Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Contributing to Ricochet has been an almost gushy relief for me, and the relief has revealed, somewhat to my surprise--I didn't fully realize it--just how isolated I often feel in Istanbul. I'm sure that comes as no surprise to anyone else; it's fully to be expected, but somehow the obvious often escapes people when it comes to their own lives.
In my daily life, I meet almost no one who shares my fundamental assumptions about the world, who takes it as given that free markets produce more prosperous societies, who assumes that the United States is overall a force for good, who believes that the proper role of government is to defend the realm, make a few important laws, enforce them, and then butt out. I meet few people who view Israel, as we've termed it here, as "a normal country." I meet almost no one who shares my hostility to income redistribution or my belief that the Soviet Union was, indeed, the most evil empire mankind has known. I meet a lot of people who think Che Guevara was a terrific-looking fellow. (I don't think they have a more coherent or ideological view of him, frankly. Beyond that, they don't seem to know a thing about him.)
It's a marvelous relief--and obviously a lot of fun--to have a daily conversation with like-minded people. Again, no surprise. But I'm worried that it poses an intellectual hazard. I notice that because I'm scanning the wires for interesting items to write about for Ricochet, I'm spending more time reading websites where similar points of view are to be found. Nothing wrong with that, except that it crowds out the time I spend reading opposing points of view. This can't be healthy. First, it's too easy to miss the weaknesses in your own thought if no one is arguing with you. Groupthink, we all know, tends to lead to incredible mistakes in judgment. Second, the focus here tends to be on finding fault with opposing points of view, rather than figuring out where the common ground lies. Nothing wrong with finding fault with the opposing point of view, either--has to be done, it's essential--but in the end, we share a country with a lot of people who don't agree with us, and we have to live with them. There's no alternative. It's their country, too.
I get the sense--again, I'm not there, and I don't have my finger on the pulse, so I could be wrong--that America is now more polarized than I can ever remember. There's really a feeling, on the Internet, at least, of two very ideologically committed camps squaring off against each other, proud and swollen with mutual distrust and contempt, uncivil, unyielding, eager to attribute to the other the most sinister of motives, unwilling even to consider that the other might occasionally have a point of view worth considering. This tendency, I'm sure, is self-reinforcing; the more it appears that way, the more committed each side will be to entrenchment, to viewing the other side as radicals and lunatics committed to destroying the country. This can't be healthy, either. The United States is not facing the most extreme threats to its existence it has ever faced, but it is certainly facing extreme threats, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.
So a few questions, ones I think we might ask on a regular basis. Who, on the self-identified Left, do we respect as a basically serious thinker with good arguments to consider? What is he or she writing these days? Which politicians in the Democratic party seem to us to be doing pretty good jobs, jobs we could live with even if we're not completely in agreement with their philosophy of governance? Are there any good policies coming out of the Obama Administration? Unexpected successes? Who, on the cultural Left, would be fun to invite to a dinner party?
I'll start first: Joseph Stiglitz has many important things to say. We ignore his criticism of the IMF, for example, at our peril.
When the IMF decides to assist a country, it dispatches a "mission" of economists. These economists frequently lack extensive experience in the country; they are more likely to have firsthand knowledge of its five-star hotels than of the villages that dot its countryside. They work hard, poring over numbers deep into the night. But their task is impossible. In a period of days or, at most, weeks, they are charged with developing a coherent program sensitive to the needs of the country. Needless to say, a little number-crunching rarely provides adequate insights into the development strategy for an entire nation. Even worse, the number-crunching isn't always that good. The mathematical models the IMF uses are frequently flawed or out-of-date. Critics accuse the institution of taking a cookie-cutter approach to economics, and they're right. Country teams have been known to compose draft reports before visiting. I heard stories of one unfortunate incident when team members copied large parts of the text for one country's report and transferred them wholesale to another. They might have gotten away with it, except the "search and replace" function on the word processor didn't work properly, leaving the original country's name in a few places. Oops.
I'd be very happy to sit down with Joseph Stiglitz and discuss ways to reform the way the world responds to banking crises. I'm sure I'd emerge from the conversation much better-informed.
Your nominations?
More from Claire Berlinski
- Comment (19)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Robert Wright, Kevin Drum and James Fallows are among the liberals whose ideas I find most valuable.
Jun '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Who, on the self-identified Left, do we respect as a basically serious thinker with good arguments to consider?
Alan Dershowitz, who I happen to disagree with about the mosque at Ground Zero (he thinks it must be allowed,) but who generally argues using real facts, and not myth. I mostly admire him because he's a great supporter of Israel, and he'd rather be unpopular than shortchange his conscience.
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
How about pointing to some specific columns or posts you think we ought to be reading?
Jul '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Claire, one does not have to live in Istanbul to feel like a Jew in Mecca when it comes to intellectual isolation, just try my, or any, college town in the US. That said,to the names cited above, I'd add Joe Lieberman and Christopher Hitchens. The latter would enliven any dinner conversation. He is still a lefty, right?
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Hitchens is kind of an honorary man of the Right these days, I'd say.
May '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Claire -- I share your concern and desire to see us engage as often as we reinforce. I tend to think that many who write from the left have good and bad points to make on any given subject. I've even found myself nodding in agreement to Robert Reich on occasion (I know, I know.)
In our own little universe, I notice that Rob has managed to entice Jonathan Zasloff, UCLA law professor and would be Fox News de-licensor to sign up. I know Jonathan to be incredibly thoughtful, bright, well-intentioned, and occasionally infuriating. I have no idea how often he is likely to lurk here, but I am hoping he will pipe up more frequently and take advantage of Logo's well-mannered table to engage in legit debate.
May '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
As far as politicians go, I believe that many fairly conservative Virginians believe Jim Webb is doing a good job. I let both he and Mark Warner how I felt about their position on ObamaCare both before and after the vote, but I believe he falls into your category of "doing pretty good jobs, jobs we could live with even if we're not completely in agreement with their philosophy of governance"
Jun '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
I live in a very liberal town, so I get opposing viewpoints first hand. That's not going to help you, Claire, but I can offer a couple of points based on things I see and hear. The main difference between liberal and conservative with regards to the president is that liberals believe in the man while conservatives believe in the law. It's creepy to enter the home of a liberal colleague and see a shrine to Barack Obama. Some liberals have deified him.
On more prosaic topics, there is more agreement than disagreement. All my colleagues agree that popular culture is becoming ruder, cruder, and less civil. Of course, part of that perspective is generational. I tend to hang with the over-50 crowd.
One thing I was surprised to learn recently is that liberals distrust our professional politcal class on a par with conservatives. While in theory they tend to believe in government intervention, in pratice they know the political class is self-serving.
From a philosophical or ideological perspective there is no agreement. I have argued successfully with liberals for school vouchers, but such victories are a rarity. Neverthelss, most liberals I know are decent people.
Jul '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
I think Jonah Goldberg has written about this on multiple occasions. Liberals have settled dogma. They are at the point where they ruminate about tactics. Here is a good example.
Jul '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
I still on occasion find myself agreeing with David Brooks, but it's hard not to think he's become an honorary member of the Left...
May '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Having been son of an expat and then an expat since 1961, with occasional stops in the USA, I understand profoundly your sense of dislocation and/or isolation. It is not, on balance, a bad thing.
Your quote from Stiglitz brought to mind an IMF official who toured the ASEAN region during the Asian meltdown. Indonesia followed his advice (not that they had a lot of choice) and took years to recover. Malaysia did not and prospered.
Said individual is now Treasury Sec. of the USA, using lessons learned from Indonesia in creating another economic miracle. Lord help us.
Jul '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
I'm sorry, did you say you wre in Istambul Turkey, or an American Univeristy?
May '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Nat Hentoff. James Woolsey.
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Could you all please link to the specific pieces you most admire? I'm curious. I'll read them and report back.
Jul '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Mickey Kaus. I know, I know... really obvious and plenty might call him a LINO(DINO?), I suppose. But the man is in favor of compulsory national service, a more aggressive version of Obamacare, ultimately Mickey is a social justice guy. I highly recommend The End of Equality, of course. Here's a summary (wrongly described as a review) http://www.scottlondon.com/reviews/kaus.html.
As for his posts... read any of them, read all of them, the great thing about his stuff is it's honest, because he's honest. There's plenty of smarm, some paranoia, but little pose. He gives critics fair hearings and takes potential problems (political & practical) into account. He knocks many people, but doesn't demonize them.
Besides, anyone who can coin a ludicrous phrase like "premature anti-gloating" (http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2010/02/22/unions-vs-liberalism-part-xxiii.aspx) is worth a read.
Jun '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Camille Paglia might be an honorary woman of the left, considering that Rush Limbaugh likes her and had her on his show, and that she also wrote very favorably about Sarah Palin in 2008.
I used to be into her in the 90's, it was how I learned what the Venus of Willendorf was. It was really surprising to hear her on Limbaugh when I started listening to talk radio post 9/11. She's fiercely individualistic, her political columns are fun enough, I suppose, and read like an art critic describing a pay-per-view fight.
I'm annoyed with her naivety regarding the left, though. It's like she actually believes in the essence of leftist ideals, while it's becoming more clear that leftism is a surrogate religion with revolt at its core and substituting as a second coming. She styles herself as a student of Nietzsche, but seems to have understood little of his thought.
It's her tendency for intellectual honesty that makes her so charming... and so reviled at Salon.com!
Jun '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
Jonathan Alter was making the rounds on talk radio to promote his new book. Hugh Hewitt thought it was balanced. I haven't read anything of his, but in the interviews I listened to he debates with civility.
Jun '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
*answers questions with civility.*
Aug '10
Re: Emerging From the Echo Chamber
"Who, on the self-identified Left..."
I wonder... Is there an asymmetry in Left/Right labeling? Is it simply easier to avoid the Left label than the Right label?
Hitchens doesn't count himself as right-leaning, but he's now labeled as such. Bjorn Lomborg considers himself to be a good European leftist, yet he's treated as right-wing anyhow.
When I only share the views I hold in common with the Left with leftists (desire to see gays happily married, feeling that criminalizing abortion is a lost cause, concern over certain environmental problems) I still get treated as right-wing. (I guess part of this is that my reasoning process on these issues is noticeably different from most leftists.)
On the other hand, I meet many who self-identify as moderate, or non-left, who seem flagrantly Left to me. Just one example: I once dated a man who was ultra-hard-left in every way except one: he was pro-life. So he called himself moderate -- despite characteristic beliefs like "all incomes should be confiscated by the government, which should then return need-based allowances".
Is this just my bias? Just where I've lived? Or...