Category Archives: Politics: US

Gotta hand it to the folks at Free Exchange on Campus. They know how to get their point across:

Everybody certainly now knows that “truthiness” is a fundamental tenet of politics.  How else would we be able to separate out who knows the truth in their gut and those who want to over-think everything?  But still, there are those who continue to press for evidence to support public policy positions.  Luckily, there is an answer.

Here is the problem: academics, scientists, think tank fellows, and other trouble-makers are always talking about their “methods” (I think there is even something they call the “scientific method”) and their “criteria” for conducting studies–you know the ones: testing hypotheses, double-blind studies, repeatability, objectivity, etc.  But what does that get us?  Just more studies, more questions, more complexity–and really, is that useful?  Of course it isn’t.  What we need is some research that helps us prove what we already believe.  Because who can argue with research, right?

I’m not talking about the kind of research with all those standards that get in the way of getting results. I’m talking about starting with a conclusion you want to support, doing a few “scientificy-looking” studies and then writing a report–a report based on what we call “researchiness.”

Here is what I am talking about.  Say you want to show that professors are a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals who are obsessed with controlling the minds of all those innocent freshman entering college each year.  What better way than to randomly go through a few course catalogs, find the types of courses that you ideologically disagree with, and then write a report as if those courses represent the whole of higher education?  So much easier than actually looking at all 4,000-plus institutions and all of the courses offered–that would just take too long.  And besides we already know most colleges are one-step away from a gulag.

Or maybe you are trying to show that these crazy liberals are too concerned with seeing education as a means of creating more opportunities for all students.  Sure they call it “diversity,” but we all know what that really means–keeping the rich and privileged those who deserve to go to college down!  Let’s not get bogged down in any economic analysis of access to college or who benefits most from college.  Again, too much data collection–not to mention math!  Besides, Google can do all that work for you just by counting the number of times the word diversity shows up on a college website.  It is just so much easier when you know what you want to say before you start.

And of course the best part of researchiness is that you can refer to other researchiness reports as evidence of your own findings.

So, it seems unfair that there is this new report out The “Faculty Bias” Studies: Science or Propaganda (PDF) that is trying to hold a set of recent researchiness studies to scientific standards.  C’mon.  These are not supposed to be actual research studies.  They aren’t looking to discover anything.  They are trying to prove what they already know! 

So, you can just go tell this Dr. John Lee to take his “social science criteria” and his “findings” and go back to wherever he came from (my bet is some university!).  These pseudo-scientists already know what they know and there are just trying to put together some baseless claims evidence to support for their predetermined positions.

But if you insist on actual research standards and are too afraid to stand up for what everyone should just know in their gut (supported by researchiness, of course), then I guess you can read the silly report (PDF).

Glenn Greenwald points to an NPR essay by a New Republic stalwart — Rod Dreher: “Hadn’t the hippies tried to tell my generation this”?

Better late than later.

Senator Jon Tester’s been in office about a day, and already people are fretting about whether his staff choices — mostly DC insiders — are going to get with the program or are going to waffle.

Left in the West :: It’s Official Today, Jon — Now How Will You Use This Opportunity? I’m writing this letter, though, because — to be honest — a lot of us feel pushed aside, like we’re not to be trusted. It’s a strange feeling when you get the impression that you can’t be trusted by the campaign you gave a year-and-a-half of your life to. But that’s the feeling I’ve been getting — and I know, once again, that I’m not alone.

Why do I feel this way? Why do others who were among your earliest backers feel this way? Honestly, some of it is personnel decisions. It’s nothing against any of them in particular, it’s just that the team as a whole doesn’t really share the values of the Jon I know. Early on in the campaign, we talked about fighting for the middle class and standing up on trade deals. Now your top policy person comes from a Senator who supported CAFTA, the bankruptcy bill, and full repeal of the estate tax. Last I checked, you didn’t want to represent multi-national corporations, Wall Street, or the super-rich. Bridget may be wonderful. I have no idea. But I worry about anyone who spent six years with Bill Nelson.

