The Relevance of Theory
David Brooks says:
Some theoreticians may still talk about Platonic concepts like realism and neoconservatism, but the actual foreign policy doctrine of the future will be hammered out in a bottom-up process as the U.S. and its allies use their varied tools to build government capacity in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Philippines and beyond.
I think there’s something of a category error here. The development of some kind of consensus about how to do this stuff is noteworthy, and the development of some kind of consensus that it’s important to do is also noteworthy. But this kind of operational doctrine still doesn’t constitute a foreign policy doctrine. It doesn’t, for example, tell us which countries matter or why. There’s a question of how one should go about assisting the government of Colombia in its efforts to suppress rebel groups. But there’s also a question of to what extent it’s an important US policy objective to assist the government of Colombia in these efforts. To some, it’s obvious that if “anti-American” Venezuela is providing assistance to rebels and Colombia is a “pro-American” country, then we therefore need to give Colombia maximal support. I, however, don’t think that’s obvious at all — I think we need to be more skeptical of getting drawn into regional conflicts and of the whole habit of looking at such conflicts through this kind of lens.
As Ross Douthat argues there’s a kind of enduring relevance to these Platonic concepts. It’s a bounded relevance — the real world matters, pragmatism matters — but theory matters, too. To give an example, I think people are going to wind up coming down differently on a lot of different issues based on whether or not they think it’s important for the United States to try to maintain a basically cooperative relationship with other major powers — especially China and Russia — or else whether they agree with Bob Kagan that conflict between the major powers in inevitable. Now this dispute will to some extent cross-cut concepts like “neoconservative” or “realist.” Or, rather, I expect neocons to come down on the side of conflict (because they always love conflict) and to be joined by some folks who would describe themselves as realists and others who describe themselves as liberals, while (hopefully) most liberals and most realists will come down on the side of cooperation. But however people come down on this, they’re going to ground their positions in part in theoretical considerations and it’s going to make a big difference.
Keynes observed that “Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.” I think much the same is true of foreign policy thinking. Anyone who protests too loudly that they’re merely guided by practical considerations is probably just too in the grips of some theory to even see that he’s been guided by its deep presuppositions.
71 Responses to “The Relevance of Theory”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Brooks is simply trying to muddy the waters so that it isn’t as apparent that he and the GOP were miserable failures.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Spoken like a true pragmatic philosopher Matt. To paraphrase: Those who eschew philosophy are doomed to repeat its most fundamental errors. I believe Rorty made a similar case.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
1) Isn’t all the mumbo-jumbo simply people trying to conceal that they are traitorous whores who waste the lives of our soldiers for private ends?
2) The only fucking doctrine we should follow is: What is in the best interest of the people of the United States? There is NO Platonic ideal that is truthful –Aristotle showed that and Galileo pounded it home.
We should look at REALITY –not at some fucking unproven “ideal” taught by dumbfuck liberal arts professors.
If a foreign nation’s leaders are reasonably willing to cooperate –then cooperate.
If they compete for their national interests –but in a peaceful way –then do the same. Above all avoid giving another nation a strong reason for going to war against the USA.
If –in spite of all our forbearance — a nation shows beyond all doubt that it is bent on our destruction then hit back hard.
The problem today is that our REAL enemies lie within our borders — and have US citizenship. A parent who lost a son in Iraq has far greater reason to bury a fucking hatchet right between William Kristol’s eyes than he has reason to wage war on people of the Middle East.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
To some, it’s obvious that if “anti-American” Venezuela is providing assistance to rebels and Colombia is a “pro-American” country, then we therefore need to give Colombia maximal support. I, however, don’t think that’s obvious at all
It’s not obvious because that has very little to do with why we support Colombia. The cooperative US-Colombia relationship long pre-dates the Chavista regime in Venezuela, and is primarily based on a mutual desire to stifle the drug trade and the power of drug traffickers.
Venezuela’s involvement came much, much later (primarily, as far as I can tell, as a knee-jerk “screw the Americans” gesture without genuine Venezuelan interests behind it.).
