The Paralysis Strategy

Fred Kaplan remarks on the paradoxical logic of Iraq: "Their unwavering stance amounted to this: Further pullouts might trigger defeat; the costs of defeat are too horrible to ponder; therefore, we shouldn't ponder further pullouts."

One way of looking at this is to say that it doesn't make any sense. Another way of looking at it is to say that so many people hold to this view that it must make sense from some perspective. Taking that latter approach, I think you need to postulate a person who doesn't care at all about the interests of Americans, Iraqis, or anyone else but does care a great deal about his reputation, a reputation that's been tarnished by years-worth of advocacy for the war in Iraq. This person's basic insight would be that it's unlikely that Iraq will stay in a state of chaos forever. If we leave Iraq, then some stuff will happen in Iraq, then eventually Iraq will become stable and the reputation of the war supporters will be permanently stained.

By contrast, if we just commit to hanging around in Iraq indefinitely, then the odds are that sooner or later stability will emerge in Iraq. At this point, the war supporter can claim vindication of his views and begin a campaign to celebrate the heroic steadfastness of himself and his fellows in the face of the liars, smears, and cowardice of the anti-war faction. That's not Petraeus or Crocker, who basically are just in a position right now where their job is to carry water and help Bush run out the clock, but I do think it's a decent model of the incentives (I'm not a mind-reader, I don't know what lurks in these people's hearts) facing a John McCain or a Mike O'Hanlon or a Fred Hiatt at this point.

Comments

I find the age old dilemma posed of "Holding a wolf by its ears" to be so apt here. You shouldn't have grabbed it to begin with and now you're well and truly screwed.

Posted by steve duncan | April 10, 2008 12:25 PM

The other part of it is that the war supporter knows that eventually some other person will have to come in and take responsibility for extracting forces from the hopeless situation. Then the war supporter can blame that other person for the defeat, rather than him/herself.

This sort of mental gambit works best if you are stupid and/or a sociopath. Since we have plenty of both of those, mindlessly remaining steadfast despite the massive price being paid (by others) is a popular option.

Posted by jimBOB | April 10, 2008 12:25 PM

I agree but just think the american public won't buy it no matter how long we stay. The neocons will pat themselves on the back endlessly as they continue to lose election after election.

Posted by judson | April 10, 2008 12:26 PM

If we leave Iraq, then some stuff will happen in Iraq, then eventually Iraq will become stable and the reputation of the war supporters will be permanently stained.

Nah, the only way their reputations will suffer among those whose opinions matter to them will be if they ever change their mind that the war/surge is working. Inevitably we will change course and pull out, at which point something bad will happen somewhere in Iraq and they can say "ahah, we were right, if only we did not surrender" that these consequences would not have occurred, regardless of how they compare to the atrocities that the war and occupation have already created.

Whereas, if they acknowledge the failure of current policy then they admit to being a dumbass all this time.

Posted by Tim | April 10, 2008 12:27 PM

This gives way too much credit to the possibility that these folks are being rational. I think it's much more likely that they are deep, deep in denial.

Posted by vorkosigan1 | April 10, 2008 12:29 PM

Well, the basic logic depends on essentially zeroing out the ongoing and potential future costs of our participation in the Iraq War, which frees you from having to do the normal cost-benefit analysis. This has been the rhetorical gambit since the beginning, of course: to talk about the benefits (including disasters delayed and perhaps avoided), and minimize (or simply ignore) the costs.

The political problem they are facing is that once the costs started to materialize, people kinda noticed. Hence, the fact that they steadfastly refuse to evaluate the benefits in relation to the costs just means the people have been forced to do that for themselves--and the polls tell the results.

Posted by DTM | April 10, 2008 12:43 PM

I figure that it will take about 25 years to kill or displace everybody in the country, and therefore bring the true harmonic stability that only the U.S. can provide.

