Curiosity in opinion journalism

Hey Rod, have you seen the latest number of Modern Age? The entire journal is on this very notion of neglected issues.

Not sure I have a team anymore so: Conservatives- Need to re-examine their approach to budgets and taxes. Look at what really happens when they carry out their policies. How will it leave the country for their children and leave the country prepared in case of a true disaster. What does National Defense really mean? When do markets not work?

Liberals-Personal responsibility and incentives. People really do respond to incentives and if there are no negative consequences bad behaviors seldom change. Education. What has commitment to NEA promulgated plans really achieved. When do markets work better than government?

Steve

Rod, how about the humility to take responsibility for the detrimental global effects of our own rampant philosophical confusion (as your own comment amply illustrates):

"I've written before about how conservative opinion journalism doesn't spend nearly enough time rethinking how free-market capitalism undermines conservative customs, habits and institutions"

Excuse me? Markets undermine tradition? Not according to Menger's theory of money: markets are tradition. Acting persons, probably as far back as Ancient Mesopotamia, developed habits for exchanging the produce of their labor at market with tokens of an incorruptable nature divisible in value, customarily precious metal coins. Conserving trust in the value of such tokens persuaded both merchant and consumer of their obligation to a social disciplines in trade, with offenders punished by exclusion from the benefits of trading.

As fiscal conservatives, since Hazlitt in '64, we comprehend that inflation

"...is the increase in the volume of money and bank credit in relation to the volume of goods. It is harmful because it depreciates the value of the monetary unit, raises everybody's cost of living, imposes what is in effect a tax on the poorest (without exemptions) at as high a rate as the tax on the richest, wipes out the value of past savings, discourages future savings, redistributes wealth and income wantonly, encourages and rewards speculation and gambling at the expense of thrift and work, undermines confidence in the justice of a free enterprise system, and corrupts public and private morals."

So far so good.

But what happens when we hear a black pastor decry oppression of Haitians, the like of which is reported in today's Washington Post "Men are detained in Port-au-Prince for allegedly looting as Haiti is hit with riots over food prices." at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/10/AR2008041003867.html?hpid=topnews? and turn against the Pastor for his audacity in apportioning blame where blame is due: white men in robes, not the KKK, but the 9 members of the US Supreme Court:

"...in a subsequent series of rulings, found that the monetary powers of the federal government were bound up in the "inherent power" of government, and in powers exercised by all "civilized governments" not denied to the federal government. The idea that government has "inherent power" is, of course, anathema to libertarians, as is the doctrine that government officials have "implied powers." Whatever power the government has, beyond that to which the people give their consent, is neither inherent nor implied, but is taken by force." Clifford F. Thies

We are the enemy... we permitted our central bank to inflate credit in the global reserve currency pegged to the cartel of the petroleum producers (85% government-owned, and thus not freely traded)

Woe betide us if they elect, by force of their people's will via democracy, to convert to another reserve currency.

We got too greedy, wanting to secure a complacent future by speculating in the global currency exchange markets, all the while driving up inflation of the supply of dollars, diluting the wealth of those who trade in dollars, and most egregiously driving down the welfare of the most vulnerable: those with the least, the world's poor.

Rational free markets are good, irrational ideological governments are bad. Discuss.

I’d also love to see...more curiosity, more creativity, more observation

Steve Sailer wins, hands down. Agree or disagree with him (I probably disagree at least half the time), it's always fresh.

I don't read liberal opinion journalism as much, so I'm not sure to what extent the problem of incuriosity afflicts it

Liberal opinion is sadly stuck with an old Soviet-style type of debate, now called PC: demonize your opponent, ignore his ideas (think Summers, Saletan, Watson). It is far more about attack, and less about intellectual honesty and seeking the truth. Not worth reading. Yawn.

what neglected subject or theme do thinkers and opinion makers on your political team need to show more curiosity and creativity in exploring?

This comment made me think, because I realize I really don't have any "political team" as all; everyone I read pretty much disagrees with one another. But all need to show more curiosity for sure, and quit repeating what the AP reports. Also, they should poke at ideas, and stop trying to be everybody's friend. I'm still waiting for you to challenge Deneen or Poulos or even Douthat one of these days, for example ;-).

On a sidenote, I think everyone is lagging behind the new reality that there are no true "political teams" based on ideas anymore. The new voter is not so much political but a person who relates to some identity group. This is due in large part to the bowling alone effect and lack of a melting pot - we humans need to belong, not to ideology but rather to culture. When we had a melting pot, we could afford to argue ideas. No more.

