Being Wrong Isn’t Strong
I can think of some reasons to think that Evan Bayh would be a good Vice Presidential candidate. But I think if he wants on the ticket, he needs some more effective advocates than Al From:
“The antiwar people cannot define the Democratic Party,” said Al From, a founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, of which Mr. Bayh was chairman for four years. “I think Evan’s real strength is you get someone on the ticket who has a record of being strong on national security, and that is a very important quality to have.”
To his credit, I’ve rarely if ever heard Bayh talk like that. But this presumption that having been wrong about Iraq is a sign of strength is curiously widespread in Washington, and really dopey. I think it’s true that the mere fact of having been against the war isn’t necessarily indicative of brilliant judgment (Quakers and such who just oppose all war as a matter of principle aren’t really showing judgment in particular cases) but clearly having been for the war is a bug not a feature.
85 Responses to “Being Wrong Isn’t Strong”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 13th, 2008 at 10:09 am
I for one think stamping out the mindset that hawkish=strong is vital to our future as a country. And I happen to think Obama agrees. Of course, he might also pick Bayh anyway, but I suspect it will be with the understanding that Bayh will not frame these issues in this way.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Does anyone actually care what Al From thinks about anything anymore?
August 13th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark for veep! With Georgia beginning to look like Poland in 1939, he’s the logical choice. Can’t you already hear the meme: This is no time to take a chance on an unknown with no military or international stroke(meaning Obama). In light of Russia’s behavior, Wes is the Democrat’s best chance to beat McCain.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Your unwarranted insult to those who are opposed to war on
principle is unbecoming of someone of your stature.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:25 am
National security has been worsened by the war. Our strength has been diminished. What will it take for Beltway insiders to finally get this?
August 13th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I agree with gregor.
It is possible to be opposed to all wars based on a judgment that all wars are horrible.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:27 am
In light of Russia’s behavior, Wes is the Democrat’s best chance to beat McCain.
Either this all goes away or we have real problems. Wes Clark’s Kosovo campaign looks worse and worse in retrospect. Frankly, Russian behavior toward Georgia looks pretty muted compared to what we did to Belgrade.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:40 am
We got to show them damn hippies that simply being right a lot is no reason to be taken seriously, unlike the serious wise people willing to continually get sh*t massively, massively, violently wrong.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Yeah, Matt had to throw in a dig at the Quakers, just as a gesture to his history of ‘centrism’.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:48 am
War means orphans, amputations, blood stains, broken water mains, corpses rotting on the street. War is serious and must be taken seriously, a last resort.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:58 am
(Quakers and such who just oppose all war as a matter of principle aren’t really showing judgment in particular cases)
Of course they are. They’re showing the judgment that war is monstrously and needlessly destructive and should be avoided at all costs. The liberal internationalist, on the other hand, sees war not even as a last resort but as just another option when dealing with lesser powers, and often a favored one. And so we get liberals who aggressively advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent death of hundreds of thousands, for the invasion of Afghanistan and the tens of thousands of deaths there, for the Gulf War and the half a million lives lost in its aftermath, for Kosovo and the thousands of innocent lives lost in American aerial bombardment.
On all of these and more, the pacifists were right and the liberal internationalists were catastrophically wrong. But Serious Liberal Pundits can never take seriously a political philosophy that doesn’t allow them to advocate blowing up someone else’s country.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Good Lord people, Matt didn’t insult the Quakers. Principled pacifists who opposed the invasion of Iraq were NOT making any judgment, good or bad. They were simply applying their general principle to the case. Matt was very clear, and those who complain are showing that most unattractive of characteristics: the desire to be offended.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:02 am
Either this all goes away or we have real problems. Wes Clark’s Kosovo campaign looks worse and worse in retrospect.
To whom? To you, obviously, but not to the many others who matter. Wake up. Let’s win* this thing for a change.
Obamaclark.com
*Yes, I am aware that both Gore and Kerry really won the legitimate electoral vote the last two times.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Wesley Clark, Wesley Clark for veep!
No, let’s really, really not.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:06 am
All the pro-war Dems still think everything is all about them and their egos.
I’ll give it to the Repugs — they care first and foremost about winning, not about their egos.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I think Matt’s point is that Quakers aren’t showing judgement with respect to a particular war, but, rather, judgement with respect to all wars. It’s a fine distinction, but I can see it. The man is a philosophy major, after all.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
To whom?
