Surfeited With Sunny Optimism . . .

Patrick Deneen notes an excess of optimism at the recent Charlottesville conference:

Much as I enjoyed the fellowship of the past weekend in Charlottesville, there was a persistent and palpable animosity toward politics and government generally held by many of the participants. . . There was something of a gauzy sentimentality and even anarchic libertarianism that pervaded the sessions. As much as I admire Wendell Berry, his work does not sufficiently attend to the needs for, and demands of, politics. Indeed, I was struck by the similarity between two camps that otherwise might be thought to be polar opposites - agrarian communitarians and libertarians. Both are wildly optimistic about human nature and the ability of humans to "do their own thing" without the "interference" of politics and government.

At the dinner before the public session on Saturday, the participants were asked to name, among other things, the most despicable city in America. Among the few cities that were named (since most people forgot this requirement), one was Washington D.C. Washington D.C.??!!?? It may not be one of the world's great cities, but it is a fine city, and not the most despicable city in America. What about Las Vegas or Phoenix? Houston or Palm Beach? I have to think that Washington was named because it was the location of "Guvment," to quote Pap Finn.

I didn't really detect an excess of wild optimism or sentimental gauze, but then Deneen and I sat at different tables. Presumably ISI has conferences all the time where attendees hash out five point plans and develop political programs. I will pass on those. I may be too much of a sunny optimist, but I hold out hope that many people from that conference will meet up again. If so, Dr. Deneen should should sit next to me during one of the meals and I will treat him to a dose of pessimism so severe that doctors will have to tape his eyes open and force him to watch Pollyanna for hours on end just to balance it.

To close on a pessimistic note, I was reading Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics recently and I couldn't help noticing that even though Hofstadter was discussing fringe elements (or what he considered to be the fringe); the essay often appears to characterize the mainstream of American politics circa 2007 -- mostly among the President's diehard rightwing supporters, but also more than a few on the left:

Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, the quality needed is not a willingness to compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Nothing but complete victory will do. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated -- if not from the world, at least from the theater of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for unqualified victories lead to the formulation of hopelessly demanding and unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid's frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same sense of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

Boobs

I haven't paid much attention to Bloggingheads, which seems like yet another pointless platform for Mickey Kaus, but this exchange between Ann Althouse and Garance Franke-Ruta is fascinating. Althouse judges the behavior of the blogosphere based exclusively on how she is treated -- lefties are mean to her, and apparently have gotten under her skin. But if she thinks that nobody on the right is nasty, she is delusional. Since she still seems to support the Iraq War, that is probably the case.

What really amazes though, is the way that Althouse lost it when Franke-Ruta innocently brings up the -- and I never though I would type these words -- "Jessica Valenti Breast Controversy." After several minutes of complaining about how mean lefties are, Althouse threw a hysterical tantrum. But instead of the normal blogospheric rage, Althouse sounds like a wounded adolescent.

The web can be an extremely nasty place on all sides. Since the barriers to entry are extremly low, anyone can participate. It took about 45 minutes for me to set up my blog. It takes no time to leave a comment, and it can often be done anonymously. I have yet to be upset by any attacks upon me by other bloggers or by comments. Whenever the "Contra-Crunchys" attacked me I loved it. when "Stefanie" called me a "Soros Brownshirt" it made my day. But those attacks were lame. I have a feeling that Althouse is starting to believe that her critics have a point.

A Good Time Was Had . . .

I made it back from what will go down as one of the bestest events ever -- ISI's Liberty, Community and Place in the American tradition conference in Charlottesville, Virginia last weekend. Having traded my Newton for magic beans and failed to bring a note-pad, I lacked the means to document all of the events, but I will offer a brief impression of the event.

Allan Carlson spoke in the morning about of the transformative effect of the Second World War while a Bill Kauffman led panel in the afternoon on . . . , well Kauffman led an excellent panel in the afternoon. In between, Jeff Taylor talked about William Jennings Bryan and Alan Pell Crawford talked about Jefferson, and most everybody talked about Wendell Berry. While all of the formal talks and panels were good, from my limited experience at these events, the informal gatherings are even better. This event was no different.

The guests and speakers included Reason managing editor Jesse Walker, Chronicles contributing editor Kate Dalton Boyer, Daniels Larison and McCarthy , Caleb Stegall editor of the (much lamented) New Pantagruel.

UPDATE: I discovered via Daniel McCarthy that another conference speaker, Patrick Deneen of Georgetown has a blog.

Aweosome

Via Larison I see that the "aweosome" Matthew Yglesias is pleased to be featured in an American Conservative article about bloggers confronting "the Lobby."

Numerous commenters are less impressed than Yglesias, including Smarmy, er, Marty Peretz, who challenges the spelling of "aweosome." Looks OK to me, though. Others say essentially, "EEEEUUWWW, Pat Buchanan is another Father Coughlin! EEEUUUWWWW!"

Housing Market of Cards . . .

