This is a variation on what professors have always done when confronted with problematic applications of their ideas--lie and distance themselves. He'll never repudiate the basic ideas or he'll do it in an arcane way in a book or article no one will read.

Posted at April 3, 2008 2:27 PM in response to Yoo: I Thought Torture Was A Bad Idea, Really I Did

Lewis is one of the very few politicians in Atlanta, let alone Georgia with any shred of credibility. Off and on, he was my Congressman when I lived in Atlanta. He beat the corrupt Maynard Jackson machine to get his seat in Congress and is very popular in Congress on both sides of the aisle. He's not impulsive or thoughtless. He's a person of real integrity unlike the highly compromised Andrew Young, the crazy Cynthia McKinney, or Georgia's hopeless and corrupt GOP leaders. His switch to Obama will have real impact.

Posted at February 14, 2008 11:27 PM in response to Civil Rights Icon John Lewis Switches Super-Delegate Vote From Hillary To Obama

"I do believe that Christians (and this applies to followers of the Jewish tradition as well) have the task of calling the world -- and ourselves -- to account in the name of higher standards than any government or economic system typically achieves. Religious people should be hard to satisfy." Nice ideal but I rarely see this in practice. there a strong Calvinist strain in Protestantism that makes so much high minded thinking seem snobbish (and often it really is just high brow snobbishness). Religious people often have been the first to identify themselves as being on "the side that's winning", certainly in Catholic and Protestant colonial outposts and, in this country, very much in Protestant circles.

Most people I've known who think about standards in a truly sincere way have been Jewish. Reform Judiasm, in particular, has set these ideals in ways that seem to become aspirational in a way that doesn't happen in Christianity.

The issue of "how to reach religious people" is a difficult one because there are so many different variations. We have had progressive thinkers motivated by evangelism, like Neibuhr. But many of the same ideal have been espoused by their contemporaries who had become ever more secular (consider Niebuhr's nemesis, John Dewey). Christianity has repeatedly countered modernism of various forms (e.g., science) and, at best, resolved itself in the most philosophically tortured ways.

people like Hitchens may have visibility on parts of the web and with a limited print readership, but I tend to think that organized atheism is pretty irrelevant in terms of how people think about faith. There are a great many people who have fallen away from active religious practice--some really don't think about religion at all. Others may be searchers who explore Buddhism or other alternatives with varying degrees of devotion. In the megachurch era, it appears that even the most evangelical of churches are more like a consumer market place than a place that really identifies with uplifting standards.

In the end, what to do with religious people becaomes a complicated question and one that cannot turn on one's own ideals or preconceived notions of what religious people are like or who they are. There is plenty of survey evidence that would suggest that once you get out of the South, the religious people we're used to hearing about (evangelicals, fundamentalists) are a declining force in the population. And in the South, the rates of divorce, eta l. aren't exactly a testimony to how they shape behavior beyond the most superficial applications of faith. Religious practice in the South is as much a status marker (a means of gaining middle class respectability in places where a middle class life is unattainable) as anything else.

Posted at February 12, 2008 11:32 PM in response to Why We Should Not Be Easily Satisfied

Brookings was moving rightward in the late 70s, fater hiring some ex-Nixonites. AEI may have been less of wingnut circus when Schmitt was there, but it was mostly a position paper mill, even then. the same could be said for Cato and, to a large extent, Brookings. It's important to recognize that even if one is a lefty, a lot of lefties have little concern for facts or reality and are more comfortable in an overtly ideological environment than one which may provide at least some questioning of their premises, assumptions, and proof. In many ways, Scmitt may be better off for having worked for wingnuts, but he shouldn't spend so much time trying to justify what wonderful scholars they weren't.

Posted at September 6, 2007 7:02 AM in response to My Life Among the Neo-Cons

I'm a psychologist with a BA and part of a postdoc in sociology. I'm a history buff and a long time research collaborator with anthropologists. Of all the social sciences, the one that has never made much sense to me has been economics. The basic assumptions--that money supply drives behavior and that decision making is utilitarian never made much sense to me. Economies exists without money and there are many ways to provide great "elasticity" to the economy through services, organized crime, etc. Economists have suddenly discovered that decision making is not utilitarian and that simple economic incentives don't drive behavior---essentially they have recognized the work of psychologists that was largely established 30 year ago. Daniel Kahnemann, one of the key players received the Econ Nobel a few years ago.