To anyone paying attention to Georgia and to Russia’s Kosovo-style response there.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Someone, somewhere, should note that [correctly, and for the right reasons,] opposing the Iraq Invasion is what got Obama the Dem nomination in the first place. Seems like picking a Veep candidate who’s on the same page (and then clubbing the crap out of wrong-headed Bush-McCain with that) would be the way to go. That rules out Biden, Daschle, Hillary, Bayh, Nunn, and a host of choices, all of which are craptastic enough for other reasons. General Clark got Iraq right.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:10 am
To anyone paying attention to Georgia and to Russia’s Kosovo-style response there.
And how many of those are potential pick-ups for Obama?
Also, could you be more specific? Thanks in advance.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I think Matt’s point is that Quakers aren’t showing judgement with respect to a particular war, but, rather, judgement with respect to all wars.
How is this any different from what Yglesias attempts to do when he applies his own rubric to wars and potential wars? The only difference seems to be that Yglesias’s liberal internationalism allows for a much, much lower threshold of justification, which allows for a lot more terrible wars and a lot more dead people.
The man is a philosophy major, after all
So am I. Big fat fucking deal.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
To whom? To you, obviously, but not to the many others who matter. Wake up. Let’s win* this thing for a change.
Win what? Good, I get to have a democrat start WWIII with the Russians? That’ll show ‘em.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Wesley Clark took himself out of the running for VP with those comments (however right) about McCain’s war service not being a sufficient qualification for President. Sad to say, but it’s true. If Clark is the VP choice all we’d hear about for two goddamn months would be those comments. Same way that if Clinton were the choice all we’d hear about for two months, and then four and even eight years, would be about the rivalry between the two.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Another person piling on against your huge slam on Quakers, out of nowhere. Not all Quakers, by the way, are liberal doves.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:32 am
How is this any different from what Yglesias attempts to do when he applies his own rubric to wars and potential wars? The only difference seems to be that Yglesias’s liberal internationalism allows for a much, much lower threshold of justification
Not a “lower” threshold of justification, a threshold period. The quaker/pacifist answer is “no” regardless of the facts. Observing this isn’t insulting; frankly, it’s going to lead to the right conclusion virtually all the time, and probably more often than most “liberal internationalist” rubrics. But it’s an approach that doesn’t apply judgement “to particular cases”–the particulars of cases are irrelevent.
It wasn’t an insult, it was an observation. You overreacted; stop digging.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:37 am
How is this any different from what Yglesias attempts to do when he applies his own rubric to wars and potential wars? The only difference seems to be that Yglesias’s liberal internationalism allows for a much, much lower threshold of justification, which allows for a lot more terrible wars and a lot more dead people.
With the exception of Richard Nixon, not a single Quaker in American history has ever made a damn bit of difference in terms of how many dead people our government creates. People are gonna die anyway, the liberal internationalists you deride are an order of magnitude better than the only practical alternative, which is the right wing jingoists. People who claim to see no difference are stupid or insane.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Doesn’t it make sense that when there was such important bipartisan consensus on the need for a stupid war in Iraq, that there would be strong bipartisan consensus for ass-covering when it turned out to be wrong? A clear majority of the foreign-policy-media-defense axis were not just in favor of the war, but active enablers. They have to have eachothers backs now, or they wind up out of jobs and power. That is why is is strength, not weakness to them because honestly there is no alternative
August 13th, 2008 at 11:40 am
“Quakers and such who just oppose all war as a matter of principle aren’t really showing judgment in particular cases”
Actually, maybe. Some may be reflexively anti-war — better than the alternatives — but the majority of pacifists –especially when confronted with a pro-war media — engaged in at least some internal doubt and deliberation.
Further, by engaging in debate with the likes of Al From, they (we) do apply judgment in particular cases. The typical argument would go: “I think all wars are wrong; but even assuming war is justified in certain circumstances, this one does not meet the criteria.”
August 13th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Re Wesley Clark for VP
Isn’t it about time for Mr. Don Williams to weigh in on this subject since he considers General Clark to be worse then Hiam Saban.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I assume this:
refers to this:
There is no insult there. Quakers do not judge each particular instance of war and find it wrong. They believe all war is wrong and adhere to that principle. Pacifism inherently includes an acceptance that an individual’s judgement may be faulty, and therefore should be subordinated to principle.