Posted by norbizness | April 10, 2008 12:54 PM

"....talk about the benefits (including disasters delayed and perhaps avoided), and minimize (or simply ignore) the costs."
Posted by DTM | April 10, 2008 12:43 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DTM, this war hasn't cost the U.S. a dime out of the federal budget. Since all appropriations are off budget and not part of the stated cost of operating the government in a sense it's hidden from the public. Democrats need to insist this is stopped. No more continuing resolutions. DoD $$$ requests need treated in the same fashion as money needed for federal highways or national park maintenance. Hundreds of billions have been authorized totally outside standard budgetary procedures and the usual debate accompanying such outlays.

Posted by steve duncan | April 10, 2008 12:58 PM

Well, sadly, I have come to the conclusion that it is now too late, and most of the ongoing debate about Iraq is quite futile. We're in Iraq for good. The next president will be able to draw troops down to more modest levels, but there is no real political will to take them entirely out of Iraq, or to write off the massive investment that has already been made in this addition to the US imperial portfolio of overseas hosts and clients.

Within five to ten years, Americans will give no more thought to the continued US presence in Iraq than they currently give to the US presence in Okinawa.

The recent Congressional hearings were concerned with an alternate, fictive reality - not the real world. Some of those folks seem to be under the impression that administration decisions about Iraq have something to do with whether we are meeting "our goals" or previously declared "benchmarks".

But the Bush-Cheney goal in Iraq is simply to stay in Iraq. Petraeus and Crocker come to visit so that members of Congress can pretend to provide oversight and ask some tough-sounding but ultimately vapid questions, and then they go back for another six months. We will get something similar in the next administration, six month or one year extensions over and over - until Americans lose interest entirely.

The administration has already built the infrastructure for that permanent presence, and they have already dug us in. They are now negotiating the terms of that permanent presence with the Iraqi government. Given the fact that the US, US allies, and even the Iranians are committed to the survival of that government, it seems likely that the government will continue to develop from its current weak and immature state into a reasonable semblance of a genuine government. Shahrastani has already opened up the bidding on the development super-giant oil fields - oil law or no oil law. As the companies move in, their home countries will drop whatever lingering reservations they have about the permanent presence of US troops in Iraq. They will need the US to be there to back up the government and provide security.

It's done. It's finished. The war is over. The imperialists won. Iraq was a geostrategic prize, and that prize has been successfully grabbed. We have a new dependency, and a new foreign base for the US military. And once the oil starts pumping at a healthier level, the economy will bloom. Say hello to the Jewel in the American Crown. It's in Mesopotamia.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 10, 2008 1:00 PM

The other part of it is that the war supporter knows that eventually some other person will have to come in and take responsibility for extracting forces from the hopeless situation. Then the war supporter can blame that other person for the defeat, rather than him/herself.

Like the old men still saying we would have won in Vietnam if only...

Within five to ten years, Americans will give no more thought to the continued US presence in Iraq than they currently give to the US presence in Okinawa.

I disagree. In 5-10 years from now, if we're still there, we'll still be sustaining casualties and regular attacks. 2/3 of the country is ready to get out in a much shorter time period than 5 years.

Posted by LFC | April 10, 2008 1:07 PM

Obama's WAR strategy...

Wright
Ayres
Rezko

Posted by Bob | April 10, 2008 1:10 PM

Obama's WAR strategy...

Wright
Ayres
Rezko

Posted by Bob | April 10, 2008 1:15 PM

I wuz gonna say, smart run of comments, but then Bob farted. Ew.

And yet, and yet...what do you say to the Juan Coles, who opposed the war forthrightly but are very worried about how we extract ourselves? If you let go the wolf's ears, steve duncan, you still get your face ripped off. And jordan, I'll feel better about your analysis once some more neocons actually lose some more elections....

Posted by elle loco | April 10, 2008 1:16 PM

I agree with your assessment, Matt. McCain has stated as much in that his presidential campaign relies entirely on "success" in Iraq. It requires that he formulate any of a number of false or entirely irrational pretenses to somehow, someway demonstrate "success".

