TNR Needs to Stop Insulting the Democratic Base's Intelligence: Supplemental

by descrates, Wed Dec 08, 2004 at 02:34:30 PM EST

I was amazed at the enormous amont of commentary my last diary received at Dailykos. Without making it to the Recommended Diary section, it garnered over 150 comments and still counting. Lord knows how much response it would have received had it been moved there. As to TNR, they have received so much negative feedback on Beinart's utter misread of his own party's base's views that the magazine was forced to publish many of the letters on its website, and has received some rather scathing critiques from several of its own contributers. This definitely speaks to how important this issue--the real opinions of the Democratic base on National Security--is to Democrats. I thnk it also speaks to how misunderstood we feel by the media, the rest of the country, and even the Democratic establishment.

I hope there is much more discussion in the future.

The best critique I've yet read was done by TNR editor John B. Judis. I'm printing here to hopefully further encourage this discussion. The other links are provided above.

Descrates

There are two points that I strongly agree with in Peter Beinart's recent cover story on the Democratic Party. First, I agree that Kerry's difficulties stemmed to a great extent from his failure to articulate a clear and consistent foreign policy, particularly on the Iraq war. Kerry's equivocation reflected on his character and his ability to extricate the United States from its worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam. Second, I agree with what is implicit in Peter's essay: that the Democrats lacked an animating moral purpose, particularly in comparison with Bush and the Republicans. Peter would endow the party with one by adopting a new crusade against terror in imitation of the older crusade against communism; my own feelings on where the Democrats' can find a moral purpose are more in line with historian Eli Zaretsky's take on the subject. But I think on these two points, Peter is generally right and has performed an important service.

As for our areas of disagreement: First, I don't favor his political prescriptions. Initiating factional warfare with, or even purging, everyone to the left of Joe Lieberman will not create a viable Democratic Party. Okay, that may be an exaggeration of what Peter prescribes, but there are clear echoes in his essay of Ben Wattenberg's Coalition for a Democratic Majority, which tried to do something similar after the 1972 Democratic defeat by creating a party centered around Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. The voters didn't buy it, and they won't buy Peter's party either.

Peter also misunderstands MoveOn.org and the various other Internet-based groups that have sprung up in the last five years. They are not an old-fashioned militant left but part of a college-educated post-industrial center-left politics that was developing under Bill Clinton in the 1990s. One of their big issues was the deficit, hardly a left-wing concern. They became identified with "the left" because they were early and prescient opponents of the Iraq war--a position that can no longer simply be identified with the left and that is not a reason to criticize them. Sure, they shouldn't have participated in marches with the Workers World Party, but these new movements are organized by people who don't have long political pedigrees. If anything, they are the best hope for a new moral vision that will animate the Democrats.

It's difficult in a short space to lay out where I disagree with Peter's foreign policy, which is implicit in the piece and not fully explained. For starters, though, I don't accept the comparison between the Cold War and the "war on terror." The Bush administration has used an extraordinary disaster, the September 11 attacks, to justify a politics of fear and a neo-imperial foreign policy. Al Qaeda was the outgrowth--decadent and deranged, to be sure--of the centuries-old conflict between the West and Islam, and particularly of its post-1880s phase, in which the Arab and Islamic countries of the region were dominated, formally and informally, by the British and French and later the Americans. The version of nationalism that arose in response to this domination often took religious--that is, Islamic--form. With Al Qaeda, it has taken an almost entirely religious, messianic form.

That older imperial conflict has still not faded in the Middle East, as it has in, say, much of Asia--and it won't fade as long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not equitably resolved and as long as the United States, now the main Western power in the region, is closely identified with autocratic regimes in the Gulf and in Egypt. The Bush administration's war of choice against Iraq and its uncritical support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon have only reinforced and deepened the problem.