It should not be insulting to be “accused” of recognizing that humans have less than perfect judgement.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I wouldn’t take offense at Matt’s comment about Quakers, but I’d also disagree (mildly) with the idea that being opposed to war in general means they aren’t applying judgment when it comes to particular wars.
Since humans aren’t automatons, each war confronts Quakers with the question of whether their opposition to war is still essential. Both the US Civil War and WWII in particular provoked a great deal of soul-searching and reconsideration among Quakers. When confronted with a moral dilemma — like whether someone who is both pacifist and abolitionist should support a war to end slavery — even the apparent inaction of sticking to one’s principle may be the result of a harrowing and lengthy exercise in judgment.
In point of fact, many US Quakers did abandon their pacifist beliefs during previous wars. Obviously, Iraq in 2003 did not present the same moral dilemma of WWII or the Civil War. But the fact that a religion whose principles where challenged by 1861 and 1941 mostly did *not* see 2003 as a moral dilemma looks like evidence of good judgment to me.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Does *anyone* still believe that when/if Obama reaches the White House and then brings in all the usual DC Democrat hacks, he’ll still end up pulling out of Iraq?
Now that’s still a whole lot better than McCain starting NEW wars with Iran, Russia, China, Venezuela, Switzerland, … but not exactly the “Saint Barack” whom all the idiots this blogsite had been swooning over during most of the campaign against Hilary Satanus.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:50 am
There’s also the possibility that someone could be very bad at being a Quaker, like Nixon.
August 13th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Win what? Good, I get to have a democrat start WWIII with the Russians? That’ll show ‘em.
Kids, say no to crack.
Wesley Clark took himself out of the running for VP with those comments (however right) about McCain’s war service not being a sufficient qualification for President. Sad to say, but it’s true. If Clark is the VP choice all we’d hear about for two goddamn months would be those comments.
Yeah, let’s back down and pathetically yield to wanker talking heads and right wing screechers. Great plan, it’s never ever ever failed. If Clark’s comments are repeated, that’s a good thing. He was right. Maybe it’ll sink in.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Kids, say no to crack.
I don’t have time for this, I’ve gotta head out but if Obama gets wrapped up in this great game stuff (and he will by default) it’s a recipe for at the very least a tactical nuclear exchange. At that point, I cease to care about people’s position on a minimum wage law or card-check or pretty much any damn thing at all.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Matt, although I do agree with your post, I confess that I was ultimately distracted by your hilarious and inventive use of the expression, “a bug not a feature.”
I’ve never before seen this expression used metaphorically (outside of the technology sphere). Are you blazing a new linguistic path here, or have you seen others use the expression this way? It seems like just the kind of formulation that could become a mainstream catch-phrase.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Not a “lower” threshold of justification, a threshold period.
Pacifism presents a threshold of justification; it’s simply a threshold of justification that’s too high for any war to pass.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
There’s also the possibility that someone could be very bad at being a Quaker, like Nixon.
The “Quaker” movement in the US is really broad. At one extreme are what most people here probably think of as typical Quakers — “meetings” rather than churches, silent worship, no hired ministers, pacifism, consensus decisionmaking, no belief in Biblical literalism, etc. At the opposite extreme are evangelical Friends “churches” that may be nearly indistinguishable from other evangelical groups.
Nixon’s mother (and father, after he converted) were affiliated with Yorba Linda Friends Church, an evangelical and politically conservative group that today looks like your garden-variety southern California megachurch. They aren’t pacifists, they may not totally consider themselves Quakers any more, and most non-evangelical US Quakers wouldn’t think much of their variety of Quakerism.
Whatever the flaws of his presidency, Herbert Hoover was light-years ahead of Nixon as a representative of US Quakerism in the White House….
August 13th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I don’t have time for this, I’ve gotta head out but if Obama gets wrapped up in this great game stuff (and he will by default) it’s a recipe for at the very least a tactical nuclear exchange. At that point, I cease to care about people’s position on a minimum wage law or card-check or pretty much any damn thing at all.
What
the hell
are you talking about?
I, for one, am glad you don’t have time for this, because you’re, apparently, stark raving batshit insane.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
I think Matt was indeed being a little too dismissive of “Quakers and such”. The full quote is:
I think it’s true that the mere fact of having been against the war isn’t necessarily indicative of brilliant judgment (Quakers and such who just oppose all war as a matter of principle aren’t really showing judgment in particular cases) . . .