The big political future: voting blocks based on race, sex, and religion. The Hispanic block, the black block, the evangelical Christian block, the feminist block. Think about the OJ Simpson trial for an example; it's not so much about what is true as us-versus-them. The Democratic primary (blacks for for Obama, women for Hillary) is a good example of the future of American "political teams" - little conflict over ideas, so thinkers need not apply.

"what neglected subject or theme do thinkers and opinion makers on your political team need to show more curiosity and creativity in exploring?"

I offer three:

1) Entitlements, particularly how they interact with family structure. While I give mdavid some credit for identifying "identity blocs" as the future of American politics, I don't believe he takes into account the central political reality of the 2010-2040 period: the war between age groups over control of State spending. (I use that word in the literal sense; I believe that there will be blood in the streets and anti-elderly pogroms, and in the relatively near future.) Virtually no one on either end of the spectrum is saying much about that.

2) Religion. There is a massive disconnect between the LA/NY/DC elite classes and the commoner population, and the legitimacy of religious faith is at its heart. The elites really don't understand why normal Americans still believe in God. There is no discussion of why that disconnect exists, and that has to be remedied, soon. Otherwise, the current elite will come to be seen as more of an alien occupying force than as part of the society---and much unfriendly mischief will be made from that.

3) Social control mechanisms. Thanks to things like "market research", publicity and similar mental and emotional-manipulation techniques, the current State/Corporate elite (the 1,000 or so families who wield most of the economic and political power in the Empire) is becoming increasingly stable and ossified in its social and economic positions. This is dangerous because without some direct, personal knowledge of "how the other half lives", it becomes almost logical to treat those in the lower orders as abstractions rather than as Human beings. Elites have to circulate to have a healthy culture---and in this society, increasingly, they're not.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Also, they should poke at ideas, and stop trying to be everybody's friend. I'm still waiting for you to challenge Deneen or Poulos or even Douthat one of these days, for example ;-).

Fair enough, but I tend to agree with these guys a lot, and when I don't, it's usually about something so trivial that I don't feel inclined to bring it up on the blog. I'll look for points of contention harder in the future.

Reciprocity and Civility accepted as Virtues, not Vices. I lived for the last 33 years in Berkeley,Ca. I am a Mild conservative/Timid Libertarian (like Tom Stoppard). I once belonged to Orthodox, Reform, Conservative Synagogues at the same time. My Coptic tutor was a Jesuit and my Aramaic/Syriac tutor was a Franciscan. Almost everyone that I knew was a Liberal or a real Socialist, which is truthfully quite distinct from a Liberal. I found over the years people to be much more open about all cultural and political issues than they used to be. I think that readers of Crunchy Cons will recognize some of the following proposals that many people I knew would consider. 1. A Guaranteed Income like the one proposed by Milton Friedman and Charles Murray. Many people people I know would be willing to replace the Welfare State and devolve power locally if the truly needy were protected. 2. Many people I know would be willing to accept hunters as partners if they presented themselves as stewards of wildlife. 3. The right to own guns with real restrictions to try and help control inner city guns. 4. Home Schooling would gain wider support if it were presented to some people as an issue of personal belief and fear of school conformity and homogeneity.5. End the Death Penalty for either religious of juridical competence reasons.6. Focus on food, ecology, localism, as interrelated issues.7. Do not accept executive claims to power. 8. Do not accept military expansionism. 9. Do not accept Torture.10. On immigration, focus on the unfairness to legal immigrants, and don't focus on peoples ethnicity except with very specific reasons to individual people.11. Try to find thinkers or politicians who are on the opposite side that you can read and respect.12. Do not give in to personal libels or conspiracy theories. If you think the other person is an ass and tend to think the worst of them, then they will likely return the favor.13. Do not be an Ideologue. Try and focus on issues.14. On Homosexuality, stress the belief in sex tied to family life and its positive influence and not on the person. In other words, focus on your own beliefs. I could go on and on. The only issue I could never find common ground on was Abortion. Not on whether it was right or wrong, many people find it wrong. I simply found that many people will not accept women or doctors involved in abortion going to jail.But many people are in this position because they feel that they can understand both sides of the issue, and so you should not give up on persuasion as opposed to law. The same is true of drugs. People will compromise on drugs to the extent that treatment is seriously an option for an addict. I guess that my point is that it is not the issues that are being mishandled, it is the mode of discourse. If you truly believe yourself to be defending a decent and worthwhile position, have enough confidence in yourself and your beliefs to try and persuade others. Start with people you know. If you don't know anyone different than yourself, then try and reach out. Also, try adding Patience to Civility and Reciprocity. If you tend to doubt the media, then try doubting the idea that we are all so angry at each other. I understand that I feel quite a bit different than other people on this blog, but my nature is to learn and teach with anyone of good will.

