09 September 2001
Politics and Pundits
Andrew's recent blog has generated all sorts of controversy.
I threw together some thoughts on the matter, but they exceeded the maximum characters allowed by LJ in a post (4000, it turns out). Proof that if it's not pithy, it's not worthy of LJ! For those who care, the comment is as follows:
This is one of your most fascinating posts!
I take something different from it than most of your interlocutors, who seem very focused on your POLITICS. But in your first substantive sentence, you make it clear that you are APOLITICAL -- and that what follows is WHY.
To engage in a bit of reductionism, your "why" seems to be that if you WERE to be political, you would likely gravitate towards conservative intellectuals (or as Jaffo suggests, the neocons), which would ultimately stifle your creativity, because all conservative intellectual pundits are boring, reactionary, whiny, and plodding (that almost has a Hobbesian ring to it).
But isn't the real problem that, for the most part, the political IS boring and plodding? To put it another way, have there really been any strikingly NEW political questions introduced since Thucydides' famous history, or at least since Plato's Republic and Laws? Slightly different formulations, somewhat different ways of interpreting politics, but nothing that new in politics itself. I can't imagine that would hold much interest at all for you personally! You prefer to be at the frontiers of man's mind and technology and all that entails -- THAT is your passion, and composes much of the type Andrew. For you, politics should NOT hold much interest -- and, as you've described, it doesn't!
Of course conservative intellectual POLITICAL pundits are boring, reactionary, whiny, and plodding to you! But wouldn't most mainstream (liberal, conservative, even libertarian to some extent these days) political pundits (I count myself among that broad group) be guilty of that offense, by virtue of their subject matter?
Contemporary politics is a passion of mine, and for that reason I find conservative intellectual pundits like Paul Gigot (and more recently, Glenn Reynolds) to be insightful, highly compelling reads. But I know you're going to have a much different reaction to, say, this article than I do! For you, I imagine it's a snoozer; to me, it's real politics being played out, and Reynolds (unlike other pundits) has figured out the particulars, and it's utterly fascinating.
I don't take real exception with anything you've written EXCEPT that in support of your indictment of conservative intellectual pundits broadly you quote that unsigned Chron editorial (which was, itself, based on an AP report) and then conclude that all American intellectual conservatives advocate laughter and derision of all "feel-good" programs! Were you citing the Wall Street Journal editorial page, I might concede the point, but given the Chron's most recent crusade (advocating the eternal existence of a "Sports Authority" created to build new playpens for the local sports teams, so that it can build parks and "other projects" for the city) I think it's a real stretch to view THAT editorial board as indicative of conservatives or intellectuals! If anything, given that the AP widely reported these "wastes" of money, I would view this as more of a typically POPULIST piece (since most people are against government "wasting" the "people's money" even if they don't have a perfectly libertarian -- or extropian -- idea of what that means). I just took a quick peek at TownHall (the foremost American "conservative" site on the web), and didn't find one columnist who had written on that topic. I don't recall even seeing the article blogged by any of my regular "conservative" blog reads (or OpinionJournal). I'm rather pleased now that I DID blog an article that has generated such interest, although I suppose I'm now out of the closet as a plodding conservative reactionary! :)
I *do* tend to agree with you on the need for more experiments in government, and I *do* think the focus on self-esteem is a good one. I would prefer the experiments to be more local (maybe even constitutional, not that we have paid attention to the Constitution for a while) and more properly experimental (there ARE ways to measure the effectiveness of public policy, however crude they may be), and specifically I would like to see more experiments along the lines of the politics of empowerment (a recent theme of conservative and libertarian political intellectuals). So, like you, I hope the result of this article is NOT simply to reject as ludicrous and wasteful ANY program that focuses on empowerment and/or self-esteem. And in the view of some, I've now become a plodding conservative statist reactionary! Very tiring, being all of those things.
[Posted @ 11:25 PM CST]