Now it is true that a principled opposition to all war doesn’t necessarily require a case by case judgment, but that doesn’t mean it requires no judgment at all–rather, the relevant judgment occurs at the categorical level instead of the case by case level. And as others have pointed out, each new case may give such people an opportunity to reconsider this categorical judgment, so by sticking to their principles in each case they are in effect reaffirming their categorical judgment.
So “Quakers and such” may well be exercising “brilliant judgment” in opposing all wars, including this one. In the end, that all depends on whether it turns out their categorical judgment about wars is correct–meaning if they are right, then they deserve credit for making the right judgment.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Yeah, let’s back down and pathetically yield to wanker talking heads and right wing screechers. Great plan, it’s never ever ever failed. If Clark’s comments are repeated, that’s a good thing. He was right. Maybe it’ll sink in.
Hey, if I were making the decisions I’d be with you–but I’m not. Nor am I up for election. Those who are will steer clear. It’s an obvious move. Maybe they’ll buck the common sense and pick him nonetheless, but I think the odds of that are very low. [...which can also serve as a double reverse jinx.] Furthermore, since when did Wesley Clark become the best or only worthy candidate for VP? I can see the outrage if he were that and these comments disqualified him, but he’s not – such besides the point issues will always come into play, potentially or outright disqualifying some. It’s a balancing game.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Re SLC’s “Isn’t it about time for Mr. Don Williams to weigh in on this subject since he considers General Clark to be worse then Hiam Saban.”
———-
Wrong. General Wesley Clark made a major military blunder in Yugoslavia that greatly hurt US national security — and that disqualifies him from national leadership.
But it was an error — not intentional. And due to the fact that a major intelligence organization blocked information from getting to him and Stratcom because associated information would have exposed a budget scam they were running on Congress.
Haim Saban, by contrast, accepted US citizenship but routinely harms the USA by his manipulations on behalf of what he considers Israel’s best interests. Saban is an enemy to be destroyed, not a mere fuckup.
August 13th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
since when did Wesley Clark become the best or only worthy candidate for VP?
Since November 3, 2004.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Judgement requires more than simply “being right”. It requires right action. You can’t just be right in the pages of a magazine or on a blog, you have to take that understanding and turn it into something that will have an impact on the world. Otherwise what’s the pont?
Most Quakers do in fact look at individual cases. That they are explicit about the principles they use as a lens is neither a failing nor a lack of judgement. Quakers spend a lot of time trying to develop actual and practical alternatives to fighting. It is much harder work than shrugging and saying, “sometimes you just have to fight”. It is work that requires a great deal of realism, a close attention to detail, and phenomenal efforts of judgement.
If you take your pacificism seriously, and most Quakers do, then you have to put your body, your livlihood, and your reputation on the line. The American Friends Service Committee has a Nobel Peace Prize for their trouble. Oxfam is one of the best famine fighting organizations in the world. Amnesty International has changed the way the world deals with human rights. Those three organizations aren’t all Quaker, but none would exist without the Friends, and they barely scratch the surface of what Quakers have done.
Historical Note: There are three main strains of Quakerism. The evangelical form, the one in which Nixon was raised, is not pacifist.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Don Williams, SLC, Ed Marshall—glad to see the old crowd has mostly come over.
Unfortunately, I’m still too busy with work these days to get involved much…
August 13th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
No Democrats who support Democratic Presidential candidates are exercising judgment in backing Barack Obama.
In other words, Yglesias is a bit of a moron (not something I think every day, hence indicative of my brilliant judgment).
August 13th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Quakers do not judge each particular instance of war and find it wrong. They believe all war is wrong and adhere to that principle.
This is a false dilemma. It would have been possible for a Quaker to believe that all wars including the Iraq invastion are wrong AND to predict that the Iraq invasion would be one of the greatest foreign policy blunders of the last 500 years (thereby showing excellent judgment). And since Matt’s argument regarding Quakers relies upon the above false dilemma, his argument is indeed an insult. QED
August 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Throw me in with the group that initially read Matt’s comment as a dig but upon a second read changed my mind. It’s not that Quakers don’t make any judgments, or even that they don’t make judgments about specific wars, it’s that their judgments are not based on the facts specific to that war.
Anyway, I don’t think it was intended as a dig, so relax. If he’d said something that was obviously offensive it’d be different.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Historical Note: There are three main strains of Quakerism. The evangelical form, the one in which Nixon was raised, is not pacifist.