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm
The only fucking doctrine we should follow is: What is in the best interest of the people of the United States?
The smartest thing Don Williams has ever written.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
It is heartbreakingly cute to see that David Brooks has discovered that Platonic concepts are often insufficient on their own to achieve real-world results.
I mean, really, really cute. Like a YouTube video of kittens exploring a room and playing with yarn and stuff. I just melt.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pm
PS Given that we are now $11.3 Trillion deep in debt, I very much doubt we should give a shit what Keynes –or Keynes’s devotees — have to say.
After several decades of Keynesian policies we are fucking slaves to our creditors –not to some defunct economist. The “long run” has arrived — and Keynes is dead. We , on the other hand, are stuck with his bar tab.
From the viewpoint of scientists and engineers, people educated in the liberal arts are pathetic. They are superstituous savages who believe their mental constructs have some basis in reality — because they are too simple-minded to be capable of analyzing and grasping reality itself.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Re right’s comment “The cooperative US-Colombia relationship long pre-dates the Chavista regime in Venezuela, and is primarily based on a mutual desire to stifle the drug trade and the power of drug traffickers.”
———-
That is a consideration –although the drug trade would dry up if the United States simply tamped down the DEMAND for cocaine here in the US.
It seems to me that Plan Columbia didn’t really kick into gear in the Clinton Administration until the rebels blew up Occidental Oil’s pipeline –and cut the electrical supply to their pumping stations. Ask Al Gore how much Occidental stock he owned at the time.
Plus there was that irritating rain forest tribe trying to block drilling on their land by complaints to the United Nations.
Joe Lieberman’s dislike for the drug trade dates to the point where he discovered that the US taxpayers would be buying a lot of Sikorski helicopters under Plan Columbia. The location of Sikorski is left as an exercise for the reader.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
The overarching theory that I have found most valuable and reliable for thinking about public policy issues is “David Brooks can be ignored.”
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pm
The development of some kind of consensus about how to do this stuff is noteworthy, and the development of some kind of consensus that it’s important to do is also noteworthy. But this kind of operational doctrine still doesn’t constitute a foreign policy doctrine.
True enough. But I think Brooks has a point. Even granting that a series of decisions does not amount to a doctrine, there is a question about the extent to which actual policy decisions reflect the application of a previously formulated doctrine, or are less theory-driven, improvised responses to temporally and spatially localized concerns. An administration’s foreign policy doctrine may take shape on the fly, as a way of giving intellectual coherence and intelligibility to a series of decisions, and as a way of explaining those decisions to others. But those initial policy decisions are probably more a reflection of the enormous institutional and historical inertia behind previously chosen courses of action, and the bureaucratic weight of existing relationships and power centers, than a reflection of any kind of doctrinal purity.
As far as the academic attempts to introduce really deep theoretical coherence into foreign policy decision-making, most of the prevailing theoretical frameworks (”realism”, “liberal internationalism”, etc.) turn out to be infinitely malleable, vague, exception-ridden and content-free when pressed into real-world practice. They really offer little help.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“David Brooks can be ignored.”
A good rule! The Republicans ignore him. We should do the same. On the non-Krugman days, just tear up the op-ed page
and use it as hamster litter. You’ll be smarter and better-
informed, and the hamsters will be more comfortable.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
After several decades of Keynesian policies we are fucking slaves to our creditors –not to some defunct economist.
It’s Reagan’s mess, own it and don’t repeat right-wing pundits talking points. How sweet it is that the right’s superhero is to blame for the vodoonomics of deregulation now completely discredited.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Re why oh why’s comment “It’s Reagan’s mess”
—————
Actually, $9.5 Trillion of the $11.3 Trillion Federal debt was incurred under the personal signatures of our last three Republican Presidents. Who campaigned as “fiscal conservatives” running against the “Tax and Spend Democrats”
Which should prove just how worthless David Brook’s “Platonic Ideals” are.