The United States needed to respond to the September 11 attacks, as it also needed to respond to attacks going back to 1993. But the Bush administration's undifferentiated concept of a war on terror (which Peter himself has criticized) elevated one part of the response to the whole. The United States cannot allow a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda, with apocalyptic aims, to kill its citizens; nor could it allow a regime like the Taliban to harbor terrorists. But the United States also has to recognize the roots of Al Qaeda in the cauldron of the Middle East--not in its poverty or destitution, but in its troubled relations to the West, for which the West itself bears some responsibility. Invading and occupying Iraq was exactly the wrong thing to do. Now the United States needs to find a way to multilateralize and minimize our presence in Iraq, normalize our relations with Iran, and put our full weight behind the resumption of the peace process, regardless of who wins the Palestinian election. The rhetoric of the war on terror--and the comparison with the Cold War--blinds us to these imperatives.

Should we be engaged, as Peter suggests, in a "global campaign for freedom"? America should always stand for freedom--although not the Republicans' Wal-Mart variety--but what we ought to do about it depends on historical circumstances. No one is suggesting, I hope, that the United States invade or break relations with China because it is still a communist oligarchy. And the Middle East is, if anything, an even more problematic region for advocates of global democracy. Genuine democracy, and not simply a transient, jerry-rigged electoral process erected atop sectarian chaos, will eventually come to that region, but it will be through the initiative of the people themselves, not through the imposition of a hostile power.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

MoralQuestionsBlog.com

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

34 Comments

Sort by

permalink

TNR

I have nothing against TNR.

I say: "Hold the Base, Take the Center" as we are the big tent

by kydem 2004-12-08 04:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

Einstein: Doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result is insanity.
What does this line mean?

That line you just repeated from the DLC has been used since probably 1992. Maybe a little bit before. I used to follow it. Thought it was true. Until, I began to see these things as long term not short term. You can win an election or two with that kind of mantra (may or may not need a Ross Perot to help you with it), but you can't create a sustainable majority- sustainability requires a long term movement. Triangulation (the buzz word for it) is essentially playing a game of checkers, while the Republicans have been playing a game of chess.

When you say go to the center, what does that mean?

I have chatted with you before in this forum, so I know you are 20 years old from down the South. I am 33, and I grew up down South. I used to be you I guess is my point. So, I am going to ask you (and I really am seeking to ask you to do this rather than being rude) to learn to think through whether arguments are true in a historical, practical and leadership sense. This is where the playing checkers v. playing chess metaphor comes into play. Look, you may even agree with the positions of the DLC, but elections aren't won on positions. This is the fallacy of the left in general. We, or rather I should say, other left leaning people rely too much on positions as a proxy for leadership.

When Bill Clinton came into office in 1992. The center was Bill Clinton. 12 years later is that center still Bill Clinton? No. Why is that the case? It's not because Clinton was incredibly liberal in position was it? No. It's because the game of checkers- triangulation works both ways- if the other side is playing a game of chess where ever move is designed to build on all moves to obtain the long term win (they've been fighting for this for 40 years). If we triangulate, so do they. Everytime we try to move to the center they redefine that center as left, and this, in turn, allows them to move further right. To have noticed it you would have to have been around politically when these things occured or read on on the history. The only reason why I am where I am is because I have paid attention to how the game has been played. I saw Ginrich. I have seen the others be quite effective in triagulating the Dems to move further right.

How do they do this?

By defining the game, and making us play the game of chess by their rules. Essentially, at it's base, the DLC's argument is that we can convince people we are just like them, and let's call this "centrist" or "moderate." The Republican arugment is that we can appeal to the lowest common denominator within you. W/ the Southern Strategy it was race. In the 1980s it was the decade of greed. So on and so forth. It's always something, but effective because its the naughty side of the personality that's being appealed to. Problem with Arabs- fine. Problem with elist- fine. Elist is anything not like you. Liberal is anything not like you. Whatever it is that makes people get up in the morning on the lizard side of their brain - they use it.

To accept the centrist argument means asking how do we triangulate toward a lizzard? That's meant as a joke, but also very seriously to ask- how do you out do a Republican when you see that they are winning? How do we come to the fact that moving to the center means acting more and more like a Republican? Because, as I have said, everytime we trangulate so do they. By definition triangulation- trying to move to where you "think" people are is a game of guess work and requires one to follow others. If we are following others, then who are we following? This is what the DLC can't answer. They say, "the American people." But, how can they really mean that when they define what they think the American people mean by "centrist" and values by whether we have won the last election or not?