That’s sort of the point I made above, but I don’t think you’re quite right. In the US, there are really *four* main varieties of Quakerism (from “left” to “right” you have FGC, FUM, and EFI, plus the Conservative yearly meetings that are distinctly different from the others).
Nixon’s roots were in a “Friends Church” that’s now part of EFI. I don’t think you’re right to label all EFI folks as non-pacifist; I think that varies from meeting to meeting (or rather, from church to church … that’s a hard word to get used to when talking about Quakers).
August 13th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
NGO worker – I’m surprised no one has challenged your statement that evangelical Friends are not pacifist. They certainly are. They do not, however, resemble the traditional image of Quakerism, as someone said above. Someone also said correctly that each Quaker must exercise judgment about what the peace testimony means in any given circumstance, including the circumstance of one’s country going to war. I have heard (no cite, I’m afraid) that in WWII, 3/4 of eligible Quaker men went to war rather than become COs.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Ok, J beat me to it.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
The problem is that Yg. is using the hoariest of straw men as way of providing cover for the Biggest F*ing Error He Ever Made and I Hope He Ever Makes (may his career be long). Yes, there are some people who are uniformly against War. Not many, though. Really, how many Quakers are out there… let’s see some hands…I can’t see you!!
Most of the people who were against the Iraq war were against it as a matter of judgment because they knew it was a terrible idea and would lead to nothing good. But of course, since Matt was one of those critcizing and mocking those people, he has to mitigate that by ignoring them.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Here’s some philosophy for ya li’l Matt: you were fucking wrong about the war, dead fucking wrong, and now, all of the sudden, those of us who recognized it for the clusterfuck it was bound to be really shouldn’t point that out to those of you who were dead fucking wrong.
That’s not claiming wisdom, or some sort of superhuman foresight, that’s claiming that we recognized the Bush clan for what it was, a criminal cabal bent on making war for oil. Not Democracy, or freedom or any other notion of goodness, but for the fucking oil.
This has nothing to do with Quakers and Li’l Matty knows it, it’s about him trying to slough off the fact that he was a caterwauling chickenhawk who cheered on the destruction of our fellow human beings and now he can’t justify it any longer.
Head in the fucking sand indeed.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Really, how many Quakers are out there… let’s see some hands…I can’t see you!!
Good luck with that, you’re talking about a religious group that is mostly known for being (a) self-effacing and (b) worshipping in silence.
Most of the people who were against the Iraq war were against it as a matter of judgment because they knew it was a terrible idea and would lead to nothing good. But of course, since Matt was one of those critcizing and mocking those people, he has to mitigate that by ignoring them.
I think you’re wrong about this, and I think that Matthew is right that opposing the war doesn’t necessarily indicate good judgment. It’s only one data point among many.
On the other hand, supporting the Iraq war definitely was a sign of bad judgment. I guess I’d say that people who supported the war ought to be ashamed of that, but those of us who opposed it shouldn’t get cocky. We’re probably wrong about plenty of other stuff.
August 13th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
J at #30 speaks this Quaker’s mind. Thanks, Friend.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Wow, a lot of hostility towards Matthew today. That’s odd.
From what I’ve seen he doesn’t shy away from admitting the error of his (2002-2003) ways, and he’s been very diligent in promoting the idea that candidates’ support the war ought to be held against them. See, for example, the very post on which we’re all commenting.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
J, the fact is still that this line:
Quakers and such who just oppose all war as a matter of principle aren’t really showing judgment in particular cases
is fucking dickish as hell.
Let’s consider another political question: should Matt Yglesias be burned alive at the stake?
There are those who refuse to consider this question, and as a matter of principle say no, Yglesias should not be burned alive at the stake.
Then there are those who are more open-minded, and are willing to consider arguments for and against.
I guess Yglesias here is admiring the latter camp for their ability to exercise judgment, and dismissing the former camp for their “knee-jerk” tendencies. Of course in reality the former camp is completely in the right, and the latter camp is simply shifting the terms of the discourse so that it becomes much more likely that Yglesias will be sacrificed to the gods.
Morality is based on ruling certain considerations out of bounds, or making it difficult to consider certain possibilities. Moral stances should not be criticized as lacking in judgment, especially when they turn out to be extremely useful ways of avoiding terrible outcomes.
