupation? Do any worst case scenario work at all? Listen to Wolfowitz testify about the cost of it and not wonder what it means that the administration was either lying or deeply delusional? Not think about other means of bringing pressure to bear on Saddam's regime? Wonder why it is that we were attacking the one state in the Middle East that had nothing to do with 9/11? Have any sense of the history of the Shiites and Sunni in Iraq, any sense of the history of Iraq at all, any sense of the culture of Iraq, any sense of where swindlers like Chalabi fit in the narrative?

Barking mad. Sounds pretty much like a description of the liberal hawk position on the war, circa 2002-2003. See TNR's support for the Valiant Lieberman presidential campaign for further details.

Posted by roger | July 23, 2007 2:47 PM

Does this mean we can refer to Chait as a Non-Barking Dog Conservative? How about a Cat Conservative (slips in on little feet) or a NeoNeoCon Conservative?

How many TNR conservatives does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 23, 2007 2:57 PM

Sure, the right has all kinds of ideas. It's just that they are really bad ideas . . .

Posted by rea | July 23, 2007 3:03 PM

Tyro:

"Liberal policies are concerned with two things-- do the policies work and do they make people better off/happier?"

Do you really think liberals are this pragmatic? Do you think liberals look at the abject failure of, say, the public school monopoly in a place like D.C., with 50% dropout rates despite spending $12k+ per student annually and say, "Maybe we should reconsider our rigid opposition to school choice, since our current policy isn't working or making people better off"?

Posted by Fred | July 23, 2007 3:06 PM

Amen, roger. Liberal hawks see the Iraq War as a loser now and have jumped ship. Many haven't learned the real lessons on the faults of militarism and American exceptionalism. They just don't want to poll at 25 percent.

Posted by ponte | July 23, 2007 3:16 PM

Generally, Fred, the liberal response has been to point out that "school choice" does not do a better job at improving these benchmarks. And, as a liberal, I support charter schools and some forms of school choice on the premise that, even though they do little to improve quantitative benchmarks, they seem to make people happier, keeping them in the city rather than forcing them to move in favor of better schools. The republican retort to liberal arguments against vouchers is always, "but we should support greater freedom to choose private schools and oppose teachers' unions on principle."

So, in short, I'm right and you're wrong.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 3:23 PM

Fred, actually, there is a broad range of "liberal" opinion regarding schools, but what "liberals" do say is that faith-based reverence for school choice in the absence of information that school choice produces meaningful results is ridiculous.

on the broader issue, once again, the absence of a higher regard for analsis than for propaganda is the key motivator for people like jeff jacoby.

Posted by howard | July 23, 2007 3:23 PM

The higher regard for analysis over propaganda is called "liberal bias," howard.

Posted by Tyro | July 23, 2007 3:25 PM

Choice quote from Chait:

Like communists, conservatives have a tendency to believe that every question can be answered by referencing theory.

I think this sums up my view of modern conservatism and its inherent problems better than anything. The comparison to communism is apropos. Conservatism is an ideology and conservatives are ideologues. Liberalism is a vast and varied landscape. There are certainly liberal ideologues out there, laboring in obscurity, demanding rigid support for this or that first principle. But mainstream liberalism long ago abandoned such an approach to its great benefit.

The ideologue does not need facts or data to support a position. The principles are clear. Government is bad. Therefore less government is better. The "market" is always the best solution to every problem, etc. (Whether conservative governments put such ideologies into practice is perhaps another matter.)

Modern liberalism is pragmatic in its approach. This makes it dull and this may be one of the reasons that the fatuous Washington press corps tends to lean right in its coverage. Fred and other conservatives might respond that liberals have a knee-jerk reaction in favor of government solutions. I think what such conservatives mistake is a knee-jerk reaction in favor of considering government solutions, along with other possibilities.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps Tyro's idea that the government should pursue policies that "work and [. . .] make people better off/happier" is, in fact, a first principle that conservatives deeply oppose.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 23, 2007 3:50 PM

Matt - it's a give-money-to-Preretz subscription-only article.

Please stop doing this; it's a breach of blog protocol twice over - first, linking to an unobtainable article, and second, giving attention to that rat-pack b*stard, Peretz.

Posted by Barry | July 23, 2007 4:19 PM

Rob Mac hits on a point that is intuitively understood but not underlined enough; modern American Conservatism has been deeply influenced by its intellectual confrontation with Communism and the influence has been a malign one. My reading of it is that before 1918 conservatism in America was an approach to problems that relied heavily on tradition and continuity, in short a burkean approach. But with the arrival of international communism, American conservatism mutated into a more ideological movement, to match what it saw as its absolute opponent. In that process it steadily became more doctrinaire, theoretical and absolute. These trends in American conservative thought accelerated with the onset of the Cold War.