A simple understanding of society and psychology makes it obvious how economic forces fall apart. People at different income levels have diffe4rent strategies for using money, if only because they have different options. Market often appear competitive but usually seem to be distorted by virtue of cartels or monopolies that constrain supplies and supply chains and the influences of financiers (think Wall Street analysts who ruin businesses with strategies for short term gain that have negative long-term consequences like trimming staffs and selling real estate).

The practicing economists I know have been in the policy and public health spheres. Despite having their feet in the real world, they often seem constrained by orthodoxy and get angry because people and organizations don't really inhabit their world.

Weather prediction has gotten better over time, but frankly, anyone who looks outside and can read a barometer does just as well as the weather man in the short run. Someone who can read a map and understands which way the wind blows can do almost as well in the long run. Economists can recognize when a recession is already well on its way, but they can't see how money markets and human behavior change over time. The effort to gain precision in prediction, as in the case of econometrics in the 70s and 80s was doomed because it has relied on simplistic assumptions that don't model actual behavior very well.

Mankiw has disappointed many, including somewhat contrarian economists like Max Sawicky. I think, like most Bushies, he has to tow the line or no one will listen to him. Of course, towing the line means that his influence on the administration is marginal at best. He's pretty much destroyed his academic career, although he may have opened up doors for himself for future prostitution in the wingnut sphere and in corporate America.

Posted at July 2, 2007 2:00 PM in response to Predicting with a Handicap: Why are Economists’ Predictions So Often Wrong?

He'll either be gone on a Friday afternoon (may be next Friday after the bubbub has died down) or here until the end of Bush's term. Bush could only confirma successor who is Gates-like in their establishment stature and someone like that would probably have a measure of independence from Rove, which would not be appraciated.

In the bigger scheme of things, he is a sideshow and, unlike Goodling, seems unlikely to be immunity material. The Dems could impeach him; they could force various confrontations on DoJ appropriations which would force Bush to take unpopular stands. The Administration is digging in for the long haul, but the Congress can go far in weakening it.

Posted at April 19, 2007 2:57 PM in response to Reader poll: the end?

I'm curious what "left" organizations that existed in the 60s are still around in any vibrant form. The "Old Left" organizations were greatly wounded by the split over Communism. Michaeal harrington et al., were quite paternalistic toward younger movements, but also learned lessons that New Lefters figured out much later.

Organizations like the Catholic Worker still exist, but in much less visible, influential forms. Yes, there's Greenpeace, but some organizations like MSF resisted having US chapters until recently. What we have from the 60s-70s era are organizations like NARAL, NOW, Sierra Club, etc, which are basically middle class, top-down operations which have failed to broaden movements that should be reshaping economic and social opportunities.

Basically, the 60s/70s self-destructed and what was left was a "college boy" (and girl) version of liberalism that has allowed all kinds of wingnut faux populism to fill the void that used to be taken by unions, New Dealers, the Old left, etc. McGovern was the perfect emblem of this and lousy candidate in just about every sense of the term.

Max may miss the vitality, the embarrassingly sophmoric reading list (something every generation has), and probably the sex, drugs, & rock-n-roll, but basically, the 60s failed us. The netroots will certainly have its disappointments, but at least it won't be an endless liberal arts college experience for a precious few.

Posted at January 16, 2007 10:27 AM in response to MY LEFT FANNY

I think you've hit most of the key points of difference between the movements. A few quibbles--few in the anti-war movement had any involvement in the civil rights movement. By the time that SDS got rolling, whites were being eased out of positions of authority in civil rights organizations. While there were whites who really dedicated themselves to the cause, there also were paternalistic liberals who wanted to run things. The anti-war movement (as a mass moevemnt, not the endlessly splitting leaderships) had amuch more organic relationships with the women's movement and the environmental movement. Labor is harder to categorize--Meany wasn't everything; there were fascists like Hoffa and democratic socialists turned liberals like Ruether and the younger generation of workers in many industries, like car making were far more militant than the older generation. I'd suggest you quit liestening to "colleg boys" and talk with real labor people. The New Left was dominated by kids from elite institutions, and never became a true mass movement. Non-elite campuses never had the level of activism of Berkeley or Columbia. Radicalization of even the mass of college students tended to come only when something happened locally (check-out Michener's book about Kent State as an aexample; the Kent was full of my peers' older brothers & sisters, not exactly activist material until May 4, 1970.