The analogy to the Iraq War should be fucking obvious, and someone who fucked that up should understand better than everyone else.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Wow, that’s the most depressingly stupid set of comments I’ve seen with Yglesias, which makes me worried about this move to Think Progress. Despite no fewer than 5 people patiently educating them on the difference between uniformly applying a general principle and making a situational judgment, idiots like strasmangelo and HumboltBlue prefer to wallow in misunderstanding so they can be offended.
I mean, this post has a clear distinction, correct spelling, proper grammar, the works. God help us when these yahoos are faced with one of Matt’s typical posts.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
nolaboyd: the necessity of showing judgment in a particular case depends on one’s general principles.
Should you go on a mass murder spree today? Should you have a picnic in the park? Should you brush your teeth before you go to bed?
Different questions require different amounts of deliberation.
If you oppose war as a matter of principle, then by definition it will take a lot of compelling reasons for you to support a war.
If you think the merits of every potential war need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, then you have a much lower bar for considering whether to support a war.
The relevance to the Iraq War should be obvious. Opposing war as a matter of principle is not just a blind reflexive stance that surrenders rational judgment and moral responsibility. This is important, and Yglesias, despite acknowledging that his support for the war was wrong etc, clearly gets this point wrong in his post.
Hence all the offense.
August 13th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Well, I personally don’t have any problem with supporting wars on a case-by-case basis.
But I do think that nearly all of America’s actual wars over the last few decades have been the “wrong sort”, meaning that we should probably adjust the parameters in our formula or something…
August 13th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I mean, this post has a clear distinction, correct spelling, proper grammar, the works.
Absolutely correct, nolaboyd. And, per my earlier comment #46, “the works,” to use your term, includes the same condescending false dilemma fallacy that your comment uses: That if someone is “applying a general principle” then that person cannot simultaneously be “making a situational judgment.” No one has ever proven that this dichotomy is true, for good reason: It isn’t true.
August 13th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Why do these people not realize that voting for the war is WEAKNESS in a Democratic potential candidate? It’s a huge vulnerability, it nerfs your ability to hammer the Republicans, it depresses the base, and — this is the important bit– it undermines your message of change.
Friends don’t let friends nominate pro-war candidates. Just don’t do it.
August 13th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
strasmangelo jones @ 11 explains the key issue quite well. SB @ 60 also reiterates an important point (from SB’s comment at 46).
To Matt, I’m glad you called out the BS on Bayh, and your Quaker bit was one tossed off line, but I can see why people feel this is another sideways self-justification, because frankly, I think it is. Going to war and not going to war are not equally valid options, and the burden of proof should always be on those advocating for war, not the other way around. People die. They suffer. In our case, with Iraq, America is in much worse shape as a result, and in many ways Iraq has been devastated, with 4-5 million displaced Iraqis, not to mention all those killed. You wrote one of the better mea culpas I’ve seen about your errors. People like Michael O’Hanlon and Richard Cohen still don’t get it, and complain of not being respected – even though they still don’t get it and haven’t bothered to explore why other people got it right (not that it was hard). Mostly, it was basic sanity, wisdom, some basic knowledge of history, a high threshold for war and a nose for BS. In the case of the Quakers, most that I’ve known have given issues of violence and war a great deal of thought, and their starting position happens to be much wiser than that of any neocon. However unintentionally, you are implying that a general principle of opposing war does not show good judgment, when of course it does (and you’ll find many pro-soldier, anti-war combat vets who’d agree). Unconditional opposition is another matter. Still, that stance has its merits as well, and considering how popular stupid, reckless belligerency is, probably fulfills an important social function, although hawks love to use that position as a straw man opponent. Because, of course, the majority of those opposing the invasion of Iraq were not Quakers or unconditional pacifists. I do wonder, was your line merely unclear or hasty writing, was it a straw man, or was it indicative of a deeper cognitive and moral error? It’s not the first time you’ve said something like this.