The logic is: All Republicans all Liars. David Brooks is a Republican. Therefore:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
good point, but in reading brooks’s column today i thought to myself “this has an air of yglesias’s view of liberal internationalism”
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“. . . while (hopefully) most liberals and most realists will come down on the side of cooperation.”
I wouldn’t bet any money on most realists coming down on the side of cooperation. In fact hard core realists are more likely to believe in the inevitability of conflict. For neocons, the world would be just perfect if everyone lived in a democracy. Realists tend to think that humans are destined to want power and struggle with each other.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Yes, fine, but our modish theorists are slaves to the economists whose theories will be debunked by the sins of their apostles. Wither Rubinomics, uncle Milton?
Theory is much more a justification for actions rather than a cause of them.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I liked Don Williams more when he was a country singer in the 80’s. Trite bullshit sounded so much more appetizing when backed by some tasty steel guitar and Nashville strings.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm
“The only fucking doctrine we should follow is: What is in the best interest of the people of the United States”
A trivial platitude, where the rubber hits the road is in the definitions of “best” “interest” and “people.”
Patrick
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
The only fucking doctrine we should follow is: What is in the best interest of the people of the United States?
That sounds clear enough. But the idea that the United States government should always do what is in the best interests of the people of the United States is a generic formula that is easily adapted to most foreign policy decisions.
You do have some people who will frankly disagree with the sentiment, and hold that the US should sometimes do various good and idealistic things even when those things do not serve the best interests of the people of the United States. But you more typically find participants in the foreign policy debate attempting to squeeze their preferred course of action into the “best interests” framework. And it’s fairly easy to do.
Neoconservatives were fond of arguing that in addition to having material, power and security interests, the people of the United States have moral interests as well. Thus any moral defense of a course of action can be automatically fit into the best interests framework.
Others are more fond of arguing that no matter how remote some idealistic course of action might seem from the pursuit of our security, power and material interests, it is actually conducive in some complicated, long-run way to those practical interests. People can convince themselves of all sorts of reasons for thinking that overthrowing a bad government Bananayana will pay handsome rewards in the long run.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Re PTS’s comment ” trivial platitude, where the rubber hits the road is in the definitions of “best” “interest” and “people.” ”
————–
If it is such a trivial platitude, why have foreign policy discussions for the past 8 years NOT been discussed in that context?
Instead, we’ve had Big Oil’s puppets grabbing Iraq’s oil deposits under the guise of “spreading democracy” –if speaking to the ignorant rabble — or “protecting Israel” –if speaking to the billionaires who fund the Democratic politicians.
If it is a trivial platitude, WHY does no one in Washington point out that there is NO reason why any US citizen should sacrifice his life for the sake of Exxon, Israel, or “to spread democracy”?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Re Dan Kervick’s comment “You do have some people who will frankly disagree with the sentiment, and hold that the US should sometimes do various good and idealistic things even when those things do not serve the best interests of the people of the United States. ”
—————-
1) In which case, such people should be asked why THEY THEMSELVES do not pick up a fucking assault rifle and risk their lives on a foreign battlefield — something that the Republican Leadership and Neocons have conspiciously refused to do.
2) Whenever Condi Rice, Williams Kristol or George Bush sprouted their deceitful bullshit , why did NO ONE ask them:
“What gives you the right to sacrifice a single American life for that objective?”
3) All the vague talk of “ideals” is a classical tactic of CON ARTISTS. Cut through the bullshit, focus on specifics –on reality — and you expose those con games for what they are.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Re Dan Kervick’s comment “Neoconservatives were fond of arguing that in addition to having material, power and security interests, the people of the United States have moral interests as well.”
—————
1) A close match of Neocon arguements to reality used showed they were bald-faced liars.
2) Killing people for any reason other than self-defense is the most immoral action possible.
3) Trying to micromanage nations on the far side of the world is tyranny, not democracy.
4) Stirring up justifiable hatred against the United States for no good reason is treason — not patriotism.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Economic theory, for all its problems, yields genuine insights which can’t be achieved through intuition alone. I don’t really see how the same can be said for foreign policy theory. More often, it’s just a way of justifiying crude moral prejudices with a bunch of fancy language. Instead of revealing deep presuppositions, it seems more likely to just obscure them. Like how the neocons convinced themselves that the Iraq War was some sort of idealistic venture…
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Additionally, for actual Platonists (and their nemeses), the phrase “Platonic concepts like realism” is a hilarious oxymoron.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Don Williams and Dan Kervick,
Do you know who these post-Iraq war neoconservatives are? They are the Kissinger’s of the 21st century. Any moral arguments they do make is just a guise to support their realist pro-America agenda. You can argue their policies aid disproportionately rich Americans or they are ineffective but to attack them for having genuine moral arguments is misguided.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I can’t find it, but haven’t you written an amazingly similar post before?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Or … perhaps it would be most helpful to drop all of the nebulous and nonsensical political labels and speak in terms of “smart” and “dumb,” “intelligent” and “stupid.” Ludwig Wittgenstein said somewhere that philosophy was “patent nonsense,” which rings true to me. It’s as bad as calling “economics” a science, or suggesting that “economic theory” has anything to do with science, or calling someone a “financial expert.” (Look where that has gotten us.)
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“I liked Don Williams more when he was a country singer in the 80’s. Trite bullshit sounded so much more appetizing when backed by some tasty steel guitar and Nashville strings.”
Don Williams wrote “I Can’t Stop Loving You” and “Oh Lonesome Me” on the same Sunday afternoon in Knoxville Tennessee — R.B. Morris
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I think we will eventually fight China (and as China exists now, probably should) and maybe Russia. But that’s where my agreement ends, I think we should establish close ties and good relationships and actually conduct them in good faith until the time of conflict appears: because by doing that we will be in a much stronger position to undermine them when the time comes.
I’ve said before: If it’s a choice between uneducated Chinese grubbing in the dirt to subsistence farm or uneducated Americans doing the same I am going to fuck the Chinese over every single time. But right now that is a false choice and I’d like to avoid it while we can and be prepared to use it if/when we must.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
There’s a great deal more real world evidence that Colombia’s government actively supports narco-paramilitary death squads in its own country than that Venezuela supports any rebels in Colombia.
You have 1/3 of the Congress locked up or under court investigation, for example, and the President’s cousin & adviser, and the President’s spokesman, and the President’s former intelligence chief / campaign coordinator, and the now destituted leader of the army, all of them busted for material & financial collaboration with the narco-paramilitaries.
Outside of allegations on a magic laptop, what real evidence is there of substantial Venezuelan state assistance to the Colombian rebels?
Hell, Venezuela & Ecuador would be justified in mounting cross-border raids into Colombia to destroy the paramilitary camps of those who continually cross into Venezuelan and Ecuadoran territory to engage in narco-trafficking, corruption, and assassination.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
@ 23 Don Williams
2) Killing people for any reason other than self-defense is the most immoral action possible.
3) Trying to micromanage nations on the far side of the world is tyranny, not democracy.
4) Stirring up justifiable hatred against the United States for no good reason is treason — not patriotism.
———————————
And here are more doctrines that were not mentioned in your initial post describing the ‘only’ relevant doctrine. There’s a lot of philosophy in the phrase “the best interests of the American People.” These seem to be come corollaries of yours, but other people might have different corollaries, while still agreeing with your rather empty ‘doctrine’.
Just as I’m sure liberal arts types must drive engineers crazy when they talk about engineering, engineers who think they can dismiss the all theory sound ridiculous to people who have put some thought into what theories are and what they do.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Is Venezuela really anti American per se, or are they just anti Exxon-Mobil expropriating their oil wealth?It’s not the same thing.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Aatos — well, I don’t think the government of Venezuela is anti-me, but it is vehemently opposed to many of the policy aims of the U.S. foreign policy establishment. That is, when Chavez actually has a coherent policy that can be discussed, because often there is a lot of non-specific bluster.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:14 pm
It’s important to pretend that foreign policy is theory driven so that our intellectuals have something to do. It also serves the secondary purpose of obscuring the history and present day actuality of American foreign policy.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Actually those two things are linked. Rephrased: It’s important to pretend that foreign policy is theory driven so that our intellectuals can get on with the work of obscuring the history and present day actuality of American foreign policy.
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 pm
Aatos,
The Venezuelan government is opposed to liberal capitalism, but that can mean many things. I don’t think that they particularly want to foment a socialist revolution in the United States, rather they would like to be able to establish socialism in their own country and possibly inspire socialist movements in various South and Central American countries (which, to be honest, probably need them). I don’t see how that adds up to an existential threat to the US. If you don’t particularly mind what kind of government and economic system Peru or Nicaragua happen to have, then Chavez isn’t a threat to you.
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 am
Don Williams: “From the viewpoint of scientists and engineers, people educated in the liberal arts are pathetic. They are superstituous savages who believe their mental constructs have some basis in reality — because they are too simple-minded to be capable of analyzing and grasping reality itself.”
Nice description of Matt and his degree in philosophy from Harvard. I agree.
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 am
The only fucking doctrine we should follow is: What is in the best interest of the people of the United States
The smartest thing Don Williams has ever written.
Well, then he’s pretty dumb. It’s beyond obvious that the problems we face in the 21st century are unsolvable if we keep hanging on to the outdated notion of “national interest”. Indeed, and disregarding the fundamentally unethical nature of such a mindset for a moment, the single-minded pursuit of such an ideology lies at the heart of many of those problems and has to be overcome if we are at all interested in solving them.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 am
This whole ’science’ versus ‘liberal arts’ thing is either bunkum or the fetish of some nerds only happy in one domain of life.
Have you looked at those areas of social science which most closely apes the hard sciences? They do next to nothing. It answers no questions. It spends all its time on statistical refinement and new mathematical and computational theories so as to say more and more limited things about empirical data results.
The hard sciences so far are an excellent model for studying the natural world, and a particularly bad model for studying most of human society.
Conversely, as far as anyone can tell, you don’t have to take into account consciousness, intention, or systems of belief when it comes to the behavior of most of the natural world.
But if you think it makes your genitals bigger or better to talk about ’science’ and blah blah blah, and then proceed to natter like a jackass on subjects which have close to zero to do with the natural sciences, go right ahead.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:24 am
“Pragmatism works in theory, not in practice.” — Sidney Morgenbesser.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:28 am
By an odd coincidence to this post, a Colombian TV news program reported that one of the Colombian military investigators of the captured FARC laptops shows no e-mail correspondence whatsoever, although there was evidence that e-mail correspondence had been used due to MS Word documents which had e-mail addresses.
This contradicts one of the central earlier claims by higher Colombian military officials and the Colombian government that the laptops actually contained e-mail correspondence demonstrating Venezuelan state support for the rebels.
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid3451456001?bctid=3570892001
http://colombiareports.com/colombian-news/news/2215-police-investigator-there-were-no-e-mails-on-computer-raul-reyes.html
Of course, the rebels could have just been using a web-browser e-mail program (i.e., Hotmail, Gmail, Terra, or the like) I suppose. Still, the original claims appear to have been bunk.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:00 am
When an ideologue writes that we’re past ideology, what it really means is that he is aware that his ideology is a failure, but is still unwilling to consider the merits of any others.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:23 am
The only fucking doctrine we should follow is: What is in the best interest of the people of the United States
OK, what is in the best interest of the people of the United States?
Access to energy supplies?
Reducing terrorism?
Does expanding democracy and promoting political reform reduce terrorism?
What if we’re faced with a situation when we could support democratic political reform, but it would reduce our access to energy supplies?