Is Wall Street really that dumb? Stocks tumbled today on the news "that lenders New Century Financial Corp., Accredited Home Lenders Holding Co. and General Motors Acceptance Corp.'s residential unit are facing financial problems. The Mortgage Bankers Association bolstered the belief that the struggles are widespread after it said new foreclosures surged to an all-time high in the last quarter of 2006."

I've been noticing the fragile nature of our housing economy for some time now every time I see a sign with a phone number saying something like "we buy houses." And I see those signs frequently around Knoxville. I also recently saw a commercial for Focus on Forclosure seminar which further eroded my confidence in the health of the housing market.

Perhaps it's time for me to start my own investment newsletter; where for a $200-a-month subscription fee, I can point out the obvious to my readers.

Next Question . . .

Lil Poddy: "So Chuck Hagel Gave A Press Conference . . . to declare he's not running for President . . . yet. How do you spell 'megalomaniac'?"
P-O-D-H-O-R-E-T-Z

Limited Liability

Via Brittney Gilbert I discovered an impassioned argument in favor of private property rights from Glen Dean:

Civil Rights Act, A Disgraceful Infringement On Private Property Rights

If you have ever had the misfortune to hear Sean Hannity speak, then you have probably heard him brag about how Republicans pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act through Congress. The very fact that he would brag about this infringement on private property rights proves that he and many more like him are much more Republican than they are conservative.
. . .
But how can you support a federal government that has the power to tell a property owner or an employer who he or she should do business with? The whole idea completely runs opposite of the concept of liberty. . .

I'm not without sympathy to this line of argument, but there is a flaw in Dean's reasoning: Walgreens isn't a privately owned business, it's a corporation. Corporations have numerous legal privileges, but the most important is the doctrine of limited liability, which allows ownership of a corporation to be anonymous and transitory.

I used to be a docrinare libertarian -- I worked for Liberty magazine for seven years -- but when I started to think of the problem of the corporation, my beliefs began to unravel. A while back, I quoted Wendell Berry on the subject:

You would find that these organizations are organized expressly for the evasion of responsibility. They are structures in which, as my brother says, "the buck never stops." The buck is processed up the hierarchy until finally it is passed to "the shareholders," who characteristically are too widely dispersed, too poorly informed, and too unconcerned to be responsible for anything.

Limited Liability, and other privileges granted to corporations, amounts to a huge intervention in the economy. In fact, it makes the modern economy possible. It also makes corporation very powerful compared to an individual employee or customer. I think there is room for reform of our civil rights laws, but I don't see anything wrong with the government evening the odds on occasion.

K-Lo's Heartthrob

The latest issue of the American Conservative has an article by Michael Brendan Dougherty about the neocon cult around the Fox program, 24. Dougherty quotes such luminaries as John J. Miller, Cal Thomas and Ben Shapiro. Almost poignant, however, are the quotes from National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez, who invokes Jack Bauer at the drop of a hat. K-Lo's fans will recall how her heartthrob, Rick "Churchill" Santorum was tragically turned out of by the voters of Pennsylvania last fall.

Fortunately, her fictional hero will never fail her as long as the show remains profitable, even if Dougherty expresses his disapproval.

Hysterical Perspective

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. And then there's Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson writes,

Given all of this country's past wars involving intelligence failures, tactical and strategic blunders, congressional fights and popular anger at the president, Iraq and the rising furor over it are hardly unusual. . .
. . . consider the national mood in 1968 when the United States suffered more than 16,000 American dead in Vietnam (at that rate, we lost more troops in three months than during the entire four-year Iraqi war). In response, riots racked the country. Protesters stormed the Democratic Convention in Chicago. And a polarized country saw both Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. gunned down. . . .
Optional conflicts like the Mexican War, the Philippines Insurrection, Korea and Vietnam all cost more lives than Iraq. Even our most successful wars witnessed far more lethal stupidity than seen in Baghdad. Thousands of American dead resulted from lapses like the Confederate surprise at Shiloh, Japanese surprise attacks on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, and the German surprise attacks in the Ardennes.

What is the point in mentioning that past wars have been screwed up? Readers of The American Conservative, Chronicles, Antiwar.com and other sources had plenty of warning about potential problems arising in an invasion of Iraq, usually with emphasis on the result of past Western occupations of Islamic countries--something that appears to be problematic. The issue now is whether the U.S. should consider to pour money, blood and credibility into what seems to be an obviously failed occupation and attempted nation building. Referring to miscalculations dating back to the War of 1812 offers little in the way of guidance.

"Ann Coulter"

And then there's Ann Coulter, who uses a judicious combination of scare quotes, bile and insanity to smite her foes:

Even right-wingers who know that "global warming" is a crock do not seem to grasp what the tree-huggers are demanding. Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation.

Forget the lunacy of people claiming to tell us the precise temperature of planet Earth in 1918 based on tree rings. Or the fact that in the '70s liberals were issuing similarly dire warnings about "global cooling."