I know this all seems counterintuitive. But, it begins to make more sense when you think of it in terms of leadership rather than issues or position advocacy. It's why Bush can seem dumb to us, and so powerful to the American people. They will follow a bad leader who is a leader over a guy who is a summarizer of positions any day of the week. By leading, even in a bad direction, the Republicans are playing a game of chess. By doing what it takes to win, and that means being tough, and having the biggest balls in the room, they win. This is not unlike negotiating contracts- its simple human nature. As long as we don't get that- we lose.

To some extent, Clinton was bad for the party in this sense because he didn't offer a lasting legacy outside of himself.

Are you in school right now- have you taken any upper level economics courses? Game theory and some social pscyh classes would help you begin to understand why the DLCs idea on the surface sound great until you hit complexity (a system with more than simple parts)- I know people here talk a lot about Lakoff, but I found I have reached the same point he mentions by natural evolution of understanding how the game works. I also find having been in business, it starts to let me cut through the bullshit- the first time you sit across the table from someone negotiating an agreement- you start to realize that it's a game of chess.

by bruh21 2004-12-08 07:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

I am in school and have not taken an econ or psych class. It's the busy time of year for me so I will reply later when I have time to reply and not to a simple plug for my blog.

by kydem 2004-12-09 03:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

Not to suggest what you should take- but I definitely advocate a few classes- 1) Economics (Both Macro and Micro) 2) Social Psychology 3) A class in modern ethical systems 4) A comparative theology class are just some that looking back have proved useful not in a strict job description way, but definitely in a critical thinking way. also, of interest were a political economic history of the US and the world and courses in comparative economic and social development as well as a few courses in party politics if you are into politics (especially anything that includes campaign finance). and, if your school offers it a class in negotiation b/c it will be the most insightful about human nature to see how people think v. the theory of how people think

by bruh21 2004-12-09 04:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

I did study economics in high school and participated in the Fed Challenge sponsored by the Fed Reserve. I studied unemployment.

I might take the CLEP test for economics though. I have to take an economics class if I opt to minor in public administration. I don't know if we have an undergrad class for negotiation but we have contracts. It is hard to fit all these classes into 4 years!

I AP'd out of American Gov't. For some odd reason, my school gives credit for State and Local Gov't as well. 6 hours for one exam! That is not bad at all!

I am very involved politically. Regardless of what I think the party should do, I will always be a Democrat. Heck, my blog is linked from From the Roots, the DSCC blog.

by kydem 2004-12-09 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

Definitely try to work in a semester (two, if possible) of economics. But don't stop there; most economists are conservative, so that's what you'll mostly hear in class. Balance your classes with blogs by liberal economists like Atrios and Max as well as economic think tanks like the Economic Policy Institute (note: Max works for EPI) and the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Don't let the conservatives scare you with phantoms of Social Security collapse.

by Mathwiz 2004-12-09 06:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

Atrios is an economist? I am missing that from my blogroll unless there is a different name.

I will take that into consideration. Hey, look what I wrote about Bill Frist on my blog. His campaign invested in the stock market and now they lost $500,000. That shows why social security should not be privatized.

by kydem 2004-12-09 07:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

Great, if long, post. To try to summarize:

The DLC has been thinking tactically, while the GOP has been thinking strategically.

Moving to the "center" might let you pick off a win or two in the short term, but it's counterproductive in the long term. For the long term, you need to show leadership and vision, and thereby convince the people to move toward you, rather than constantly trying to move toward the people as they constantly move toward the GOP.

As Truman is purported to have said, "give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican, and they'll pick the Republican every time." When one politician takes a position out of principle (misguided though it may be) and the other takes the same position out of expediency, the principled man will win. Look at what happened to Brad Carson: Oklahoma voted for the genuine nutjob over the faux nutjob.

by Mathwiz 2004-12-09 05:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

"For the long term, you need to show leadership and vision, and thereby convince the people to move toward you, rather than constantly trying to move toward the people as they constantly move toward the GOP."