Now we’re into theory.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 am
Re novakant’s comment “It’s beyond obvious that the problems we face in the 21st century are unsolvable if we keep hanging on to the outdated notion of “national interest”. ”
—————–
1) It depends upon how you define the “national interest”. Which is a very interesting debate but one we never get around to discussing in the national forum here in the USA because our punditocracy is infested with liberal arts con artists promoting their bullshit “theories” — which usually turn out to be vaguely worded, convenient and deceitful descriptions of reality.
2) I argue that our “national interest” lies in avoiding costly, unprofitable wars where possible. Lies in avoiding pissing off other people and other countries where there is no reason to do so. Lies in allowing foreign peoples on the other side of the world to manage their affairs as they see fit so long as they do not threaten us and respect our wish to do the same here in the USA. Lies in treating other people fairly.
I would also argue that it is in our “national interest” to have what the Founders called ” a decent respect for the opinion of mankind”.
That we should restrain our own psychopaths and predators from inflicting misery on foreign countries just for the sake of short-sighted, selfish business agendas.
Given that our President Bush deliberately LIED to the citizens of this country re why Sept 11 occurred — and given that our news media and punditocracy fell over themselves in supporting and promulgating George Bush’s deceit — I realize that’s a tall order.
So the most pressing action we have in regard to serving the national interest is in creating a mechanism to expose and expelling the liars among us. Forcing them to speak on specfics and to address the facts — vice misleading the voters with deceitful narratives — is step 1.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 am
Re Joe from Lowell “OK, what is in the best interest of the people of the United States?…
…What if we’re faced with a situation when we could support democratic political reform, but it would reduce our access to energy supplies?”
——————–
1) If you had engineers — instead of stupid shit liberal arts majors — participating in foreign policy discussions, the first thing the engineers would point out is that it is STUPID to piss away $38 on military operations for every gallon of imported Middle Eastern gasoline,
2) The engineers might also point out that military operations are a hugely expensive form of CONSUMPTION — that has to be spent year after year — and that the full bill is usually concealed by the lying advocates of military interventions.
3) They would point out that we have invested practically NOTHING on the development of new energy sources in the 30 fucking years since President Carter started wearing a sweater in the White House. That if we had INVESTED in developing new technologies , we would now be getting PROFITS from the sale of those new technologies abroad — instead of getting deeper and deeper in debt to a rising competitor China.
4) But Liberal arts pundits are too fucking ignorant of technology to even realize that multiple options exist –much less participate in rational problem solving.
Plus they are probably too corrupt.
If you have pissed away $200,000 and 4 years on a worthless degree, you don’t have many options on making a living/paying off educational loans other than finding some rich man’s ass to kiss whose agenda you can promote with elegant, two-faced sophistry.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:53 am
This is such a moronic geek fantasy. For such a loudmouth about science and empirical evidence, you sure don’t seem to be interested in the fact that we have actual histories of various engineers and scientists in power, and their approaches vary from rational to ideological and silly.
For example, a number of engineers are fascinated by lunatic Objectivism and other ‘libertarian’ fetishes.
But, no, don’t be rational, just fucking fantasize that if you stick fantasy super-engineer in power that they’re going to be playing the role of fantasy-scientist in power. No, they aren’t going to be the major twit-head, right wing pseudo-libertarian asshole freak engineers I’ve worked with, no, no, they will be Plato Engineers, to a one.
And I’m not defending the notion of ‘liberal arts’ educated politicians either.
God, for a supposed scientific rationalist, you sure are pathetically, and increasingly uninterestingly naive.
But hey, I guess it depends on what comic books you read.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Re el Cid’s comment “And I’m not defending the notion of ‘liberal arts’ educated politicians either.”
————–
Good. Because their record for the past decade is not too good, is it?
There is a strong difference between the CULTURE of the liberal arts and the culture of science and engineering. Scientists and engineers have zero tolerance for deceit — because a bridge does not remain standing if you simply glide over the shortcomings in the design. If you are building nuclear bombs, you can indulge in lazy hand-waving.