I worry about what your team will be saying on policy. In the primary, you announced that you wanted a universal Children’s Health Insurance Program. Will you be signing on to one soon? What’s your big goal on energy — you’ll be on the committee and it’s an issue that you care about deeply. If a bankruptcy bill comes up and we can repeal that attack on working families, will you oppose it the way we did in the campaign?

You need a staff that has people at the top who share your values and whose first concern is for you and whether they are running the office the way you would want to. That means that they share your priorities — even if your priority isn’t getting re-elected. Otherwise, on these big decisions, the fight will be non-stop between you and your staff. And while there should be disagreements on the staff and between you and the staff, I want to avoid everything being a battle for you.

You also need a staff that realizes that this race was won as much by the first 3,000 votes you got as it was by the last 3,000 votes you got. The people I know who came together early on to say you could do this are some of the smartest, hardest working people I know in this game. And, unless I’m wrong, it seemed like you enjoyed our company quite a bit, too.

You know me, Jon. I’ve got a lot of faith in you as a person and as a policymaker. You’re now in a place I don’t fully understand and that I think it’ll take some adjusting to on your end. Beyond that, I hope you know that I am loyal to you — probably to a fault. I wouldn’t be writing this if I wasn’t worried. And I wouldn’t be writing this if I wasn’t hearing from a lot of other people who worked hard for you — making phone calls, pounding pavement — that they are also worried.

It may sound premature, although it is far from harsh. (“The revolution eats its children”?) But from what I hear this letter — and the fairly widespread feelings it reflects — was sparked not only by the failure to hire any of the insurgent locals as DC staff, but also by some strange comments by Tester’s new staff people denigrating his core supporters.

Incidentally, the author of the above, Matt Singer, didn’t apply for a job with Tester in DC, so this isn’t sour grapes.

Lieberman Party Now in Hands of Critic:

After the senator’s Nov. 7 victory under the Connecticut for Lieberman Party banner, John Orman switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Connecticut for Lieberman and voted himself chairman.

Orman, a political science professor who ran briefly against Lieberman last year, said only critics, bloggers and anyone named Lieberman can join the party, which he said would be a watchdog of the senator’s actions.

Military considers recruiting foreigners – The Boston Globe

I don’t want to sound like I’m catching creeping Spenglerism, after all this is only a trial balloon albeit one with antecedents (see #5 on this generally horrifying list), but isn’t recruiting foreign legions said to be one of the (many) causes of the downfall of the Roman empire?

Yup.

The introduction of barbarians into the Roman armies became every day more universal, more necessary, and more fatal . . . As they freely mingled with the subjects of the empire, they gradually learned to despise their manners and to imitate their arts. … and though most of them preferred the ties of allegiance to those of blood, they did not always avoid the guilt, or at least the suspicion, of holding a treasonable correspondence with the enemy, of inviting his invasion, or of sparing his retreat.

— Edward Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire 397 (1776)

And, yes, the headline may be a cheap shot, since Caligula was part of the Western (Roman) empire, and I think in in the quote above Gibbon was writing about the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire. But “Who does that cast as Diocletian?”, or Theodosius I, Flavius Zeno or Justin II, would all be better questions, but wouldn’t have the same zing.

Whatever Gibbon meant, given the state of things inside the Beltway and outside our borders, it’s to the Byzantine and not the Roman Empire that we should be looking to for models. So here’s a nice academic parlor game: Which Byzantine Emperor does W most resemble?

One thing I’m seeing a lot more of these days is ‘Creeping Spenglerism’ — a sense that the US is on the edge of some sort decline, even death spiral.

Now even professional humorists are doing it,

The Portland Freelancer: When young people ask me for career advice – and that’s a little frightening right there – I always advise them to learn a skill they can perform to amuse the people around a campfire. Then if everyone laughs ask to share any food. I am only half kidding. America has been arrogant for too long, and it could be about to catch up with us.

This sort of talk makes me want to vote for John Edwards — as far as I know, he’s the only guy out there running a campaign of optimism.