It is interesting to note that there are many instances of conservative writers openly admiring the ruthlessness of their communist opponents, a ruthlesness they thought good to imitate. The reasoning then was not unlike Cheney's today towards islamic extremists; we must embrace the 'dark side' because our enemy does. So you have a political movement that applies ruthless tactics to a democratic political setting, which is a recipe for politcal disfunction. This is what we have in America today, a very radical conservative party, an essentially anti democratic movement that embraces the form of electoral politics but not the essence or its ethics.

Posted by Northern Observer | July 23, 2007 4:29 PM

To follow up on Northern Observer, it is also interesting that many actual communists transitioned into party-line conservatives, like David Horiwitz.

And those of you complaining about the "subscription-only" link, no exchange of money is necessary. They just want you to register and provide a valid email address. My guess is this is just a spam control mechanism. Ain't no big deal.

Posted by Rob Mac | July 23, 2007 4:42 PM

"So while liberals say, "the iraq war isn't working, let's stop," the conservatives are saying, "whether it's working or not is not the point. we need to continue the war because it serves a tenet of conservative first principles, and thus we have to follow them," and the conservatives debate this issue."

Wrong. Many say "it's an issue we can make electoral hay out of" and they did (see 2006 mid-terms).

Many conservatives saw the 2006 elections and are now reconsidering their views. And it's a pretty conservative view to believe that Iraqis can't handle democracy. After years of sanctions + Saddam, anybody would be in rough shape. Plus neighboring Turkey just had a free and fair election. It's amazing when many liberals think Iraqis don't deserve democracy and/or can't handle it. It's all about Bush-hate.

Posted by Peter K. | July 23, 2007 6:03 PM

I would guess liberals care as much about elections in Iraq as Peter K cares about democracy in Saudi Arabia - they'd like to see it, but they don't want to continue a bloody, genocidal war to make it happen. Inhuman, those liberals, nothing compared to the earthshaking humanity of the warmonger party. I do wonder though, Mr. K., when you want us to invade Saudi Arabia? How about Pakistan, is that on the schedule? Egypt? Just wondering.

On earth, most people think that, far from having given Iraq a democracy, Iraq has split into a fierce theocracy in Basra, an ineffectual kleptocracy behind the Green Zone, an American force that stands firmly for privatizing the oil fields, a couple of Kurdish war lords in the North, and various battling factions. Find the democracy there if you can.

Posted by roger | July 23, 2007 6:26 PM

It's amazing when many liberals think Iraqis don't deserve democracy and/or can't handle it.

Oooohhhh, not only am I a foe of democracy, I'm a racist too.

When you show me the Iraqi Ataturk, I'll show you the monkeys flying out of my ass.

Posted by daveNYC | July 23, 2007 7:34 PM

This talk of liberals being so pragmatic and level headed is hilarious. Partisan progressives are just as capable as neo-conservatives of putting the blinders on when it suits their ideological purposes/strategic electoral objectives.

not to excuse the zealotry of the neo-conservatives of course; naturally athouritarian personalities descend into fascism rather easily. But to all of the "pragmatic" liberals who think they were put on earth to solve other people's problems through force, your hubris is showing.

Posted by snare | July 23, 2007 8:47 PM

Polls show that a sizable number -- more than half in some states -- of Republican voters believe that the Iraq War is a mistake and we should pull out immediately.

However, virtually all Republican Presidential candidates, with ONE NOTABLE EXCEPTION, are adamantly pro-war.

You do have to be barking mad in order to think that groveling before a President with a 25% approval rating is going to win you an election.

Posted by Joe Schembrie | July 23, 2007 8:52 PM

"Conservatives see their split on this proposition as evidence of intellectual acuity. I see it as evidence that roughly half of all conservatives are barking mad. "

If this is what passes for quality commentary on the left, maybe they have a point.

Posted by JM Hanes | July 24, 2007 2:47 AM

You do have to be barking mad in order to think that groveling before a President with a 25% approval rating is going to win you an election.

Not at all Joe. They just realize that attacking the President in question would result in certain mob-like retaliation much like what happened to those Republicans who disagreed with him when he was Governor of Texas and were strongarmed back into line.

Posted by beergoggles | July 24, 2007 8:50 AM

Throw out some inconvenient truths and the ad hominems come flying fast and furious.

"I would guess liberals care as much about elections in Iraq as Peter K cares about democracy in Saudi Arabia - they'd like to see it, but they don't want to continue a bloody, genocidal war to make it happen. Inhuman, those liberals, nothing compared to the earthshaking humanity of the warmonger party. I do wonder though, Mr. K., when you want us to invade Saudi Arabia? How about Pakistan, is that on the schedule? Egypt? Just wondering."

Howbout you? Would you support those invasions? No, probably not considering you wanted to leave Saddam in power. Do you even know Saddam's record? Did Pakistan, Egypt, or the Saudis bad as they are ever annex another country and UN member or committ genocide? This seems rather elementary.

Saudi Arabia's ruling monarchy agreed with you roger. You and the Saudis are on the same side, they wish Saddam was still in power and could keep a lid on the majority Shia Iraqis and provide a bulwark against Shia Iran.

But now the Americans are talking with Iran, which must be like fingernails on the chalkboard both to the Saudis and the Israelis.

more roger nonsense:

"In earth, most people think that, far from having given Iraq a democracy, Iraq has split into a fierce theocracy in Basra, an ineffectual kleptocracy behind the Green Zone, an American force that stands firmly for privatizing the oil fields, a couple of Kurdish war lords in the North, and various battling factions. Find the democracy there if you can."

Like I said, over a decade of devastating sanction + Saddam have wrecked havoc on the Iraqis, a group you apparently have ZERO sympathy for.

Posted by Peter K. | July 24, 2007 10:00 AM

Peter K, nice of you not to answer a single question, since, obviously, the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Pakistanis are peoples you have ZERO sympathy for. And, hey, do some history and guess what you'll find out about Pakistan? The military that we are paying tribute to are heirs and sponsors of a rather nasty thing they did in Bangladesh. It was called genocide. It was worse than what happened to the Kurds by a long shot.

I could go on, but perhaps I am wrong to accuse you of selective moralism and a laughable ignorance of history. Perhaps you would so awaken to history, once you become aware of it, that you'd very morally want to invade many more areas, cause hundreds of thousands of more deaths, millions of more refugees, and otherwise show what a good guy you are. A responsible, loving warmonger willing to use the American army to spread mayhem, chaos and sufferening whereever your sentimental heart got that Bambi is dead feeling. The Good American.

One can only hope that you remain resolutely anti-Liberal while doing so.

Posted by roger | July 24, 2007 1:52 PM

"And, hey, do some history and guess what you'll find out about Pakistan? The military that we are paying tribute to are heirs and sponsors of a rather nasty thing they did in Bangladesh. It was called genocide. It was worse than what happened to the Kurds by a long shot.
I could go on, but perhaps I am wrong to accuse you of selective moralism and a laughable ignorance of history."

Yeah, they are heirs while Saddam actually DID IT. Slight difference.

Any response to that point? Didn't think so.

Plus Saddam was in violation of a stack of UN resolutions, unlike Pakistan.

I find your hostility to the Kurds strange. What did they do to derserve this? Perhaps you support the way Turkey treats them as well?

"Peter K, nice of you not to answer a single question, since, obviously, the Saudis, the Egyptians and the Pakistanis are peoples you have ZERO sympathy for."

Their elites? No, I don't have any sympathy for them. The Saudi elite, the Egyptian elite, the Pakistani military are in complete agreement with you, Roger. They wanted Saddam kept in place. They don't want to see democracy and elections in the Middle East. They tell the US, its either us or the Islamic fundamentalists. Well, Turkey which shares a sizeable border with Iraq, just had a free and fair election. It is seeking entry into the European Union, too.

The Saudi, Egyptian, and Pakistani elites were the root causes of 9-11, not Iraq. No doubt you hold them in higher esteem than the warmongering Bush administration, because, hey, they didn't invade anyone.

Posted by Peter K. | July 24, 2007 2:53 PM

"Yeah, they are heirs while Saddam actually DID IT. Slight difference.

Any response to that point? Didn't think so."

Wow. Are you writing this while talking to a fingerpuppet? You must really be winning the argument! Boy you showed him. No response to that, smarty pants! I can see how you win all the arguments.

But let's pretend that you are sane. Your insistence about support for Saddam is, uh, nutty. Do you remember a little thing that happened back in the nineties? Saddam invaded Kuwait. And who do you think was all about driving Saddam out of Kuwait? And in fact, in spite of Bush I era propaganda, Saudi ministers have gone on record saying they were down with overthrowing Saddam Hussein at that time.

The point here is pretty obvious, but let's go into it one more time: in 2002, the most important thing for the U.S. was to really defeat Al Qaeda by really taking their leadership down - including Osama bin Laden - and spending a lot of money on Afghanistan to make it work. However, there were changes that should have been made in Gulf policy. Aid should have significantly increased to Northern Iraq and the double sanction system should have been broken. Detente with the Iranians would have had multiple effects on the already weakening hold of Saddam on Iraq's system. For one thing, it would not have pleased the Ba'athist military to see Iran get the trade with the U.S., and for another thing, investing in Iranian oil infrastructure would have denied Saddam an economic weapon, his oil.

It would, probably, have taken years for Saddam to fall. But he would have. Without the half a million Iraqi dead, the 2 million refugees, and the destruction of the country. Pretty simple, eh? Even your finger puppet can understand it - although I am sure you can argue him down!

I am hoping that liberal hawkery is defeated for a generation. Arguments such as the ones you present show it is at pretty low ebb at the moment.

Posted by roger | July 24, 2007 4:54 PM