Nicely said.

by dicta 2004-12-09 06:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

Good Analysis--One Thing To Add

I would only add one thing to this analysis: Ironically, the American people are, on most issues, to the LEFT of the Democratic Party (which leaves a whole lot of room to lead people into). This is certainly true on social spending issues--check out the General Social Survey figures I posted a month or so back, which is just for conservatives, for example.

But it can also be seen in their preference for internationalism, which is stronger than Kerry's expressed in the campaign. It can be seen, too, in the fact, that PIPA revealed, that huge numbers of Bush supporters simply invented a much more sane and moral version of Bush in order to justify supporting him.

The whole bit on The West Wing this week about Penn & Teller "burning" a flag is relevant here. I think that a majority of Americans would really get the message that Penn & Teller were conveying--and really get that it was quite patriotic. But put it into the frame of political discourse as that has been defined over the past 30 years, and there's no way the American people would get it.

That frame creates its own mindset that is seriously disconnected from how people think when it is taken away. And that tells me that the frame itself needs to be attacked, seriously, systematically and relentlessly--because that's how it was created: seriously, systematically and relentlessly.

Beinart is classic example of someone who has no clue about what the real world is like. He is entirely a creature of that frame. Which is why he says so many things that are clearly ludicrous, if not insane. (Equating Al Qaeda's force ~ 10^4 with the Soviet Union/Red China's ~ 10^10, for example.)

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-09 09:15PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Good Analysis--One Thing To Add

Two Points:

1) It must be said that while it is true that Al Qaeda is not the Soviet Union, there is a threat to the U.S. that is as strong in a different way. The problem with people like Condi Rice is that she perceives of it as a threat of a state actor when in fact it is a new threat totally different from the Soviet Union. It's the threat of religious extremism (to which I would add all fundamentalism, and not just that of Islam- notice I do not say all faith- b/c faith is okay, it is when it is used to created a closed system that denies modernity that it becomes problematic whether that is Christianity, Islam or whatever.) Like Christian fundamentalist (who may eventually become a threat if they percieve that the end times are coming, and that nothing is being done to "prepare" for them), Muslim fundamentalist are dangerous if they obtain for example the nuclear war heads from the former Soviet Union.

When you think about it, 9.11 was only 3000 deaths- what would happen if they took out 3 American cities- NY, DC and LA (those three cities are the heart of most of what make America runs b/c they are the financial, political and media arms of power). Several experts who are not partisans (sorry, it's been years since I heard them talk so I don't have their names, I just remember the info (including a pre-0911, Clinton era bi partisan commission of terrorist threats) said before and after 09.11, that setting off and using a tactical nuke is not as "impossible" as Americans think. Al Quaeda in possesion of such a weapon would be a huge threat. They are already a threat also because it really only takes a small number (of which their ranks have grown since the idiotic invasion of Iraq) to disrupt a society. Another point that the Bush's missed. Remember again, 9.11 was 20 people disrupting a society of 280 million people. This is all to point to the stupidity of invading Iraq- because on fighting Al Quaeda and this form of global threat, the solution wasn't to invade Iraq. Whereas Afghanistan was a necessary action because this was a stronghold of Al Quaeda, and therefore made sense to go after this place now controlled by Osama Bin Laden. But Iraq? It offered no justifiable reason to attack for either strategic long term goals or tactical ones. We can't fight the tactics of the Al Quaeda network by using the methods of fighting state actors alone. Nor can we attack them without understanding their methodology, views or political goals. That's why, not because of a pacifistic reason, the attack was so wrong. It made no sense in terms of our goals.

To win against terrorism, is to win against a mind set. An almost impossibility that must be tried anyhow (in that I agree with the right on this, but agree with Kerry to that it must become a nuisance rather than a treat to the fabric of our lives- which by the way Bush also believes but will never say b/c its more politically convient to say that he can totally eradicate it). To win against the mindset in question here is a process that has multiple quivers, one is force, the other is police investigation, and yet another, among others, would have been to push the dictatorships of say Saudi Arabia toward Democracy because that is how extremism has taken root there- lacking political institutions the normal democratic forces at work in the middle east turn to religion as a way to exact social change. This is not dictatorships that had nothing to do with Islam- this is dictatorships that are rooted in religion such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. Also, this would not be a military operation.