As with Bush, the goal posts and "operational definitions" will change on a daily basis and the rationalizations and justifications will be offered ad infinitum along with a great deal of lofty but hollow rhetoric. The Bush/McCain "strategy to achieve political power via war" is perhaps the single most self-damning, cynical, disheartening, and morally repugnant political gambits in our history.

As for "the rest", I believe in karma, this lifetime or the next...

Posted by Rihilism | April 10, 2008 1:26 PM

2/3 of the country is ready to get out in a much shorter time period than 5 years.

You wouldn't know it from the behavior of US politicians. We have three people still in the run for the presidency, and not one of them is talking about literally getting out of Iraq. The policy debate our national leaders are having is just over how fast we can draw down the troops to more sustainable levels, about what sorts of conditions we should impose on US security commitments, about where US troops will be deployed in the country, about what kinds of missions they will continue to conduct, etc.

There is also a concurrent debate about whether the decisions made in 2002 and 2003 were good ones or bad ones. That is certainly an interesting debate, and we'll probably be having it for many years. But from a current policy standpoint it is becoming increasingly less relevant with each passing day.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 10, 2008 1:32 PM

It requires that he formulate any of a number of false or entirely irrational pretenses to somehow, someway demonstrate "success".

McCain will never define "success" or "failure" because that immediately creates a metric by with the Iraq debacle can be measured. He has seen how so many of Bush's metrics (WMD's, shining democracy, political benchmarks) have failed. Better to wait until something happens that you like, point at it, and declare it "success" while ignoring everything you don't like. (See McCain's Baghdad market stroll and its aftermath for a great example.)

Posted by LFC | April 10, 2008 1:35 PM

There is a ready analogy that comes to mind. One buys a stock - it goes up. I am excited. Then it turns down - now profits are less than the maximum - so I hold on - waiting for the profits to return.

It keeps going down. Profits turn to losses - then catastrophic losses, till its not worth much anymore. Still I don't jettison it, offering some rationale or the other why the stock will be back, unless its a Bear Stearns, I guess.

In case of Iraq, I don't think any politician - even one who sheds tears for an individual posthumous medal winner - really wants to give up the ghost (of wishful thinking). Which is why, it was important to change horses mid-stream as in 2004. Its even more imperative now, as we are about to clamber aboard an even older, idea-starved, doddering old curmudgeonly horse.

Will it happen? Not as long as we have a media thats so hung up on process (even that is not completely true - they are mostly winging it and badly at that) and not substance. Blogosphere is no substitute at least in the short run. I doubt it will be in the medium-term either.

As Atrios says "Facts are inconvenient things" - or something like that. And, in the state of our discourse, also MIA from the MSM.

-- r

Posted by DesiPanchi | April 10, 2008 1:54 PM

I am sure that there are some people whose thinking follows the line Matt describes above. There are also people who genuinely believe the costs of withdrawal are higher than the costs of a continued, substantial US presence in Iraq for the next several years. I don't agree with the latter group, but it took me awhile to get there and I am extremely worried about the consequences of the course I favor.

Posted by Chunche | April 10, 2008 1:54 PM

"There is a ready analogy that comes to mind. One buys a stock - it goes up. I am excited. Then it turns down - now profits are less than the maximum - so I hold on - waiting for the profits to return."
Posted by DesiPanchi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another fave is that of the dollar slot machine. You've sat on that stool for quite awhile, mostly losing your money yet with intermittent small returns to keep your hopes up. Soon you reach in your pocket and realize how much you're down. Damn! I have to win some of this back now, I've plugged in too many dollars to quit and walk away! Better borrow a few bucks and make this machine pay me back. That jackpot is due, it's my money and I'm going to win it!

Posted by steve duncan | April 10, 2008 2:16 PM

"It keeps going down. Profits turn to losses - then catastrophic losses, till its not worth much anymore. Still I don't jettison it, offering some rationale or the other why the stock will be back, unless its a Bear Stearns, I guess"

Not like holding a stock; more like shorting a
stock, because there's no limit to how much money you can lose - 100 years at $120B/year ??