I would like to see both sides discuss the negative consequences of the blowhards, Moore and Limbaugh as examples. Stealing from Karth a bit both sides need to discuss the consequences of elites on both sides dominating politics too much.

Id like to see conservatives have an open conversation with minorities about what they have done wrong in the past and how they can offer solutions for the future. Why is conservatism a better choice?

Id like to see liberals explain to minorities why their solutions didnt work in the past. Why will their solutions work now? Why is liberalism a better choice?

Steve

Erin:"Put simply, we have to move past the "daycare" model of education and require more of parents than we do now."
mdavid:"...free market (vouchers) is the only effective way to find these solutions. Yet since this position has already been demonized, I retract that."

Considering our sub-replacement birthrate, education providers will soon be forced into concluding that they must compete for students, assuming a free market and zero immigration, parent-power will be real, so thingks Jennifer Morse at Acton's Powerblog:
http://blog.acton.org/archives/2284-Controlling-the-Children.html

I didn't mean to demonize vouchers, just to point out that support for them has ended up being more controversial than we might have thought back when they were first being discussed. That's what I meant by the whole "us v. them" dilemma: people who have identified themselves more with the status quo of public education tend to view vouchers suspiciously as a way for the government to sponsor religion or religious schools or to undermine the institution of public education in some equally subtle way.

So what was proposed as a creative solution was seen as an agenda driven move by the sort of people already suspicious of public education rather than as anything that might potentially be helpful.

Which is sort of linked to Rod's whole point, not just here, but in the book: we get so hung up on the purity of someone's credentials or background that we can't listen to the ideas.

It's like when groups of people vote against *any* increase in education funding in their area, because to them "funding" means "higher taxes to pour into under performing schools that are already wasting all the money they're being given."

So what I meant by the shouts of "funding!" "vouchers!" etc. is that too often we see these positions as being a kind of shorthand for "I'm likely to take a liberal position on this issue," or "I'm likely to take a conservative opinion on this issue." And once we've established that about the people we're talking to the conversation tends to shut down as each participant becomes more driven to defend his "team" on the matter than to listen to the merits of any ideas regardless of which "team" they're coming from.

I didn't realize when I posted that Peggy Noonan was already ahead of me in her observations (lest I seem churlish by not giving credit its due). And her take has more humor than mine:

"The trip begins in Washington, and the White House has announced that the pope and the president will "continue their dialogue on the interplay of faith and reason." (This prompted a long-suffering Bush supporter to say, "I'm seeing the collision of matter and antimatter.")

Clare Krishan, education providers will soon be forced into concluding that they must compete for students

This is an interesting point ignored by the talking heads (mainly because they tend not to have many children themselves).

The whose children are these, anyway? question you raise is indeed front and center. The competition for the heart and soul of America's children will only increase as liberals have less and less of them.

History is instructive here: the division of ideology and breeding started big-time when the 11% of boomer women who had 4+ children suddenly accounted for a quarter of all the children born by that generation merely because so many women suddenly entered the workforce. And this cycle is repeating now among Xers and Yers, creating our not-so-slow drift in American culture away from the secular toward religious fundamentalism.

It won't take long for liberals to fixate their Sauron-like eye on this political reality, however. The progressive future in any democracy is all about controlling or converting children that progressives don't have (hence the venom against homeschooling). And you are correct that very few commentators are discussing this war over children. It falls under their radar.

Well, on the side I go with...the breakup into particulars is excessive, the willingness to engage the Right's and conservatives' sophistry and rhetorical Calvinball on their terms is too great. It would be nice if the liberal commentariat (as such) took a more confident and systematic approach and simply read its side's major books from the 1920s to the 1970s intelligently once in a while.

I wouldn't mind seeing conservatives admit how much of Modernity has worked out and/or is a rectification of injustices. Or how much of the problems they assign to Modernity itself are actually problems of transition to it, mostly reflecting hidden costs and unresolved disputes and submerged dogmatisms of the past surfacing- and immaturity in evaluation and dealings with them.

In theory at least, conservatism should consist of more than just anti-Modernity, and- like any legitimate hard challenge- realize and accept Modernity as difficulty that will affirm its proper truths and adjust the relative esteem of its partial truths.

Some measure of acceptance of the utility- if not partial correctness- of Modernity and cosmopolitanism seems to me the difference between those people you tout (Larrison, for example, can see things from contemporary Western European perspectives) and the provincial and parochial ones that merely add hot air.