At its core, this is why this is a battle against the extremism of a closed system, and why fundamentalism of the Dominist variant here in the US must be (albeitedly in a different way b.c its roots are different) combatted.

2)Of course, to change frames you must lead. It's implicit in the process because if you don't lead , the choices left to you in the chess match are all defensive rather than thinking a head to other more useful moves. Offensively sometimes you will sacrifice a pawn to obtain the long term goal. Here that pawn would be for example, short term political gain, for longer term political positioning. A principled willingness to go down with the "metaphorical" ship on issues, to start changing the perception that the Dems are not about values, aren't tough or don't have resolve.

by bruh21 2004-12-10 02:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Good Analysis--One Thing To Add

There's no evidence whatsoever that Islamic fundamentalists are geared toward the Apocalypse. Falwell & Co. are much more dangerous this way than al Qaeda is.

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-10 11:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Good Analysis--One Thing To Add

The point was about fundamentalism, regardless of which religion, and it's influence on behavior. The point is not on the particulars of the fundamentalism in question other than to understand how to combat it as a danger to modernity. In other words, your point is moot when it comes to the question of is there a danger here? If you want to imagine Christians, are worse than any other religion you go right ahead, but that sort of knee jerk reaction doesn't really address anything other than your own bias. ALL religions have their good and bad sides. Muslim's are no better or worse than Christians. The opposite is also true- Christians are no better or worse than Muslims.

by bruh21 2004-12-10 04:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

My only objection to Descrates diary is the title. Why should TNR be obliged not to ever offend Dems?

by Gary Boatwright 2004-12-09 05:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: TNR

I don't object to being offended--I wouldn't be posting here if I did.

What I object to is that ever since they supported the Iraq war over the opposition of other members of the party, they have condesended to and mischaractered those members foreign policy opinions, and I truly believe they have done this--at least on some level--for editorial positioning. They were wrong--particularly Beinart--and they are still doing intellectual backflips to try and justify the position they refuse to admit they're mistaken on. In my opinion, this makes them as bad as Bush. I'll grant you there may be something a bit more personal for me in this title--but nevertheless I think it is accurate.

If they want to challenge the party's conventional wisdom, as indeed they claim to, I have no problem at with it--I flatter myself to think I also do it on occasion. But I would only ask that they get it right.

by descrates 2004-12-09 12:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

Lawrence Kudlow agrees with Beinart

As does Bill O'Reilly. What's the point of having two parties if we try to please Kudlow and O'Reilly?

by Gary Boatwright 2004-12-08 06:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Media: If a Dem is a fighter, he must be far left

"Peter also misunderstands MoveOn.org and the various other Internet-based groups... They are not an old-fashioned militant left but part of a college-educated post-industrial center-left politics."

This misunderstanding is one Beinart apparently shares with many bad political reporters and pundits in the mainstream media (cue Adam Nagourney for one). These reporters and commentators somewhat incomprehensibly confuse the degree and intensity of political partisanship in opposition to Bush as an indication of how far left one is in the political divide.

The reaction to Howard Dean, Paul Krugman and bloggers like Atrios, Kos, etc. by much of the punditocracy is one striking example of this. See Nagourney for the latest example of this as he tries to spin Dean's speech almost entirely as part of a left/right divide in the party (complete with quotes from Bob Kerrey who supports Hindery a principal funder of the anti-Dean Osama ads in Iowa).

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/politics/09dean.html

"But the prospect of Dr. Dean's emerging as the face of his party is one that even his own advisers acknowledge has not exactly thrilled many members of the party, who remember... his tireless advocacy of his party's left wing and his opposition to the Iraq war."

by Ben Brackley 2004-12-08 07:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Media: If a Dem is a fighter, he must be far l

I agree with your overall point, but that NYT article was a little more balanced than that one sentence would indicate. Bob Kerry's quote included this:

"People remember him saying, 'I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party' - which means the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Which Howard Dean are we talking about?" Mr. Kerrey said. "If we're talking about the Howard Dean who was governor of Vermont, I would say fine. But if it's presidential candidate Dean, I would say probably no."