We have all seen the massive lies promulgated by George Bush and the White House in politics, economics and foreign policy over the past 8 years.
But WHERE were our liberal arts departments in our PUBLICLY SUPPORTED Universities during the Bush Administration?
(And ALL Universities are heavily publicly supported –even the Ivy League.)
Aside from Mearsheimer and Walt — and Juan Cole — what fucking professor in economics, foreign policy, Middle Eastern Studies or political science stood up and pointed out to the voters how President Bush and his supporters were lying to the country?
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
CORRECTION: If you are building nuclear bombs, you can NOT indulge in lazy hand-waving.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Our Universities are one of the few elements of society which are protected from economic retaliation.
The average worker in our corporations can’t speak up because he can be fired at will for no reason — whereas a tenured professor cannot. Most people have little capital — our univerisities receive $Billions/year in public support and tax relief so that they can build multi-billion endowments.
Yet our Universities have allowed our national forums to be turned into whorehouses for the plutocratic few.
What bigger indictment of our liberal arts departments can be made than that they have allowed Fox News to become a trusted source of information for half of our citizens?
Do you think you can hide in your comfortable cloisters as your country collapses? Do you not see that whoring for government grants, gifts, consulting contracts, influence and endowments destroys everything the liberal arts are supposed to represent — that it makes your life a fraud?
That when you lose the respect of your fellow countrymen, you ultimately lose public support for the very idea of “academia”?
Socrates would have pissed on you in scorn.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Don Williams: I work in the private sector. For a small company. And I entirely support (in general) tenured professorships, ‘liberal arts’ in the sense of academics specializing in fields outside the natural sciences, etc.
I think you’ve got another one of your monomanic (is it now oligopomanic) obsessions going on with this. It’s not the ‘liberal arts’ nor tenured professorships that are the problem. You’re starting to sound like yet another right wing hack who denounces them danged fancy heads with their big degrees and non-Stone Age beliefs, rather than some principled critic of unjustified class / ideological reinforcement systems within the universities.
(Note, for example, you’re still not making any sort of empirical, scientific argument about this, complete with a system of defining variables which would be used to measure instances of dissidence or degree or profession variables. You’re just doing hand-waving and insisting everyone immediately agree that because you say reality is X, it’s X, and anyone who doesn’t believe is somehow naive or less science-y than you.)
I think there are other features explaining why tenured, liberal arts professors were among the most prominent dissidents of the 1960s-1980s yet seemed to be less prominent after that. Part of that is the “seemed” — and you’re partly blaming the dependent variable (the prominence of dissident liberal arts professors) on the independent variable (the behavior of Fox News).
Plenty of academics on a regular basis, yes, liberal arts tenured professors, wrote and spoke out against Bush Jr. administration policies. But if you expected academics to frequently begin leading mass protests — scientists, engineers, or otherwise — I think your awareness of the history of U.S. social movements is colored by your own conceptions rather than objective analysis and empirically recorded history.
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Who expects professors to lead marches — which are kinda ridiculous anyway?
But with all their resources, why do Universities join together and publish a REAL newspaper? One which exposes the lies and stupidity of our news media, our punditocracy, and our leaders in government?
Wouldn’t be hard, wouldn’t cost must, and would be a great service to the country because it would pressure the commercial news sources to clean up their act –or be exposed as con artists.
Or is the problem that the Universities’s “wisdom and knowledge” is only for sale? That they engage in the national discourse only if you hand them a $50,000 check?
That their idea of the “Great Conversation” is “he whose bread I eat his song I sing” — and since Joe Sixpack don’t show up on Harvard’s $10,000 Donor list, then fuck him?
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Correction: “why CAN’T Universities join together and publish a REAL newspaper?”
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Oh — and where have the Schools of Journalism been all this time?
Off sucking on Rupert Murdoch’s dick?
March 1st, 2009 at 5:49 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:15 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
tramadol
Great site. Good info
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:31 am
buy viagra online
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:19 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra