The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Yesterday, in a provocative post, Harlech threw down the gauntlet, calling into question whether conservatives are competent to govern. For the most part, it seems to me, his argument is without merit.
In a time of plenty, when budgets are fat, it might make sense to suppose that “sweeping budget cuts” will “not get passed” and that “drastic changes in our governance structures . . . will never take hold.” In a time of fiscal crisis, when one has to choose between drastic increases in taxation that are more likely to depress the economy than to yield much in the way of tax revenues, on the one hand, and serious budget cuts, on the other, one would have to be willfully blind to make such an argument. Moreover, the notion that the Republicans lack governmental competence – given what we have seen of Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, and Sarah Palin and what we are beginning to see of Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and the new Governors in Wisconsin and Michigan – seems to me indefensible.
There was another dimension of Harlech’s argument that does seem to me to require closer examination. I have in mind this paragraph:
Consider Mark Steyn's recent bashing of DNI James Clapper, a decorated veteran who has spent his career in defense of the nation. Consider Claire Berlinski's accusations that Bruce Riedel is a propagandist "for the enemy" because he disagrees with her analysis of the Muslim Brotherhood, despite the fact that Riedel has similarly dedicated his career to the CIA. In both cases, being an expert appears to be -- at least in the mind of Steyn and Berlinski -- a bad thing.
Here there are two points to be made. First, Mark Steyn and Claire Berlinski may err on occasion, but they have a propensity for doing their homework. James Clapper described the Muslim Brotherhood as a “largely secular” movement. Mark and Claire – he in his book Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech, and the Twilight of the West, and she in a series of posts on this site – have laid out the evidence in fine detail for the contrary view: which, let me say, is obviously right. Whatever the Muslim Brotherhood may be, it is not secular. Even the Obama administration found Clapper’s claim an embarrassment, and Bruce Riedel’s assertions along comparable lines are pure wishful thinking.
My second point has to do with expertise. In her post today, Claire draws attention to the efforts mounted by the Saudis and others to bamboozle us by promoting “expertise” of a certain kind – and to their effectiveness. To this, I would like to add a single point – that nowhere has this disinformation campaign been as effective as with the American military.
Take a look at Dorothy Rabinowitz’ column in today’s Wall Street Journal, which deals with a report entitled “A Ticking Time Bomb ” issued by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and produced by Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins. As Rabinowitz points out, this report details the conduct of Major Nidal Malik Hasan prior to the Fort Hood massacre, showing the manner in which “multiculturalist zeal” drove his “Army and medical school superiors to smooth” his “rocky way through training, promote him, and, despite blatant evidence of his unfitness, raise not a single concern” about the dangers he posed.
Even more to the point, Lieberman and Collins examine with some care the official Department of Defense postmortem on the massacre – “a study whose recital of fact” makes “no mention of Hasan's well-documented jihadist sympathies.”
Subsequent DoD memoranda portray the bloodbath – which began with Hasan shouting "Allahu Akbar!" – as a kind of undefined extremism, something on the order, perhaps, of work-place violence.
This avoidance of specifics was apparently contagious – or, more precisely, policy. In November 2010, each branch of the military issued a final report on the Fort Hood shooting. Not one mentioned the perpetrator's ties to radical Islam. Even today, "A Ticking Time Bomb," co-authored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I., Conn.) and Susan Collins (R., Maine), reminds us that DoD still hasn't specifically named the threat represented by the Fort Hood attack – a signal to the entire Defense bureaucracy that the subject is taboo.
This is the military from which James Clapper comes. If you want to know why our Director of National Intelligence made such a fool of himself, one need look no further. Political correctness is a problem in our universities. In our armed services – and perhaps also in Bruce Riedel’s CIA (it would be good to know) – it is far, far worse. Those who speak the truth are systematically weeded out. In such circumstances, how respectful should we be of a survivor’s claim to expertise in matters such as these? Would a competent government rely on their advice?
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Political correctness has silenced the speech center of the brain and the toxin is hard at work on the collective will to survive.
May '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
The very word "expert" has a dangerously suppressive effect on critical thinking.
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Isn't the thrust of the conservative proposition that really no one is fit to govern, and that the only known way of preventing abuse is to limit government precisely because of that reason? In my experience, moreover, the experts do not want to govern so much as rule -- to impose their preferences on everyone else.
May '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
On the bright side, this budget crisis is just what we need to stamp political correctness down. People look for plain courage in a crisis.
Well said.
Knowledge and experience do not equate to wisdom and character.
May '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
There is a similar effect at work in the field of missile defense (which, according to the post in question, "every expert" thinks is "a joke"). The businessmen, scientists, and engineers who believe it is feasible and want to develop the technology join the industry team and work quietly on classified things.
The ones who think it's impossible or "a joke" become "experts" and start their own think tanks or consultancies, make media appearances, and put out press releases and skeptical academic reports, trying to make its "unworkability" a self-fulfilling prophecy.
All the while, the people working to solve the problem have to keep their mouths shut. So much for expertise.
Jul '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Funny you should note that, my friend was just saying that "Courage" should be the tagline for the 2012 GOP ticket.
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
And they want to be our rulers in another way as well -- they want to be the measuring sticks by which we measure ourselves.
May '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Palaeologus
Funny you should note that, my friend was just saying that "Courage" should be the tagline for the 2012 GOP ticket.
Excellent idea! Of course, we'd never hear the end of it from all the folks asking us to "reach out" to the middle.
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
The past decade has been a terrible one for the experts. They were wrong about terrorism, global warming, Japan's economic superiority, financial risk, American voters love of socialized medicine, the importance of eating lots of bread and pasta, the euro, the population explosion, real estate values, and the longevity of the Mubarak administration.
Probably a lot of other things, too. Personally, I hope they're wrong about ice cream.
Dec '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Leave it to Rob to get to the really important heart of the matter.
I think the Climategate debacle finally shed a smidgen of light on the insular, closed loop thinking of experts and academia.
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." --K, Men in Black
Edited on Feb 17, 2011 at 11:41amMay '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
The King Prawn
"Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow." --K, Men in Black
I'd just like to point out that the widespread belief in a flat Earth was a myth. People knew the Earth was a spheroid centuries before Columbus. In fact, it was Columbus who got it wrong. He overestimated the east-west width of Asia and underestimated the circumference of the Earth, which allowed him to believe that he could reach Asia by ship without running out of supplies. Lucky for him the Americas were right were he needed them to be.
Edited on Feb 17, 2011 at 12:03pmOct '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Harlech is either pulling our collective chains or is an agent provacateur. Either way, he's not worth another nanosecond on this issue. Let him rehabilitate himself with an intelligent or amusing or learned post sometime down the line.
Dec '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Dave,
Indeed. If he is advocating government by expert then he stands for the Wilsonian model. Bill McGurn succinctly summed up the reality that none of us is fit to govern another. It is a profound paradox that the characteristics which make us unfit to govern also dictate our need to be governed.
Oct '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
This is the core of the issue. We each give up a modicum of ourselves when we decide to empower others to govern. We acknowledge that need for collective defense and order in our cities and country, and other essential areas of life. But, the very people we surrender willingly that small piece of autonomy are, as we ourselves are, subject to the corruption of power. That is the bottom line. Bigger government anyone??
Nov '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Regarding Dorothy Rabinowitz's otherwise superb column, dare I register the complaint that it's perhaps the height of absurdity to impugn multiculturalism on the basis of its being contrary to our "values"? In using the language of "values" (i.e., as opposed to principles, or virtues, or self-evident truths, or "fixed postulates," to use William F. Buckley's phrase) is simply to tie oneself to the very relativistic (and indeed nihilistic) presuppositions of those against whom one is arguing. The estimable Steven Hayward recently made a nice foray into this problem at The Corner, Beware the Semantic Infiltration of 'Values.' In fine, this is hardly a semantic quibble, as words do indeed shape consciousness and our conception of the political. Seems a subject Prof. Rahe should perhaps take up as a blog post sometime on Ricochet.
Edited on Feb 17, 2011 at 2:31pmAug '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Rob Long: The past decade has been a terrible one for the experts. They were wrong about terrorism, global warming, Japan's economic superiority, financial risk, American voters love of socialized medicine, the importance of eating lots of bread and pasta, the euro, the population explosion, real estate values, and the longevity of the Mubarak administration.
Probably a lot of other things, too. Personally, I hope they're wrong about ice cream. · Feb 17 at 10:36am
The uber-awesome Thomas Sowell book, Intellectuals and Society, points out in chapter after chapter how intellectuals (and they ARE the experts. Just ask them.) are NEVER held accountable for their gross miscalculations.
And can I add chocolate chip cookies to the list of things we can hope the experts are wrong about?
Aug '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
About a hundred years ago in the 1970s, when I was in college, a history professor opened his lecture to the room of about 150 students saying, "I think prayer is a load of bunk." He then stood there and waited for responses.
The rest of the hour was filled by students standing up to the professor and disagreeing.
The next time class met, the professor confessed he made that statement every semester just to see what sort of reaction it would get.
I wonder if Harlech taught history at North Texas State in the early 70s?
Nov '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Woops! My bad. I'd read Rabinowitz's article this morning, and her use of the term "multicultural values" -- and then hearing Dennis Prager this morning talk about her article and how multiculturalism is at odds with our "values" -- left the impression, however erroneous, that she had been arguing from "values."
However, the point, in a way, still stands. Without sounding too pedantic, one might say that it is wrong to speak of "multicultural values." The people imposing multiculturalism, if you talk to such people and really push them on the issue, don't presume that multiculturalism is merely a "value," or their "value." As the saying goes, no relativist argues relatively. Which is to say even multiculturalists are, in a certain sense, political. Political people, which includes all of us in one sense or another, think they know what they presume to know, particularly regarding what they think is good (and especially what is good for themselves). For example, people who hold the idea that political positions are just beliefs, or values, tend to think that they know this idea, not just believe it. Ergo, political choices, as opposed to religious choices, are, strictly speaking, never matters of belief or faith or values.
Edited on Feb 17, 2011 at 3:18pmRe: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Robert Lux: Regarding Dorothy Rabinowitz's otherwise superb column, dare I register the complaint that it's perhaps the height of absurdity to impugn multiculturalism on the basis of its being contrary to our "values"? In using the language of "values" (i.e., as opposed to principles, or virtues, or self-evident truths, or "fixed postulates," to use William F. Buckley's phrase) is simply to tie oneself to the very relativistic (and indeed nihilistic) presuppositions of those against whom one is arguing. The estimable Steven Hayward recently made a nice foray into this problem at The Corner, Beware the Semantic Infiltration of 'Values.' In fine, this is hardly a semantic quibble, as words do indeed shape consciousness and our conception of the political. Seems a subject Prof. Rahe should perhaps take up as a blog post sometime on Ricochet. · Feb 17 at 2:27pm
Edited on Feb 17 at 02:31 pm
Indeed
Dec '10
Re: The Dangers Associated with Political Correctness
Why is Bobby Jindal always mentioned in "the list of rising star conservative politicians". I live in Louisiana and he's not that conservative.