As Kerrey indicates, Dean was very much a centrist as governor, but started making concerted appeals to the left while a Presidential candidate. That "Democratic wing" quote was a Paul Wellstone slogan, and it was originally intended as a slap at the DLC and others who say the party should be more centrist. I can understand why conservative Democrats would now be skeptical of Dean.

The point these people seem to miss is that Dean's actual positions on the issues didn't shift much to the left -- he just adopted a more populist rhetoric. Many liberals were fully aware that Dean was no leftie, but supported him over candidates who were at least as liberal, if not more so -- such as John Kerry.

Why? Because Dean was a fighter, blasting Bush on Iraq and other issues when other candidates were afraid to. It wasn't that Dean turned liberal, and this caused him to become an anti-Bush fighter; it's that he was an anti-Bush fighter, so liberals supported him over the more-liberal-but-spineless candidates.

by Horq 2004-12-08 08:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Media: If a Dem is a fighter, he must be far l

You know what steams my spectacles? Quotes like this:

Which Howard Dean are we talking about?" Mr. Kerrey said. "If we're talking about the Howard Dean who was governor of Vermont, I would say fine. But if it's presidential candidate Dean, I would say probably no.

Oh, fuck you, Bob Kerrey. Point me to one position Howard Dean took as Presidential candidate that is at odds with his actions as Governor. Health care for all? Against the Iraq War? What are you talking about? As you say, Horq, he didn't move to the left.

But it's not that it's untrue that makes me so mad. It's that it perpetuates a stereotype is maybe the BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Every Democratic Presidential candidate for decades has been labeled as some level of a dissembler. Someone who says one thing, does another. Changes tune. Flip-flops. Lies. Now Bob Kerrey tries to perpetuate that myth with the guy it maybe least fits.

We can't improve our image if we use the negative stereotypes against each other.

by BriVT 2004-12-09 03:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Democrats are their own worst enemy

Just another example of the circular firing squad.

Bob Kerry takes gratuitous shots at Dean. Gephardt not only played a major role in attacking Dean in the primaries, he also was the assigned hit man in 2000, when he took out Sen. Biden over a ridiculous quote Biden lifted from some British dude.

by Gary Boatwright 2004-12-09 04:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

Bob Kerry, War Criminal, Who Cares What He Thinks?

Serious.

Who. The. Fuck. Cares?

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-09 08:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Short-sighted

Beinart advocates further abandoning our core values to satisfy the itch of the latest hysteria. That's a losing proposition if ever there was one.

by pdt 2004-12-08 07:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

The label war

Labels, labels, labels. I keep wondering at what point we can just be human beings with thoughts, feelings, opinions, and attitudes that are not made to fit into a pigeon-hole.

That a person SHOULD care for another human being is the root of all moral values. And that caring is NOT based on what label the human wears.

I know this is off-topic but it's what I come away with every time I read Americans talking politics.

by LotusFawkes 2004-12-08 08:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

PS

Human nature is not what most Americans think it is. See Alfie Kohn's "No Contest."

by LotusFawkes 2004-12-08 09:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: PS

To work within Kohn's paadigm is a true paradigm shift, and won't happen except at the outer frines of society, until it becomes more accepted (see pot smoking, use the word fuck as an adjective to mean anything, etc...although these aren't really big paradigm shifts, they are ones introduced by the fringes).

To fully develop our humanity instead of turning into electable political critters is what was the liberal position at one point. THis was so much against the dominant paradigm (humans as consumers/producers only), that the dominant paradigm still hasn't changed.

Good luck.

by Carol 2004-12-09 02:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: PS

To work within Kohn's paradigm is a true paradigm shift, and won't happen except at the outer fringes of society, until it becomes more accepted (see pot smoking, use of the word fuck as an adjective to mean anything, etc...although these aren't really big paradigm shifts, they are ones introduced by the fringes).

Good luck.

by Carol 2004-12-09 02:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: PS

Based on what I've read of Alfie Kohn so far, the paradigm he's working with is actually a shift to the East, the Far East, the place where family became an institution long before the Repubs ever thought of it (some 2500 or more years ago) and the nation's leaders have a moral obligation to serve the needs of the people (3000 years ago).

Whether Mr. Kohn knows this or not is not important. What is important is that evidence is mounting that the Western world view is based on a false premise about human nature and life in general. The Greeks and others got the notion of individualism at the expense of the community and this has persisted ever since to everyone's detriment. America is the fruiting body of this thought and now the people wonder what has become of the unity of the nation and the values upon which it was founded.

The socialistic elements of the Preamble of the Constitution have been deliberately wrenched asunder by greedy people and we are now groping to find a way to take put it back.

The rhetoric of selfishness, narcissism, and self-aggrandizement are going to have to be seriously challenged and soundly debunked before the paradigm can shift from the individual to the collective.

This means that the words themselves that have been attacked by the right are going to have to be restored as good words that speak to our common humanity and our shared fate.

So long as people continue to go along with current paradigm even though they know it is wrong and only wish others luck in changing it without challenging themselves to help change it in their own daily lives, then as the saying goes, all evil needs to flourish is for good people to do nothing.

I'm not quite awake so I hope this makes some sense.

by LotusFawkes 2004-12-09 04:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Of Kohn and I-Pods

I have not read Kohn, but the little synopsis that I've read here prompts me to offer one hypothesis:

the same individualistic culture that brings about social dislocation and the weakening of family and community stability is the same one that encourages innovation and enrepreneurialism. They did not invent the I-Pod (or the comuter you're typing into) ion China.

So if you want a more communitarian culture, fine. But understand what you'd be giving away.

And you won't change human nature either way. There is just as much callow, mindless cruelty, abuse of power and mendacity in human nature anywhere you may go on the globe. No societal program or messianoc, utopian movement will change that. I'm a psychologist, and I'm here to tell you: we are what we are.

by Pachacutec 2004-12-09 05:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

I Disagree--It's More Complex

The problem is not individualism per se, nor is the answer communalism per se. It's not individualism that Kohn critiques, but rather a form of individualism that is actually very communal in a very sick sense. It is entire outer-directed, defined in competition with others, rather than being inner-directed in terms of anything positive from within.

Likewise, there is a very heirarchical, outer-directed communlism in the East--the traditional authoritarian rulers just love holding forth about "Asian values"--alongside a very egalitalitarian, inner-directed communalism--Taoism, Mahayana Buddhism, Zen, etc.

And in the end, I would argue, the higher individualism and the higher communalism are flip sides of the same coin. They both lead to self-actualization, as opposed to ego-obsession on the one ("Western") hand and self-suppression on the other ("Eastern") hand.

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-09 09:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: PS

Actually, there has already been a tremendous shift in this direction. William Ury talks about this in his book Getting To Peace. It's just that Donald Tump, Karl Rove and Peter Beinart will be the last three people in America to get the news.

by Paul Rosenberg 2004-12-09 09:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Who the hell is Alfie Kohn?

And where is this "No Contest" article you're discussing?

by Gary Boatwright 2004-12-09 05:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

It's Beinart's Intelligence that is at Question

A bit glib, but what I mean is that he constructs a complicated intellectual exercise, to wit, his specious comparison between the dilemma facing Democrats after WWII and that of today. Making such comparisons is always a fool's errand, but Beinart does a particularly poor job of maintaining rigor.

In particular, he wheels around the word "totalitarian" with the same thoughtless meaninglessness with which those on the right wield "Islamofascism." He speaks of "Totalitarian Islam" and then "Totalitarianism in the Muslim world."

Such slippage allows him to do the usual job of blurring the so-called War on Terror with the War on Iraq, and, as an added bonus, of blurring the enormous distinctions between the threat we faced from the Soviet Union and that we now may face from Al Qaeda.

At any rate, if anyone is interested, I wrote more on this here

by sdf 2004-12-09 07:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It's Beinart's Intelligence that is at Que

Outstanding comment. We seldom take the time to consider how big a role our political language's corruption has played in the cuurent state of affairs. Beinart is a prime offender.

This is why Chomsky is so sidelined now-a-days. No one can keep up with what he's saying, unlike Beinart who can't keep up with what he himself is saying.

by descrates 2004-12-09 12:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It's Beinart's Intelligence

Absolutely agreed. I look forward to reading more of what you've written on this.

by cookie 2004-12-09 03:02PM | 0 recs