You’re correct that being wrong isn’t strong. But failing to understand fully why the position was wrong is not wise, and troubling if that’s the case. Maybe I’ve just missed some of your other pieces. But Bayh was wrong not solely due to specific circumstances or because things didn’t turn out peachy-keen, but because of deeper principles, because of the realities of war (WWI and Vietnam may be the most pertinent), because Bush didn’t make the case, and because there were many indicators his administration was untrustworthy on this. Blithe advocacy for war is fashionable among the Beltway chattering class. Pretending that that’s somehow respectable is dangerous. The biggest errors on Iraq were not errors of prediction. They were (and continue to be) much more fundamental. While I’ve liked some of your writing over the years, there are times I wonder how much you’ve really changed how you view your peers, yourself and the world. You’re right about the specifics here, and how acclaim for being wrong on Iraq is “dopey.” I just hope you also understand the deeper principles here, since D.C. has seen this dynamic many times before, and certainly will again.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I don’t think the Quaker reference is necessarily demeaning–though obviously it can be read so. My problem with it is it’s just another cute straw-manny way to avoid saying that for many, opposition to the war was reasoned, principled evidence of good, perhaps brilliant, judgment. ‘Cause if you admit that, you might have to wonder why the people with public podia tend to be the ones who got it oh, so wrong.
August 13th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Re Don Williams
Gee, Mr. Williams and I are in agreement that General Wesley Clark is a no no for Senator Osamas’ vice president. Of course, our reasons are quite different. I oppose General Clark because he is an Israel basher.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Sb, your bland assertion is not an argument. Fail.
If I am a personal pacifist and someone comes up and punches me, I do not punch back. It may turn out that that was a smart thing (as far as preventing further violence) or not. It doesn’t matter, but I was not analyzing the situation and making a judgment. I am a pacifist, and don’t hit back no matter what. No such thing as a “compelling reason” involved.
And Matt is right to use this, as many opposed the war for reflexively anti-Bush or anti-war reasons. The fact that assholes like Humboldt and Barbar continue to beat him over the head for a misjudgement he made as an undergraduate (that he has copped to and learned from) is the worst sort of assholery.
August 13th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
I am still waiting to hear when Yglesias is going to join the Marine Corp – I mean after all he supported this war and he fancies himself some kind of foreign policy expert.
Fight young man, fight – put your punditry on the line
August 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I am a pacifist, and don’t hit back no matter what
If you are a principled Democrat, and the Democrats nominate Adolf Hitler as their Presidential candidate, then you vote Democrat, no matter what.
If you are a principled supporter of abortion rights, and you have a chance to support a legal right to post-birth abortion, then you support this legal right, no matter what.
This is what it means to have principles. Someone who has principles is a complete moron, exercising no judgment. He may do good things or he may do bad things, but he is a reflexive knee-jerk idiot who cannot possibly contribute meaningfully to a debate.
What we need for a healthy political debate are unprincipled people, people without any preconceptions about how the world works, who take every case purely on its own merits without reference to any other case and use logic to arrive at optimal results. Undergraduate philosophy majors are particularly good for this purpose.
And could any of this be relevant to the Iraq War? Only an asshole would think that. An asshole with principles.
August 13th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Yglesias, you are a dope.
I am still trying to figure out what qualifies you to be a foreign policy pundit/expert.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Why do people keep employing this knownothing?
Yeah, Matt, being against the war isn’t necessarily indicative of better judgement, but being for it is necessarily indicative of being a complete fucking moron. Consequently, you should at least try to show you have the brains to stfu about war in general, and this war in particular, you clueless prick.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:39 am
The Mattsuckers often come up with shit like this:
The point is, the punishment for that “error” should be that you are no longer taken seriously on this subject whatsoever. He is in no position to judge, or at least to have his judgement considered worth considering.
What is the value in saying “I was wrong; now listen to my further thoughts on the subject”? Are you just not able to see that the wrongness is sufficient to discredit the further thoughts utterly? This is not a complex maths problem he got wrong, or a difficult idea in philosophy. He got wrong a simple question, which many of us, including Quakers, got right by instinct. That’s why Yglesias is a piece of shit. He didn’t just make an “error”. His worldview is in error. The war on Iraq wouldn’t have been right on any terms. He didn’t just get it wrong because the terms were wrong this time. He got it wrong because they never would have been right.
August 14th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Well, I personally don’t have any problem with supporting wars on a case-by-case basis.
The difference between principled opposition to war and supporting wars on a case-by-case basis is the difference between opposing capital punishment and leaving capital punishment as a potential penalty for any criminal case that goes to trial. The basic question you’re left with is, when is it okay for the state to murder? The pacifist answer is never; the non-interventionist response is to say never, except in the case of some strictly-defined sense of self defense. Far outside these schools of thought you have liberal internationalists and neocons, who set the standard of justification so low, and define America’s role in the world so broadly, that it’s hard to imagine an international crisis that couldn’t plausibly be interpreted as a justification for an American invasion – hell, if Kosovo was kosher by internationalist rules, what isn’t?