And worse than that, because no matter what happens the money and the lives will be gone, and
the benefit of having a stable Iraq is really pretty nebulous and unquantifiable.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 10, 2008 4:02 PM

This is a perfectly logical line of reasoning; simply a restatement of what has, apparently, been the "plan" all along: if I support the war long enough, surely I'll find a pony. (with credit where due to Atrios).

And, truth to tell, that pony will likely show up at some point. Then all the murderers can declare victory. It has been ever thus.

The longer view of history will not judge these men and women very kindly, though. Not that this helps much, but it is some small comfort to know that 80 years or so from now, books will be written about this war that will describe Bush and Cheney and their enablers in much the same ways the savage idiots who blundered into WWI-- and then refused to end the war because they'd look bad if they did--are described in our time.

Posted by LL | April 10, 2008 4:37 PM

"I think you need to postulate a person who doesn't care at all about the interests of Americans, Iraqis, or anyone else but does care a great deal about his reputation"

One of primary things that, in my opinion, keeps Matt in the category of "partisan hack" is his continuing to impart the absolute worst motives to anyone who doesn't share his exact political beliefs. It's not enough to disagree with someone's ideas; you have to make it personal. Sure, the chorus on this blog eats it up and maybe he'll get more hits, but in the end, only if you want your work to be forever equated to the term "snark."

Posted by Dave | April 10, 2008 5:28 PM

So, Dave, you consider Matt to be a "partisan hack" because he believes, after all that's been said and done over the five-years-and-no-end-in-sight of the Iraq Occupation, that some war cheerleaders could likely have motives for keeping this zombie propelled forward other than pure-hearted, altuistic concern for all those unfortunate Iraqis and their fragile Enduring Freedom™.

That those motives and incentives require endless Friedman Units, "corner-turning", moving of goalposts ("WMDs? No, it was never about WMDs -- whatever gave you dirty hippies that idea?"), Kabuki theater performances by 4-star generals (i.e., politicians in uniform) appearing before Congress (reporting on the success of their own mission -- gee, I wonder what grade he'll give himself?), etc., so that someday, somehow these cheerleaders will be able to say (as Judith Miller did, umm.. "prematurely", you'd have to agree) "I was proved fucking right!" and the conservative movement will thus be saved from drowning (as it currently is in the throes of doing) by the Iraq millstone because that millstone has become a pony. That floats!

Nah, only a "partisan hack" could think such nefarious thoughts. Nothing that the war cheerleaders have said (I won't say "and done" here because cheerleading chickenhawks by and large don't "do" anything) would give anyone who's not a disingenuous "partisan hack" any reason to suspect that concern for their reputations (read: access to power and money) would have anything at all to do with their hanging on for dear life to this misbegotten Iraq tragedy. Or see that the real purpose of this aggressive war of choice by those actually perpetrating it (as opposed to many of the conservative cheerleaders and all their liberal hawk fellow-travellers, who seem to have a multitude of private purposes for the war that don't, in fact, exist outside their febrile imaginations) was, and remains (see: John McCain campaign) overarchingly domestic politics. Where's David X Machina? He knows how to put that last bit way better than me.

Funny how the very heart and soul, the bedrock foundation, of conservatism is a profound cynicism regarding men's motives and actions (life nasty, brutish, and short, man the inveterate sinner, saved only by the grace of God, or the free market, which are today the same thing, apparently) except when it comes to conservatives themselves. And particularly when it comes to horrors like war. Then they're all Mother Theresas, with no choice but to destroy the village in order to save it. Or fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over there. Whichever sounds good to you.

It all makes perfect sense, unless, of course, you're a "partisan hack". Then all you're capable of is snark.

Posted by DFH no.6 | April 10, 2008 7:57 PM

“…fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over HERE”. Damn, Matt’s proofreading “skills” seem to be catching.

Oh, and Dave? That word “snark” you used -- as the swashbuckling hero Inigo Montoya put it: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Whatever else you want to say about Matt’s post here (disagree all you want – maybe even try to rebut it somehow by using, I don’t know, some facts and evidence in some sort of logical argument), it isn’t “snarky”.