Jillian is so spot-on!
"In theory at least, conservatism should consist of more than just anti-Modernity, and- like any legitimate hard challenge- realize and accept Modernity as difficulty that will affirm its proper truths and adjust the relative esteem of its partial truths."
see the tail end of Rod's "Conservatism is dead. Long live conservatism! post from yesterday for how we ought take information technology that presently benefits the speculator moguls trading on the financial markets to accomodate the needs of our health-care consumers to find their just price in like manner :
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/04/conservatism-is-dead-long-live.html

The Democrats (and liberals in general) have long been known for speaking and caring for the weak and oppressed of society. They take the side of the unpopular and the voiceless. They are willing to stand up for the poor, the weak, and the vulnerable, against exploitation by the majority, or by the wealthy, or by the powerful.

I would like them to finally add "unborn children" to the categories of those weak and vulnerable people they care for.

Topics I've seen neglected:

1. Foreign policy: Might the internationalist focus that has dominated US foreign policy over the past century or so might no longer be necessary, or possibly be harmful to the Republic's long-term health? To drastically oversimplify, the left favors overseas interventions premised on a misguided humanitarian impulse, while the right would favors them based on a misguided sense of what constitutes a threat to US national security. Nor does either side seriously question whether US economic foreign policy ought to be "free trade with some exceptions", as opposed to "tariffs with some exceptions".

2. Civil-military relations: historically, a standing army has posed a considerable danger to a republic. Ours, thus far, has been an exception to this rule. Why is this? And how likely is our good fortune to continue in this regard?

3. The possibility that at least some portion of the differences in ability among human beings might not be the product of genetics, and if so, what the social, political, economic, etc., implications might be.

Yes, there are commentators for whom each of these is a hobbyhorse. But, at least in my experience, the mainstream view on #1 & 3 tends to comprise a consensus with minor variations. And #2 isn't even on anyone's radar except for a few military personnel and (mostly former military) civilians.

I guess I'd like to see discussion on the following topics, although I'm sure hardly anyone else does...I'm a historian of 19th and 20th century French colonialism, so I guess this isn't surprising.

- What can the history of European colonialism tell us about interventionist policies, the development of ideas regarding the West among Muslim intellectuals, and what could current groups of conservatives draw from this history about how American and European communities interact from people from outside their regions?

- What can different groups of American conservatives learn from their counterparts in Europe, Japan, and elsewhere? How uniquely Anglo-American are paleoconservative ideas as they are commonly articulated here? Are there alliances and possibilities in conservative movements that cross Anglo-American boundaries? I think of traditional Anglicans in the states finding allies in Uganda and Nigeria, for example.

- Is there anything to learn from European conservatives from the early to mid-20th century? Agrarian, localist, faith-based (well, for the agnostic Charles Maurras, not quite what you would expect) notions of conservative ideas distrustful of egalitarianism, immigration, and endless progress were common among various sorts of European conservatives before 1940. Roland de C., I would love to hear from you on this one - your posts remind me so much of the many French Catholic magazines and books from the 1920s that I've read for my research! It strikes me that the 1930s and World War II really demolished or fatally compromised a fair number of European conservative movements outside of fascist movements but shared with many people in the US today concerns regarding consumerism, sexual morality, faith issues and the like. I think this is one of the big reasons for the dominance of the left in Europe since the late 40s. Case in point - TS Eliot liked Charles Maurras a lot before WW2. Since Maurras cheered on Petain, I can't imagine Anglo-American conservatives of any stripe really drew from him at all after the war, or even know who Maurras was now.

Really neglected subject or theme: What makes TAXATION "fit for purpose"?
__What is a tax system ?
__How much is a fair tax?
__Who decides when to tax?
__Where does an American taxpayer turn when he can't afford to purchase sales-taxed milk because the democratically-elected taxation authority considers it morally justified to give a 30 year waiver from corporate income taxes to a foreign steel company?

For those with the stomach for heightened-anxiety generating doublespeak(*) worthy of George Orwell, hear Alabama Rep. (R) Howard Sandaford argue about "my people" (and no, that's not the citizens of his state, just the ones who voted for him, the same ones who drive on the roads paid for by the taxes on milk, not of course taxes on the profits from foreign steel) or Robert Bentley (R) quote Christ's beatitudes at the podcast here www-tc.pbs.org/now/rss/media/NOW-415.mp3 (at 9:30 mins in)

"There are avenues through which, if they are really are, are poor, they can get some help. They may not be poor in spirit. They may just be poor in not being able to buy all the conveniences that you think they should have. That doesn't mean they're not happy. You can be happy and be poor...
Money does not make you happy"

Let's parse the Evangelium (that's "Good News" in German) for ThyssenKrupp shall we?