I have less than no faith, after reading Yglesias’s book, that he won’t endorse the next Iraq. He still believes the Gulf War was justified; he still believes Kosovo was justified; he still endorses Afghanistan without being able to marshal a coherent argument for America’s ongoing and apparently endless occupation there. In that he reflects a liberal foreign policy consensus that seems to reflexively accept superficial traits of “victory” (e.g., low numbers of American casualties) over examining the long-term consequences of a given war (half a million Iraqis dead from sanctions following the Gulf War, leading to the increased Iraq/U.S. tensions that culminated in the 2003 invasion). It’s also a foreign policy consensus that loves, loves war, and the possibility of war. A truly anti-war political philosophy – one that would reject something like the Iraq invasion out of hand as an immoral abomination and look for ways to fight the fundamental factors that give rise to war – the way capital punishment opponents often look for ways to fight the fundamental factors that give rise to violent crime – isn’t going to be all that popular within the ranks of American liberalism, because there’s no demand for such a thing within a war-loving culture.
August 14th, 2008 at 8:47 am
If I am a personal pacifist and someone comes up and punches me, I do not punch back. It may turn out that that was a smart thing (as far as preventing further violence) or not. It doesn’t matter, but I was not analyzing the situation and making a judgment.
Nolaboyd, the fact that in this hypothetical you are a pacifist who never punches back does not permit one to conclude that you were not “analyzing the situation.” Even a pacifist might take note of the fact that the assailant is packing a firearm, and thereby would have two reasons to not punch back, just as many Quakers surely had two reasons to oppose the Iraq invasion (1: all wars are wrong; 2: dumbest idea ever).
Matt’s argument is essentially “Don’t listen to the Quakers regarding the disastrous invasion I supported, because Quakers are biased!!” It’s both self-serving and grotesque.
August 14th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Perhaps you can be taught SB. If you are a principled opponent to capital punishment, and I hand you a case and ask what you would support in this case. You say no to execution. Your answer was predetermined by your principles. You may also read the case and do fine analysis of other mitigating issues (some of which may be similar to what generated your principles), your position on opposing it not itself indicative of good judgment in that it is does not rely on judgment. AS you say, it’s “never” right, therefore in this case it is not right, REGARDLESS of the facts of the case.
Speaking of judgment, do you really put the Iraq war on a par with the Gulf war?
Zen: “The point is, the punishment for that “error” should be that you are no longer taken seriously on this subject whatsoever.”
That is a truly stupid thing to say. And I say this as someone who was very right and predicted the rise of Iran in this.
August 14th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Kudos, nolaboyd, for providing ample illustration as to why it’s not so unreasonable for Quakers and others with principles to be offended by what MY wrote.
Essentially, his post hinted (and your subsequent posts have come out and stated) the attitude that people who object to war in principle are unthinking, robotic, knee-jerking morons. Which, some, no doubt are – kinda depends on merits of the “principles” themselves, though, dunnit?
For example – My “principles” might tell me that war is automatically the worst possible outcome of any possible set of circumstances, ever, period, no need to even waste a moment’s thought on the matter. Or they might tell me, say, that armed conflict between nations is a fucking horrendous outcome that ought to be avoided pretty much at all costs, not only because of its manifest moral perfidy but also due to its nearly perfect track record of leaving things far worse then they were before the fighting commenced, for everyone involved. Holders of the second set of “principles” might reflexively oppose all war based on these principles, but they still have a rational set of criteria to use in order to evaluate and justify those principles. Sometimes, sadly, all options are bad options.
Now, the first set of “principles” above is indeed pretty stupid – if only because it asserts a patently false proposition and then refuses to defend it. It is also the worldview that Matt strongly hinted, and that you pretty much come out and state, that “Quakers and such who just oppose all war as a matter of principle” hold.
Whether or not that’s what Matt intended to convey, that’s how it reads, and it’s a pretty loathsome and sloppy sentiment which absolutely deserves to be challenged. His point basically boils down to “stupid people who lucked into being right on the war are still stupid”, which is hardly an earth-shattering insight. Lumping Quakers and pacifists into the stupid person category is just the odious icing on the trivial cake.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:51 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:32 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:27 am
buy viagra online
Great site. Good info
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:13 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra