Charles Murray finally does something leading conservative intellectuals deem beyond the pale: Say something nice about Barack Obama.
« Meet The New Boss | Main | From the Things We Can't Afford File »
At Last!
21 Mar 2008 10:30 pm
Comments (42)
He'll be drummed out. They will take a vote and tell him he can't be a conservative anymore for being tempted by the wingers new anti christ.
In this environment, helped by the over hype of the cable news pounding, being to the right and saying anything nice about Obama can get you hurt.
Even on the left it's shaky. Some on our side are even more vitriolic then the right.
I don't think I have ever had anything good to say about Charles Murray's work. But this column is heartfelt, and clearly not destined to make him friends where he lives. I actually have some admiration, not so much for his believing it, or thinking it, but writing it, making it public. Good for him.
Acropolis Review, Charles Murray and Drew Westen summarize some of the important points:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/video-barack-obamas-philadelphian-unity.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-meanings-of-obamas-s_b_92381.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjI3MWMyOGFkNmQ2MGFjNzRhYzYwMGVhZWJhMjcyOGM=
What a Pity [Ramesh Ponnuru]
that Charles Murray's interpretive charity toward Obama has been achieved at the cost of uncharity toward his critics.
meow.
this from the man who wrote Party of Death?
Acropolis Review, Charles Murray and Drew Westen summarize some of the important points:
http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/video-barack-obamas-philadelphian-unity.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-westen/the-meanings-of-obamas-s_b_92381.html
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjI3MWMyOGFkNmQ2MGFjNzRhYzYwMGVhZWJhMjcyOGM=
Bah, this what I meant . . .
What a Pity [Ramesh Ponnuru]that Charles Murray's interpretive charity toward Obama has been achieved at the cost of uncharity toward his critics.
meow.
this from the man who wrote Party of Death?
Good for Charles Murray.
National Review Online posts have been filled with pettiness, outright hatred and animosity toward Obama 24/7 for over a week now.......
Kudos to Murray
the bad faith over there really is something to behold - it's so thick, you wonder how they don't suffocate in it.
"conservative intellectuals "
Good one.
Doesn't he know he's supposed to be denouncing Obama as a racist?
Murray complains that the Cornerites reflexively throw stones instead of listening; Ponnuru proves it.
Speaking or writing about difficult race problems is different from speaking or writing about any other public policy issue...People project...their own experiences, anxieties, angers; all the emotions that go into thinking about race...You can rewrite it until you think there is absolutely no way that a fair-minded person can fail to understand what you said. And they will not only fail to understand it, they will accuse you of saying exactly the opposite of what you said.
Murray is dead wrong to say that this only applies to race issues. It's clear from much of the rhetoric on both sides, and especially in the msm, that this problem of projection pervades our public discourse on every important subject including the war, the economy, public safety and politics itself.
So now we should believe Murray when it comes to questions of race? Andy must have called him up and reminded Murray how proud he was to have published "Race and IQ" and how Murray knows better than anyone the perils of starting a 'frank discussion' on race. Then they both agreed that Obama was a member of the cognitive elite. Andy posited that it was because Obama was raised in a white household while Murray countered that it was most likely the result of his caucasian genes. I am sure it was a delightful and insightful conversation.
This is a thoroughly unsettling blog post---not in the sense of being disturbing, but in that it un-settles, as in causes one to re-examine the truisms in which one has been settled. Murray in agreement with Obama on race? What the fuck? It makes your head spin. You have to re-evaluate his body of work---not necessarily to look for points of agreement, or to excuse its numerous failures, but to approach it with a different set of inferences. Outside of the black-and-white comfort zone (no pun intended). Un-settled. In terms of legitimate discourse instead of mudslinging.
It is unsettling to have to raise my opinion of Charles Murray even by a notch, but having to raise it several notches is making my quite dizzy. I don't really know how to process this.
guyminuslife: I think this is part of a trend where the old divisions between left and right, liberal and conservative are becoming more and more meaningless. Traditionally a liberal, I find many conservatives making a great deal of sense on many things. Increasingly I find the pols in or near power throw up a huge ideological smoke screen but then do largely the same things, while the thinking conservatives on the margins are providing the insights.