McGovern vs. Dean = no comparison. McGovern was a horrible candidate and thoughtful liberals were able to admit that, typically after the election. McGovern picked up some pieces of the RFK campaign and took advantage of the vaccuum left by the disillusion with Humphrey & Co. McGovern did advance a grassroots approach, but it had more in common with Common Cause (an ultimately elitist group) than with any mass movement. Dean was truly something new and he took advantage of new technology and he really has a view of the future, whereas McGovern, at base was a run of the fill liberal. Dean is typical of many of the 2006 winners--moderate to conservative on some issues, but identified clearly with the Left on others (such as the war in his case).

Netroots and Liberal "mainstream": The New Left turned its back on the Old Left and effectively helpd shrink lefty institutions even beyond what McCarthyism had accomplished. The democratic socialist and pacifist groups barely exist any more. The netroots tend to disagree on tactics rather than substance with conventional liberal groups--the one issue stuff, the static messages and funding bases, the willingness to lavish resources on token Republicans who produce nothing of legislative worth, etc. Although netfolks generally seem well-educated, I think there's much more exposure to the insecurity of our current economic system than has been present in the liberal mainstream. Those folks are college boys (and girls) who've never had to worry about much, esp. the ones who are boomer age. Their lack of connection to working people has enabled a lot of right wing pseudo-populism. The women's movement would have become a much more potent force if it had stayed focused on broad pocketbook issues. the environmental movement pays only lips service to the disparities in exposure to environmental toxins and degradation--too bad, it could be a much broader and more successful movement.
The netroots enables participation of many different kinds whereas liberal organizations tend to have astroturf-style membership based; you buy a membership, but you don't have much opportunity to participate.

The wingnuts may not have the same netroots, but they have a formidable noise machine, plus the fundies. The thing that threatens them more is the lack of any intellectual heft in the current generation. Most of the under-60 and certainly under-40 wingnuts are living off an infrastructure and legacy they never had to build. Read Pearlstein's book about Goldwater---it's amazing was somehow affiliated with the Goldwater race; Bork, Buckley, Schafly, etc. Other than than the neocons, the entire wingnut "braintrust" was part of that and they're all in the dirtnap and senility zones, now. There's no one to generate new ideas, just their no-talent kids and characters like Newt "flight of ideas" Gingrich. The drawback is that the hangers on and crazies attached to these people could easily coalesce around something even worse--think our current President, for example. The exhaustion of the Right is good in places, but could also be a lot of trouble.

Posted at January 15, 2007 5:28 PM in response to What is this new movement?

If you really paid attention to the '04 campaign (unlike the mainstream political media), social security was clearly a Bush priority. Because it wasn't prominent in the Bush campaign and was largely ignored (or tacitly supported ala Broder) by the media , "reform" came across as a "bait & switch" to many people. It wasn't the reason that people voted for Bush and it wasn't a priority for the vast majority of the public. Schiavo was another disconnect--it was a violation of a familiy's privacy. It was na issue that most people felt undeserving of its level of intervention. Social Security and Schiavo simply came across as disconnected with the public's real concerns and values and the reasons that moderates and independents had for giving votes to Bush. Katrina and the incompetent response simply reinforced all of this and made it easier for people to solidify their opposition to Bush.

Posted at December 28, 2006 8:41 AM in response to Tipping Bush

Broder's "pox onb everybody's house" schtick seemed sincere in the 80s. Unfortunately, beyond his "conventional wisdom" canary in a coal mine status, his writing has been useless and uniniteresting for years. We could ask what's up with him & MRs. Broder, except it wouldn't pass the "ecch!" test and I doubt that anyone cares. His "WaPo" chats are interesting only for the level of pomposity he shoews. My guess is that if the Post didn't make royalties from syndicating his column, they would have dropped him long ago. Sadly, this is why they still have Krauthammer and Cohen.

Posted at May 26, 2006 8:46 PM in response to The Elephant Shit in the Room