« The Petraeus Coup | Main | Front of the Head »

Guilty By Associates

06 Sep 2007 10:46 am

One of the weirdest things I've read in a while is this Norm Ornstein "diarist" column in TNR. He starts out by observing that, recently, he sees his name pop up now and again on lists of deranged neoconservatives who are destroying the country. He points out that this is wrong -- anyone who knows his work knows that he's a very smart guy of seemingly moderate views, deeply committed to procedural integrity and good government. That said, it's obvious why people might make this mistake: He works for the American Enterprise Institute, an outfit that's full of lunatics.

Where it gets weird, is that instead of complaining that guys like Kevin Hassett and John Lott and Michael Rubin and Michael Ledeen are starting to ruin his good name he complains that liberal bloggers don't realize how awesomely moderate AEI is and suggests at one point that people who confuse his views with those of his colleagues are anti-semites.

To all this I say, basically, what Mark Schmitt said:

So as an abstract principle, I agree with Steve that Norm Ornstein and others of independence and integrity at AEI (some would name welfare scholar Doug Besharov as another example) bear no responsibility for the views or activities of their neoconservative or fraudulent (e.g., Lott) colleagues, any more than I am responsible for Steve’s views (such as his curious gullibility to Hillary Clinton fundraising letters), or someone on the Harvard faculty is responsible for, say, Harvey Mansfield’s views. However, Harvard is an institution with a purpose – education and scholarship – and AEI is an institution with a different purpose. At one time, AEI’s purpose was honest analysis of policy from a broadly heterodox conservative perspective; over time its purpose has been moving in the direction of reinforcing the interests of its donors and of the conservative power structure, right or wrong. At some point, the sheer number of Lotts and Hassetts, the more explicitly political purpose, and the the large-scale deception perpetrated by Ledeen and the AEI neo-cons becomes the essence and purpose of the organization.

I mean, there's an obvious solution to Ornstein's problem: Quit AEI, say he's quitting AEI because he doesn't want to be associated with these charlatans, and get a job elsewhere. He's one of the best-respected people in Washington, I'm sure he could get a new one. Having good people at bad institutions just makes it harder to marginalize the lunatics in the way they ought to be marginalized.

Share This

Comments (29)

For example, if you worked at an opinion place that hires a guy who seriously believes blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, another guy who believes that abortion=eugenics, and still another who believes that peaceful protesters should be beaten down would resign! Its a matter of principle!

Ornstein should ask himself whether he would ever be offered a position at AEI-as-it-is-now,... and if not, why not? And in the (unlikely) case that he was an offered a position at AEI-as-it-is-now, would he accept it?

Once again, a conservative is shocked -- *shocked*, I tell you! -- to find out that when you lie down with fleas, you get up with fleas.

Meanwhile, liberals are seen by "everyone" in Washington as collectively responsible for Some Guy With A Sign and Some Professor From Some Random College Who Said Something Impolite.

Tough shit, Norm.

I'm going to sue Mark Schmitt.

I really hate to see him bring up the anti-semitism argument in this context. It's such bullshit. He gets crap because he works at AEI, not because his name is Ornstein.

You see, Ornstein only wants to change the level of criticism aimed at the AEI. It's actual present-day policies and direction are hunky-dory.

It should be noted that there's a model for Matt's advice to Ornstein.

Glenn Loury quit his association with AEI because they published Dinesh D'Souza's End of Racism.

Loury made clear that it was the intellectual weakness of D'Souza's work that offended him as much as its political content.

If Ledeen and the others at AEI started pushing for war against, say, the UK, and were vociferous about it and this was regarded as a position of the AEI's foreign policy staff, then I think Norm Ornstein would leave the place, saying that such positions were beyond the pale.

The problem is that Norm Ornstein doesn't consider AEI's bizarre foreign policy positions on the middle east to be (sufficiently) beyond the pale to warrant him leaving.

I actually find Norm Ornstein to be a pretty naive commentator on American politics. I guess I think that about all of these good government types who uphold a consensus and get paid well to do that.

I don't understand how any scholar of integrity would work at a place that has Laurie Mylroie even as an adjunct fellow . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Mylroie

In my opinion, AEI has not only produced a mass of intentionally false information but has done so in order to pull the US into an unnecessary war which has killed over 3500 of our soldiers -- and has shown absolutely no remorse about the blood on its hands.

In my opinion, the place should be burnt to the ground, salt thrown on the ashes, and the personnel condemned to work the rest of their lives in the checkout line at supermarkets.

In my opinion, the place should be burnt to the ground, salt thrown on the ashes, and the personnel condemned to work the rest of their lives in the checkout line at supermarkets.

That's a little harsh, isn't it?

The janitors and clerical staff don't deserve such treatment . . .

Of course, when your CV indicates that the venue for your recent scholarly output is the New York Sun, National Review Online, and the Jerusalem Post, that is the equivalent of working in the checkout line at the supermarket. See http://www.benadorassociates.com/mylroie.php

Multiple sources, by the way, say that Laurie Mylroie "served as advisor on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign ".

Anybody asked Hillary about that? Is Hillary saving Laurie a spot?

To get a flavor of the ghost stories Laurie Mylroie was telling the American people a month after Sept 11, look at this transcript of a PBS interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/mylroie.html

PS If you really want to make some of the head Neocons look like stupid horse's asses, just point to their past glowing praises of Laurie Mylroie's "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War Against America".

See http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.bergen.html

Ornstein should ask himself whether he would ever be offered a position at AEI-as-it-is-now,... and if not, why not? And in the (unlikely) case that he was an offered a position at AEI-as-it-is-now, would he accept it?

He's all the more valuable to AEI because he lends a patina of respectability to the hacks there. Presumably they'd pay more to keep him than someone else would bid to lure him away. But this just reflects that by staying there he is lending his name and reputation to hackery.

In nerd-speak, the lawful good bandit thinks it's unfair that his neutral evil fellow bandits are ruining his honor and reputation.

By the way, speaking of John Lott, you probably haven't heard that he recently won a stunning moral victory over the New York Times Freakonomics blogger Steven D. Levitt for smearing Lott in an underhanded manner, because the NYT never considers bad news about their economic star fit to print.

I hadn't been paying much attention to economist John R. Lott's defamation lawsuit against Freakonomist Steven D. Levitt: I don't like lawsuits. But now I've finally read the two 2005 emails at the heart of one count of Lott's suit. I'm sure I don't understand all the details of the situation, but they seem pretty eye-opening.

They were between an economist named John McCall and Levitt, and they touch upon the October 2001 issue of the U. of Chicago's Journal of Law & Economics, which contained a sizable number of articles based on papers given at a conference Lott set up at AEI in 1999 on gun control and crime. (Levitt and Lott, of course, famously disagree about the causes of changes in the crime rate.)


From: John McCall
Subject: Freakonomics note yesterday to you
To: steve levitt

Hi Steve,

I went to the website you recommended -- have not gone after the round table proceedings yet -- I also found the following citations -- have not read any of them yet, but it appears they all replicate Lott's research. The Journal of Law and Economics is not chopped liver.

Have you read through any of these?

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/postsbyday/RTCResearch.html

Cordially,

John McCall PhD


Levitt replied:


From: slevitt@[deleted for anti-spam purposes]
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 9:18:28 PM US/Central
To: John McCall
Subject: Re: Freakonomics note yesterday to you

John,

It was not a peer refereed edition of the Journal. For $15,000 he was able to buy an issue and put in only work that supported him. My best friend was the editor and was outraged the press let Lott do this.

Steve


The Chronicle of Higher Education now writes:


"Mr. Levitt's letter of clarification, which was included in Friday's filing, offers a doozy of a concession. In his 2005 message, Mr. Levitt told Mr. McCall that "it was not a peer-refereed edition of the Journal." But in his letter of clarification, Mr. Levitt writes: "I acknowledge that the articles that were published in the conference issue were reviewed by referees engaged by the editors of the JLE. In fact, I was one of the peer referees."

"Mr. Levitt's letter also concedes that he had been invited to present a paper at the 1999 conference. (He did not do so.) That admission undermines his e-mail message's statement that Mr. Lott had "put in only work that supported him."

"In his letter of clarification to Mr. McCall, Mr. Levitt said, "At the time of my May 2005 e-mails to you, I knew that scholars with varying opinions had been invited to participate in the 1999 conference and had been informed that their papers would be considered for publication in what became the conference issue."

Multiple sources, by the way, say that Laurie Mylroie "served as advisor on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign.

I don't have the book in front of me now, but I believe Hubris explains that Mylroie was merely invited by someone to sit in on a briefing or two. The Clinton people probably didn't even know who she was. She wasn't an advisor, and it's silly to think Hillary would hire her.

Re Ronnie Pudding's "I believe Hubris explains that Mylroie was merely invited by someone to sit in on a briefing or two. The Clinton people probably didn't even know who she was"
--------------
Hmmm. That's NOT what Laurie Mylroie says -- in multiple venues.

a) See, for example, this January 2004 interview Laurie gave to FrontPageMagazine ( I know, I know --but you'll see in a moment ):

"MYLROIE:
The 9/11 attacks represent the greatest US intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor. That is not a controversial statement, but the nature of that intelligence failure certainly is, as it involves the question of who bears responsibility.

Bill Clinton and his top advisers are most culpable in my view, and I say that as someone who was Clinton's adviser on Iraq in the 1992 campaign. [NOTE!!]

People may forget, but Clinton was tougher than former president Bush on Saddam then, saying that Bush should have got rid of him during the 1991 war.

Clearly, I didn't begin as someone hostile to Clinton, but my strong critique, indeed utter dismay, developed as the Clinton administration refused to deal with the dangers posed by Iraq, including terrorism, as they became increasingly evident during the 1990's.

In fact, I experienced that first hand, because in 1993 and 1994 I had easy access to the people covering the Middle East, including Martin Indyk, Clinton's NSC advisor on the region, who the year before, had actually brought me out of academics to work for him in Washington. That is how I ended up as Clinton's adviser on Iraq." {NOTE!!]

---------------

Marti Indyk. Marti Indyk. Where have I heard that name before?

Gee, wasn't he the Director at Haim Saban's Middle East Policy think tank who joined with Kenneth Pollack in 2002 to tell us that Saddam needed to be taken out because Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction??

So Marti Indyk was the fairy godmother who pulled Laurie Mylroie out of the academic convent and made her into Bill Clinton's "advisor on Iraq".

ha ha ha ha
Small world, isn't it??

Note: Above FrontPageMag article is available at
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx?GUID={8219690F-E7E8-4DFA-AB89-FFAF80BA487D}

Norm Ornstein has done great work on Constitutional scholarship, most notably in recent years with America's huge continuity in government problem the Constitution sets up in a WMD age.

Rob makes some interesting OT assertions - I guess about AEI in general, not Ornstein:

For example, if you worked at an opinion place that hires a guy who seriously believes blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, another guy who believes that abortion=eugenics, and still another who believes that peaceful protesters should be beaten down would resign! Its a matter of principle! Posted by Rob

1. Blacks are genetically less intelligent as a group, as an average, than whites. That is solidly established, though it it racist to think that on an individual level that any white is smarter than any black. Clearly, not true by the bell curves. Same with Japanese and Malays, and so on. But you can confidently assert to any Japanese you meet that it is near-certain there is a Malay out there, maybe the next one they meet, smarter and more capable than he or she. Its just Bell Curves that exist for neary everything asserting that diverse humanity is no exception.

2. Abortion can be used as a eugenics tool. It has been used in America's past for that reason, and IS being used in China today for that purpose. To weed out genetic disease and some say, the progenation of people so stupid they are considered societal burdens. That of course does not make "abortion" evil in itself any more than a gun - it is what "target" the gun or vacuum aspirator is used on and why that truly matters..

3. People have different ideas of "peaceful protestors". I don't consider protestors that block abortion clinics, block major city intersections to deliberately put 100s of thousands of people in gridlock for an anti-war protest, or who shout down speakers at an event - "peaceful" at all, simply because they are not physically attacking someone. I believe any protestors using tactics to disrupt the lives of other citizens going about their business need to be "moved along", by force if necessary.

you probably haven't heard that he recently won a stunning moral victory

Unless you visited one of the many blogs you spammed with the exact-same comment. Also, fuck off and see if the AEI has a job for you.

Re "It's silly to think Hillary would hire her
[Laurie Mylroie]"
---------
Oh, I don't know. As I quoted in my above post, Laurie told FrontPageMag in 2004 that Marti Indyk was the person who brought Laurie into the First Clinton Administration to be Clinton's advisor on Iraq.

Marti Indyk works at the Center funded by Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban. Saban has already raised $1 Million for Hillary and bought the major Spanish language TV network Univision.

Plus there's this photo from the Saban Center:
http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/communing.php

(That Marti Indyk in the middle )

As I recall, Laurie Mylroie and Marti's little buddy Kenneth Pollack made a matched pair in 2002. Laurie was telling us how Saddam Hussein was likely helping Al Qaeda make most of the terrorist attacks on America (1993, Sept 11, Anthrax Senate attack ) and was building biological weapons while Kenneth was gasping for breath and telling us that Saddam was probably close to getting nukes.

So maybe Hillary will have Marti Indyk bring back the Laurie and Kenneth show on Sunday morning talk shows re "The Threatening Storm in IRAN"

I think Rob won the thread right off the bat:

For example, if you worked at an opinion place that hires a guy who seriously believes blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites, another guy who believes that abortion=eugenics, and still another who believes that peaceful protesters should be beaten down would resign! Its a matter of principle!
Rob hasn't gotten any recognition for his comment, partly because of the threadjack by the usual suspects (where were they in the Krugman thread, which could have used some variety in its invective?), but possibly also because Rob doesn't explicitly name or link to Sullivan, Douthat, and McMegan.

I don't think Yglesias should resign - heck, I love this blog, and anyone willing to keep Yglesias supplied with hoodies gets my thanks - but I do think the Atlantic's bloggers are too collegial and need to openly disagree with each other more often, even to disparage each other's beliefs when their own sharply diverge.

So how much is Ornstein making at AEI anyway? I suspect the answer to why he is there is contained in that information. That and being treated with a modicum of respect by Party members and thus being able to get invites to better dinner parties.


Why do they keep him around? Is there any value in pretending to be inclusive? I suppose the corporate sponsors need a fig leaf. Not that I think Inel is in love with Crazy Mike Leeden. However paying Crazy Mike pays dividends with The Party and that is what it's about.

I don't think Matt has a tux nor would he really fit into one. O'Hanlon is being fitted for one as we speak.

When neoconservatism began in the 1960s, it was dominated by domestic policy-oriented number-crunching social scientists. Today at AEI, Ornstein carries on that tradition, as does Charles Murray and Doug Besharov. But along the way, AEI went off the tracks into an Israel-centric obsession with foreign policy ... no data required!

Have no fear, Sailer: apparently Yglesias is part of a larger trend of young American Jews distancing themselves from Israel ("Study finds U.S. Jews distance selves from Israel").

Would you quit The Atlantic just because they employ Sullivan and McArdle, Matt?

How about if they hired S. Sailer?

(yes, this point already has been made.)

Re Steve Sailer's comment "When neoconservatism began in the 1960s, it was dominated by domestic policy-oriented number-crunching social scientists."
------------
Pat Buchanan hilariously described the Neocons as Trotskyite boat-people who rafted over to the GOP from the McGovern debacle.
He did note that they were familar with the inside of Think tanks but not Abrams tanks.

I note that Matt and his echo chamber here fail to quote the key part of Ornstein's statements about AEI:

I spent 13 years teaching full-time in university settings. Since then, I have regularly visited campuses. I can say flatly that the intellectual openness and lack of orthodoxy at AEI exceeds what I have seen on any college campus--and without faculty meetings. I have many pro-choice colleagues, along with a number of pro-life ones. There are many libertarians on issues like same-sex relationships. And, even though my writings have frequently ticked off conservative ideologues and business interests-- especially my deep involvement in campaign finance reform--I have never once been told, "You can't say that" or "You better be careful." I have been able to pursue my interests in a completely unfettered way. I know that this is hard for people to understand, especially given the widespread desire to believe that a tight-knit cabal that convenes in a mysterious think tank is driving Bush administration policy. And I know that this flies in the face of a widespread desire to characterize all conservatives as intellectually intransigent. But life in Washington, thank goodness, is more complicated than that. I have many colleagues with strong opinions who are willing to listen to the opinions of those who disagree with them. And that fact gives me a sliver of hope. With many urgent issues, from global warming to subprime mortgage loans to health policy to pensions, there is plenty of sensible middle ground.

Meanwhile, I see that Don Williams has once again brought a conversation around to his favorite topic: the Evil Joooos.

David, just on the matter of the Iraq war alone, Norm is clearly lying. Unless he's counting AEI people who keep very, very quiet about the war, due to not supporting the official AEI party line of 'Kill!!!!!!'. If so, then he's still a liar, because that'd mean that there's a very strong party orthodoxy.


Comments closed September 20, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.