"There are avenues through which, if they are really are, are [an unprofitable business], they can get some help. They may not be [unprofitable] in spirit. They may just be [unprofitable] in not being able to buy all the conveniences that you think they should have. That doesn't mean they're not happy. You can be happy and be [unprofitable]...
Money does not make you happy"

Feel the outrage?
The kind that "cries out to heaven" Deut. 24:14-5; Jas. 5:4) The injustice to the wage earner is the fifth of five heinous injustices listed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, under #1867)

(*) and lest we forget, Satan is the father of lies

And consider that those same milk-taxes (paid by the people that don't work at that foreign firm because they're too poorly educated to qualify) teach Alabama kids that the Boston Tea Party was a seminal event in American History... Masochistic, or what?

REVOLution - Vote Ron Paul!

(or watch the whole thing on video at http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/415/index.html)

I certainly agree with Ross Douthat's view.

Most of the discussion about our problems is caught up in lockstep groupthink to which I'd add overthink. The largest problem is neatly summed up in this quote.

"We're in a time when what's needed is lots of vigorous thinking and debate about something more than what a bunch of sorry sumbitches the other side is."

Liberal or conservative arena, take a position outside the approved lanes and they will beat the snot out of you.

Of course being a liberally porgressive centrist moderate conservative, my thinking may be flawed.

I've long been fascisnated by the closing passage of Federalist 55:

***Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities [i.e., "qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence". Virtue?] in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.***

I would like to see more discussion among the Talking Heads and the Chattering Classes about whether or not we possess "these qualities" as a people, as a nation. I've come to believe that we can't even agree on what those qualities are.

"And then people like you bemoan that over these years the country has found no good leaders in its front ranks, has only a pathetic vision of its future, is losing rank in the world in all areas, its education and research efforts are in broad decline, its decisionmaking is poor, its demoralization is high, quality of life is declining, and resentment is the defining quality of public life."

Wow, I bemoaned THAT? (What a sentence btw.)

"Perhaps only elites and elitists see an obvious connection between the two."

Of course you do.

There is no such thing as thinking conservatism, just as there is no such thing as conservative Christianity. They are contradictions in terms.

mdavid, what did you find scary?

That if James Madison was correct in #55, despotism is certainly right around the corner for us. That you're right: we cannot even agree on virtue today, let alone practice it.

"That if James Madison was correct in #55, despotism is certainly right around the corner for us. That you're right: we cannot even agree on virtue today, let alone practice it."

Yeah, it's a scary thought, and one I've contemplated many times since reading Fed#55. Somewhat related is this from C.S. Lewis [paraphrased from memory]:

"Aristotle said some men are fit only to be slaves, and I don't disagree with him, but I reject slavery because there are no men fit to be masters."

It's a conundrum, a paradox wrapped in an enigma. Or something like that.

Max:

It was a metaphor... wrapped in an allegory. Search the page for the string "Alka-Seltzer"... ;-)

"not to act in accordance with our beliefs is contrary to human nature"

I think in Romans,it'd be . . .
"not to act in accordance with our beliefs *is* human nature"

:)
pax

Hadn't checked the SEIU site in a few months. May no longer be worth visiting. It now appears to be a giant Obama ad!! Last time,there were a bunch of compelling worker stories. But why is it that it seems only the Democrats are behind the working poor. Why can't Republicans get on board.

There are plenty of charitable people in the Rep.Party. What's choking off their voices. Is it these long-standing roots of uncharitableness in Conservativism that are silencing the idea as soon as it rises up? Ranging from the extreme Dartmouth Review types to the apathetic/ Too bad for you brands. Is it an unsuccessful competition with the counterstories of restraint/self-reliance. Is it the complete but dearly beloved fallacy that to be rich is to be better. [I believe the demeaning term played ad nauseum in talk radio is 'Unwashed masses'.] Or is it because a long long time ago views counter to those of big business gave up the ghost in conservatism and headed to the hills for the Dem. party. If Conservatism could find away to embrace not only the elite and the middle but also the poor it would have something. And I don't mean embrace the poor just through their love of God and Guns. But through these expressions of the intrinsic value of human persons and of Crunchy conservatism.

When you stop and think about it, if anyone's going to be a good candidate for Conservatism it's the poor. But we've got to take on their one positive way out. Good paying (union) jobs. If anyone has lived through a time of want, they know the value of conserving. They get it. But right now neither party is really about conserving - $$ at least. Maybe that will be a benefit of this recession. Everyone recognizing that it's good to go without. Good to have limits to test our ingenuity and creativity. To get our values straight. And maybe someday that ALL unions aren't categorically unacceptable.