I think Obama is the first mainstream politician to have understood this and realised how counter-productive and wasteful this mindless tribalism is. We live in interesting times.
Charles Murray's piece showed a great deal of insight. Cog is right that the projecting pervades all communication, and it was always thus.
There seems to be a fissure among conservatives this year. A small, but increasingly public, set of conservatives are tiring of the "win at all costs" Bush-style conservatism and going back to their roots.
I admired Murray's piece because he ends it by saying he won't vote for Obama on policy grounds. I don't agree with him, but it's a hopeful sign for the country if conservatism becomes a belief system again and stops being a cheerleading camp (my apologies to cheerleaders).
The 24/7 Fox News negative spin cycle and the lockstep 'follow the leader' habit of today's conservatives is dangerous to liberals, conservatism and the country at large.
Maybe they need to lose badly to regain their bearings. Let's help 'em out this year.
When do leading conservative intellectual Steve Sailer and his hood show up to infest the discussion?
Murray sees that chance to retrospectively label the Bell Curve as honest discussion -- and wow! he takes it! It's certainly the danger of Obama's speech and his feel-good unity talk in general. It's the worst thing about the Obama train; you end up pretending that people like Murray are worth talking to.
When do leading conservative intellectual Steve Sailer and his hood show up to infest the discussion?
Posted by Fuck VDare
You say that like you don't want it, but here you are, rubbing the doo-doo lamp.
And because there is always an equal and opposite reaction. Jerome Armstrong at myDD is in full agreement with Victor Davis Hanson.
David,
People like Murray are worth talking to.
The Bell Curve was a perfect example of overinterpreting the data, but it was not, in its intent, racist. That is to say, Murray does not conceive of himself as racist, nor does he hold an animus against people of color. He believes that he simply followed the data.
From the liberal standpoint, this leads him into pretty reprehensible territory (average asian intelligence > average white intelligence > average black intelligence). But it also means that he is open to persuasion. As by Obama's speech.
You may contend that anyone who supports Murray's ideas is not someone you would accept as a voter for your agenda. And I would reply that any politician who limits his support to the just will have to wait a very long time to be elected.
Although it may fit into libertarian self-conceptions to consider Charles Murray some notable researcher meriting dialogue as being more open to ideas than liberals, I fail to see a convincing case yet made that Charles Murray, rather than some generic or hypothetical academic doing actual research, had anything at all of value to contribute to discussions of race in the U.S.
Presumably Murray would explain Obama's superior intelligence as simply meaning he is way out in the wings of the bell curve.
El Cid,
That's a fair point. And I can't offer a particular defense of Murray in terms of citing his response to a particular development. What I can say is that among population geneticists, some of whom are my friends, and most of whom are not primarily involved in human intelligence, the consensus is that Murray is fair-minded. It's hearsay, really, but these are his colleagues.
Also, I'm in no position to suggest that liberals aren't open-minded, nor did I imply such a thing in my post. And I certainly didn't mean to say that conservatives, of all people, are somehow more open minded than liberals. (I'm a libertarian, after all, no one agrees with me, which is clear proof that you're all pretty dim. Or, perhaps, that I am.)
Wow, that's an ugly second sentence. Rewrite!
And I can't cite Murray's response to any particular development in his defense.
heedless: Fair enough. And I use the term 'libertarian' in its most typical usage in the U.S., those who seek generally less government and more reliance on private property based economics. I'm a libertarian of a different sort.
El Cid,
Hah! Now if only we could find some people to fill in the (vast) space between your libertarianism and mine...
I've generally found Charles Murray to be considerably less awful than he's made out to be. I'm still not really convinced on his Bell Curve arguments, but I am certainly willing to acknowledge that most of the criticism of the Bell Curve was mindnumbingly stupid. The vast majority of critics rejected it, not because they read it and found some serious point of objection, but because they objected to its conclusions and couldn't be bothered to open the book's cover before writing a scathing review.
It is all too common to read something from a conservative commentator that takes my breath away, in a bad way. I follow the link to the site, like turning my head to look at a traffic accident, and find, just as I do when I look at the accident, that I never should have looked. Some things are just too ugly to contemplate.
This time my breath was taken away in a good way. Murray writes: "Of course you can go after him in all the ways that people have gone after him—if what you want to do is go after him. But suppose you approach Obama’s text under the twin assumptions that (a) he is trying to communicate with you, and, (b) your obligation is to make a good-faith effort to understand his meaning." These two sentences refute the entire tactical arsenal of the conservative movement - not conservatism in general, but the conservative movement.
The movement is dedicated to preventing understanding. Thus, it always attacks, usually by wilfully mistating the liberal position, sometimes by just making stuff up, but never, ever, by making "a good-faith effort to understand." Thus, the movement responds to Obama's offer of an honest conversation on race, not by honestly talking about race, but by dishonestly mischaracterizing what he said. Rather than discuss the objective truth in Obama's speech - that however understandable the source of Rev. Wright's anger is, it is un-American, immoral and counter-productive - the commentators say "see, he's agreeing with Wright's diatribes!" And of course, when Obama turns the focus to those who stoke white resentment of blacks, the commentators get even more apoplectic: "See, he hates whitey - he's blaming everything on us!"
Though I am not a conservative, I believe that conservatism can survive in a world where people discuss complicated issues in good faith, with a constant eye on objective reality - recognizing the truth in Obama's speech and trying to carry the conversation forward on that basis does not lead automatically to support for affirmative action or stronger enforcement of voting rights laws or any other "liberal" position on civil rights (as Murray's conclusion makes clear). But, as noted, the conservative movement can't survive, because its ulitmate goal isn't to find the truth, no matter where it leads, but to crush liberalism by any means necessary. To recognize that Obama has a point (a fairly obvious point, easily grasped by Murray and Huckabee, among others) would be too much validation. Far better to ignore what he actually said and attack him on the basis of things he never said. Far better to keep the conversation in a place where the truth is an irrelevant distraction than to move to a place where truth is paramount.
Which makes Ramesh's response perfect. There's no truth there - he doesn't even try to engage the truth - instead he seeks to shut down the conversation with "shame on you for attacking your friends", when of course, Murray was doing no such thing.
The reason most academic social scientists, including those who argue for a link between race & IQ, dismissed Murray's work was that it was simply empty as far as social science -- unreliable, badly done, and generally useless except as a tool around which to hold discussions.
El Cid, Can you name one academic social scientist who argues for a link between race & IQ who dismissed Murray's work? Just curious.
"Traditionally a liberal, I find many conservatives making a great deal of sense on many things."
You and David Mamet. See his Village Voice essay, "Why I am no longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'".
El Cid,
The general facts and conclusions of The Bell Curve on race and IQ were well-established in the scientific community -- so much so, that 52 leading experts on intelligence felt the need to say as much in this statement published in the WSJ: "Mainstream Science on Intelligence". Take a moment to read it.
Hey, Fred -- what does that statement by 52 leading experts say about the specific contribution made by Charles Murray's The Bell Curve?
Does it seem like it says nothing? Maybe that's because that is exactly what it says about whether or not Murray's pop-book was in any way an actual research contribution.
And that's because it wasn't.
But you don't care, because to you, quoting 52 leading experts suggesting that there may very well be connections between race and intelligence sounds to you just like an endorsement of the value of Murray's, er, "work".
Maybe Walking with Dinosaurs is a real research tool used by paleontologists! Maybe Gone With The Wind is a primary resource used by social scholars of the Civil War era!
Maybe! But you don't care, because you conflate the two because you want to!
"El Cid, Can you name one academic social scientist who argues for a link between race & IQ who dismissed Murray's work? Just curious."
When are you going to answer otherscott's question, El Cid?
El Cid,
What specific conclusions made in The Bell Curve do you disagree with? Which, if any, of the 25 statements made by those 52 experts do you disagree with? Let's see if you actually have a point of factual disagreement.
Which social scientist who argued for a link between race & IQ actually relied upon Murray's work? Just curious.
If you liberals liked Charles Murray's comments on Obama's speech, you may also appreciate Peggy Noonan's -- at least the first part of her column ("A Thinking Man’s Speech"), where she praises the intelligence of the speech. Sample excerpt:
The primary rhetorical virtue of the speech can be found in two words, endemic and Faulkner. Endemic is the kind of word political consultants don’t let politicians use because 72% of Americans don’t understand it. This lowest-common-denominator thinking, based on dizzy polling, has long degraded American discourse. When Obama said Mr. Wright wrongly encouraged “a view that sees white racism as endemic,” everyone understood. Because they’re not, actually, stupid. As for Faulkner—well, this was an American politician quoting William Faulkner: “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” This is a thought, an interesting one, which means most current politicians would never share it.
The speech assumed the audience was intelligent. This was a compliment, and I suspect was received as a gift. It also assumed many in the audience were educated. I was grateful for this, as the educated are not much addressed in American politics.
Here I point out an aspect of the speech that may have a beneficial impact on current rhetoric. It is assumed now that a candidate must say a silly, boring line—“And families in Michigan matter!” or “What I stand for is affordable quality health care!”—and the audience will clap. The line and the applause make, together, the eight-second soundbite that will be used tonight on the news, and seen by the people. This has been standard politico-journalistic procedure for 20 years.
Mr. Obama subverted this in his speech. He didn’t have applause lines. He didn’t give you eight seconds of a line followed by clapping. He spoke in full and longish paragraphs that didn’t summon applause. This left TV producers having to use longer-than-usual soundbites in order to capture his meaning. And so the cuts of the speech you heard on the news were more substantial and interesting than usual, which made the coverage of the speech better. People who didn’t hear it but only saw parts on the news got a real sense of what he’d said.
If Hillary or John McCain said something interesting, they’d get more than an eight-second cut too. But it works only if you don’t write an applause-line speech. It works only if you write a thinking speech.
In the second part of her column, Noonan notes the juxtaposition between the Obamas' experience in American and Barack Obama's repetition of the Democratic meme that life is essentially an unremitting calamity for most Americans:
Here’s what didn’t work. Near the end of the speech, Mr. Obama painted an America that didn’t summon thoughts of Faulkner but of William Blake. The bankruptcies, the dark satanic mills, the job loss and corporate corruptions. There is of course some truth in his portrait, but why do appeals to the Democratic base have to be so unrelievedly, so unrealistically, bleak?
This connected in my mind to the persistent feeling one has—the fear one has, actually—that the Obamas, he and she, may not actually know all that much about America. They are bright, accomplished, decent, they know all about the yuppie experience, the buppie experience, Ivy League ways, networking. But they bring along with all this—perhaps defensively, to keep their ideological views from being refuted by the evidence of their own lives, or so as not to be embarrassed about how nice fame, success, and power are—habitual reversions to how tough it is to be in America, and to be black in America, and how everyone since the Reagan days has been dying of nothing to eat, and of exploding untreated diseases. America is always coming to them on crutches.
But most people didn’t experience the past 25 years that way. Because it wasn’t that way. Do the Obamas know it?
Sorry, I messed up the HTML on the link to Noonan's column. Here's the link: "A Thinking Man's Speech".
Give it up Fred. No one here wants to read something from one of Reagan's former speech writers.
Comments closed April 04, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's both deeply amusing and convincing for Murray -- of all people -- to make the point that it's really hard to talk about race without being misread.
File this with Charles Wallace's attack on "Fox & Friends" earlier today. There are still a few people on the right who realize how extremely petty it is to take pot-shots at someone who takes the kind of risk Barack took this week.
Posted by Ted | March 21, 2008 10:42 PM