Though I’m not sure what’s so bad about snark, anyway. It’s often a very effective tool, sometimes even the best one, against the mind-numbing idiocy and/or disingenuous flummery that constitutes the vast majority of expressed modern conservative “thought”, from Dim Son himself, through Limbaugh/Coulter/Goldberg, right on down to the lowest knuckle-dragging in-law or co-worker forwarding the umpteenth “Obama’s a Muslim!“ email.

In fact, the delicious snark found throughout the left blogosphere has played a big part in helping me keep my sanity during this Dark Age of conservative hegemony. I know I’m not the only one.

Posted by DFH no.6 | April 10, 2008 8:28 PM

"I'm not a mind-reader, I don't know what lurks in these peoples' hearts."

Nice theory, Matt. But in practice you and all the folks in your partisan hack amen corner don't seem to have the least difficulty doing exactly that, and unsurprisingly coming up with only the most venal and deplorable motives for your victims. Dave is exactly right, and the response to his message is a good illustration of that fact.

As someone who actually supported the invasion of Iraq, one would think Matt would be a little more insightful. It's clear to me that a very large number of Americans, including a big majority of our elected leaders from both parties, supported "regime change" based on the record of that regime of launching wars of aggression that killed hundreds of thousands (tens of thousands of them with nerve gas), manipulation of UN sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands more (with our complicity), vast massacres and repressions internally, sponsorship of terrorism, and the most serious challenge to the post-war international security architecture so far.

This is not exactly a secret, but it seems to have completely escaped the notice of Sanctimony Chorus of which Matt is a director.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 11, 2008 3:28 AM

Dan Kervick is wrong about one thing.

We're not in Iraq "for good". The Iraqis have a say in that, and sooner or later - and my guess is sooner, within the next two years at the outside - they will force the US out either by order or by violence. I expect the latter since the US will not leave on order.

It's inevitable. There is absolutely no frickin' way the US can stay in Iraq after killing and displacing nearly twenty percent of the population.

It's impossible.

Meanwhile, Powell, just STFU. Nobody gives a rat's ass here what you think any more - if they ever did. You haven't said one goddamn thing here in ANY of your posts about Iraq which was in any way either true or relevant. You're a liar and a propagandist and you are precisely the kind of asshole that Matt should rightly be condemning as a piece of shit supporter of this war for the worst possible reasons. Matt may have been stupid to believe the "Big Dog Democrats" about the validity of the war, but you're not even in his league in stupidity and venality.

You are probably the most intellectually dishonest piece of shit I've had the misfortune to argue with on any blog - including even Greenbaum over at TPM. We can all dismiss Chris Ford as a raving Ku Klux Klan member, and Al and Fred are just basically stupid.

But, you, sir, are a total piece of shit. A true troll of the worst sort.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 11, 2008 5:53 AM

No, I'm afraid Dave and Robert are wrong. Matthew Yglesias is perfectly correct to assert that anyone who disagrees with him on this issue must necessarily not care about the country. That's just trenchant political commentary from a professional commentator (and good writer).

You guys will probably come back with some usual right-wing response like questioning his patriotism. Man, that would be low. I hate when you right-wingers do that!

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 11, 2008 6:37 AM

On the contrary, SC. I think Matt and his trusty sidekicks like The Incredible Hack are devoted patriots who truly believe that the best thing for the country would be to admit that we've been behind all the bad things that have happened in the world since about 1917, and agree that we will never again venture beyond the boundaries of the United States in any position other than one of suplication.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 11, 2008 7:59 AM

"We're not in Iraq "for good". The Iraqis have a say in that, and sooner or later - and my guess is sooner, within the next two years at the outside - they will force the US out either by order or by violence. I expect the latter since the US will not leave on order."

That's one possibility. Another possibility is that there might be a serious crisis somewhere else - e.g. a war in Korea - which threatens US interests in a much more direct way than sectarian conflict in Iraq. At which point everybody - even the hawks - would suddenly admit that having the bulk of the Army in Iraq wasn't actually the optimum choice.

And that's one reason why the hawkish position has never made much sense: when we're not at war, these hawks are always going on about how important it is to have a large military at a high state of readiness to deal with any crises; but now that they've committed the bulk of the Army to doing nothing but all-Iraq all the time, they blithely assume that nothing else is going to happen in the rest of the world until we find the pony in Iraq.

As it turns out, we can probably get away with this stupidity, because even our pre-9/11 $300B military was massive overkill in a world where all the plausible opponents put together only add up to about $100B/year. But it's incoherent and dishonest.

Personally, I'm for a $150B/year military with at most 500 nukes (not the current 6000) and few foreign deployments of ground troops. And putting some of the money saved into meeting the goal of 0.7% of GDP (about $91B) in non-military foreign aid to places that are dirt poor (*not* Israel) but currently peaceful. That's where money can do most good.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 11, 2008 11:02 AM

This thread is probably dead, but what the hell...

So Robert Powell sees those who recognize the obvious, that the Iraq War and subsequent Occupation is just a thoroughly bad thing, however you want to expound on the “badness, as people:

“…who truly believe that the best thing for the country would be to admit that we've been behind all the bad things that have happened in the world since about 1917, and agree that we will never again venture beyond the boundaries of the United States in any position other than one of suplication (sic).”

Man, that’s just so typical. It really is. And depressingly tiring, too, hearing this same kind of crap over and over again.

In truth, there have been a number of conservative commentators and (especially) liberal hawks who have tried to meet the various anti-Iraq War arguments on the merits, but the primary, default position for the war cheerleaders is just what Robert Powell here is saying. That the motivation for being against Iraq war stems from a delusional blame-America-first (if not outright hate-America-period), isolationist, peace-at-all-costs mindset.

In other words, Dirty Fucking Hippies, who lost the Vietnam War and are now pressing hard to “lose” in Iraq. Defeatocrats. Surrender monkeys. Foolish peaceniks who, in their dangerously childish “idealism”, believe a ridiculously stupid, even crazy, thing: that America’s been behind ALL the bad things that have happened in the world for a long time (yeah, sure, maybe 1917 – other starting dates have their supporters, too, causing no end to fractious wrangling and even purges on The Left over just exactly when America became the source of all the world’s ills. The 1898 Truthers are particularly vocal, what with their conspiracies about The Maine being an inside job and all).

Like I said – typical. It demonstrates a key feature of conservative ideology – this either/or, us-or-them, all-or-nothing prism through which the world is viewed. I get this constantly from my many Republican co-workers, neighbors, and relatives, and I’ve heard the same sort of thing repeated many times since my youth in the halcyon days of the Vietnam “era”.

If you oppose something that our government is doing (say, the Iraq War) it can’t be because you have specific, logical reasons for being against that specific thing. No, it has to be because you hate America. Against the Iraq Occupation = Blame America for EVERYTHING bad for the past 100 years. No other explanation is possible.

Al Franken was right – conservatives really do love their country like a 4-year old loves his Mommy.

Posted by DFH no.6 | April 11, 2008 3:49 PM

DFH:

....the primary, default position for the war cheerleaders is just what Robert Powell here is saying. That the motivation for being against Iraq war stems from a delusional blame-America-first (if not outright hate-America-period), isolationist, peace-at-all-costs mindset. .... It demonstrates a key feature of conservative ideology – this either/or, us-or-them, all-or-nothing prism through which the world is viewed.

Far better, of course, and far less "either/or, us-or-them, all-or-nothing" to take Matthew's position that the primary motivation his political opponents have for being in favor of maintaining the military presence in Iraq is not caring about America, Iraqis, or anyone else, but ony their reputations.

If you oppose something that our government is doing (say, the Iraq War) it can’t be because you have specific, logical reasons for being against that specific thing. No, it has to be because you hate America.

Similarly, if you oppose a policy demand favored by Matthew Yglesias and people like him (say, the necessity to remove our military presence from Iraq) it can’t be because you have specific, logical reasons for being against that specific thing. No, it has to be because you don't care about America.

I like your anger, DFH. But you should direct it at all who fit your description and employ this sort of underhanded, uncivil, devoid-of-intellectual-content argument. As Matthew Yglesias has demonstrated here, the right has no monopoly on this sort of bullying mud-slinging.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | April 11, 2008 9:54 PM

DFH--
As SC has pointed out, you're guilty of what you accuse me of. My wisecrack was specifically directed to RSH's frothing, and he'd demonstrably an extreme isolationist.

Lots of people have all sorts of objections to the mess we're in in Iraq, including me. That doesn't mean it's any more correct for people like you to lump everyone who doesn't follow your script together with whatever you think "conservative ideology" is.

FWIW, the idea of launching a trillion-dollar Federal project to bring democracy to people of a different culture who have ever known it may be lots of things, but "conservative" certainly isn't one of them.

Posted by Robert Powell | April 12, 2008 7:07 AM

Sonic Charmer & (especially) Robert Powell (perhaps you’re still checking back on this dead thread),

My experience of modern political conservatism, from what I’ve seen, read, and personally encountered with real, live, self-confessed conservatives over the past 40 years, is precisely as I wrote: that a key feature of conservative ideology is most definitely a black and white approach to the world. You may not like or agree with that that description, but that’s my experience “from the other side”, and I’m certainly not alone in that, nor am I making it up out of whole cloth with no evidence to back up my viewpoint. And it’s not like it’s something new.

For instance, there’s a bedrock, foundational reason that religious fundamentalists (i.e., “literalists” who are chiefly motivated by a deep Manicheanism, else they would cease to be religious fundamentalists) make up such a crucial cadre within the modern conservative movement in America, and it ain’t because of their famous predilection for seeing the world in shades of gray. It’s also what makes fundamentalists of other stripes conservatives in their own cultures (Islamic, Hindu, etc.).

Religious fundamentalists fit so nicely with all other “types” of conservatives (including atheistic ones, and ones for whom The Market is God) not is spite of their stark black and white approach, but precisely because of it.

I understand that “conservatism” isn’t monolithic, but some things are definitional, else terms like “conservative” have no real meaning and we’re through the looking glass with Alice where words mean whatever we say they mean. And tending to see the world in black and white terms is a necessary – though I’m not saying sufficient – feature of how conservatism actually works. How anyone can think otherwise when the chief spokesmen of the movement are the likes of Rush Limbaugh and James Dobson I don’t know.

SC, you accuse Matt of employing a “sort of underhanded, uncivil, devoid-of-intellectual-content argument”, but I don’t see it that way at all. I think he nails it dead-on for many of the war cheerleaders: keep this thing going, no matter the enormous cost, no matter how wrong they’ve been for so long, because eventually it won’t be so bad, and they’ll be vindicated. Sure, there are other motivations, some no doubt noble and humane even, but when I hear, for example, a smirking Bill Kristol, I hear “I’ll be proved fucking right, you dirty hippies!” loud and clear.

And RP, so you were cracking wise, you were being facetious. OK, sure. But you know what? I’ve seen that sort of conservative demonization hurled at ”The Left” so often, and in absolutely non-facetious ways, that I’m sorry, the “joke” just falls flat. Like Ann Coulter (and many others like her) trying to claim satire for certain attacks on those like me. What you were trying to say facetiously, I’ve encountered as serious “gotcha” arguments from the right countless times over the years. SC is correct – “the right has no monopoly on this sort of bullying mud-slinging”. They do, however, have the largest (and most lucrative) franchise.

Finally, I don’t think I’m incorrectly lumping together everyone who doesn’t follow my script in regards to conservatism. I’m calling it as seems obvious to me, which includes that black and white thing I mentioned, and most definitely includes this great cock-up called “the Iraq War”. This war and occupation may not fit someone’s intellectual definition of “conservative”, but what does that matter? Conservatism is as conservatism does. The Iraq War and occupation is most certainly a project of the modern conservative movement. It’s ludicrous to claim otherwise.

Posted by DFH no,6 | April 12, 2008 8:59 PM