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

There are more reputable scientists defending astrology than defending "global warming," but liberals simply announce that the debate has been resolved in their favor and demand that we shut down all production.

Chickenhawks & Browngreens

The blogosphere has been all atwitter over charges and counter-charges about Al Gore's energy consuption. I won't try to get to the bottom of the issue because I don't care about the former veep's level of personal virtue. I will say that if he doesn't turn out the lights and do other easy things to conserve energy, then shame on him.

What interests me about the whole matter is how it resembles the "chickenhawk" issue. In the lead up to the Iraq invasion, I wrote in Liberty, "the point is . . . that those politicians and pundits and intellectuals who think the U.S. should attack dozens, if not hundreds, of countries, yet failed to serve when they had the chance, are hypocrites. Their failure to serve indicates a lack of seriousness about their values, and members of the political class attack each other on this basis all of the time."

Hypocrisy is the cheapest, and probably most common of political attacks. The fact is that a person's prior military service has no bearing on the quality of his or her arguments for war, although it makes a fun fact to know and tell. Likewise, Mr. Gore's personal virtue, or lack thereof, have no bearing on the seriousness of the global warming issue; even though his political enemies get great pleasure from pointing out his failings.

A New Kid in Pedia Town

There's a new kid in pedia town. A while back, I noted the complaints from Newsbusters about "liberal bias" at Wikipedia. To counter the dreaded bias, we now have Conservapedia. Conservapedia has a page with examples of bias at Wikipedia. Some of the complaints have nothing to do with bias, but are of ommissions that could easily be remedied:

Often key facts are missing from Wikipedia entries in favor of meaningless detail. Wikipedia's entry about Indentured Servitude is massive, but it omits any reference to Bacon's Rebellion, which was the turning point for the use of indentured servants in the New World!

Wikipedia has many entries on "concession", but none explaining its main historical meaning (from imperialism). Quantity is not quality

The obvious solution to these problems is to insert a reference to Bacon's Rebellion into the article on indentured servitude and to create an entry on the "main historical meaning" of "concession."

But the real agenda is to create an alternative wikiverse where the right can avoid any accidental contact with reality. Consider the entry on global warming. Conservapedians learn such fun facts as "these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field." Also, "these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him." That clears that up. The citations (not currently available on the main page) come from sources like Foxnews.com and rightwing think tanks.

I check Wikipedia regularly and I'm fascinated by the entries on a wide variety of topics from pre-code film to Juan Manuel Fangio. I don't accept it as the final word on anything, but it's still a useful tool. Other than being a liberal source of fun and laughter, Conservapedia doesn't appear to have much value.

The Surge is Working!

This should come as comforting news to Iraqis currently being blown up--the "surge" is working:

But something interesting is happening on the way to the "new direction." Early indications are that the troop surge into Baghdad is working. It hasn't been reported on widely, but murders in Baghdad are down 70%, attacks are down 80%, Mahdi Army chief Moqtada al-Sadr has reportedly made off for Iran, and many Baghdadis who had fled the violence now feel it's safe enough to return. The strategy that Congress is busy denouncing is proving to be our best hope for victory.

. . .

This turnaround in Baghdad is confirmed at home by the media's near-deafening silence. If it seems like you've heard less about how Iraq is spiraling into civil war in the weeks since the surge was announced, this is why. Even some discordant voices in the media are starting to wonder what's happening. Time magazine worries that it's "Quiet in Baghdad. Too quiet." That's right -- a dramatic reduction in violence is actually bad news.

Unbeclownst

Memo to the Vast Rightwing Studyhall of the Blogosphere: "Beclowned" isn't the word of the year. It isn't clever. It isn't remotely funny.

Actually it's lame. Continued use of "beclowned" will expose you to the justified mockery and ridicule of your peers. When asked by the teacher to explain what your little clique has been giggling about at the back of the classroom; you will be laughed at, not with.

You have been warned.

Chanel No. Aieeeeeee!!!!

Here is a transcript (scroll down) to the Frank Gaffney interview that I previously referred to:

CARLSON: You really believe that, that it was . . .

GAFFNEY: This is what the Iraq Survey Group determined, hot production lines, and plans to both ramp them up when sanctions came off and to put them into aerosol cans and perfume sprayers to send to the United States and Europe.

Imagine how many times the following tragic event would have occurred in suburban homes across America if we had not invaded Iraq:

HUSBAND: Honey, we need to leave now. The Thompsons are serving dinner at 7:30.

WIFE: I'm almost ready, I just want to put on some Chanel No. Aieeeeee!!!! My Eyes! It burns! Oh the pain! Oh the humanity.

HUSBAND: Oh no! Curse those defeatists who stopped the Iraq invasion and allowed this to happpen!

Parfum d'Saddam

I saw a bit of Frank Gaffney, of the "Victory Caucus" on with Tucker Carlson and witnessed a pathological level of delusion. Gaffney expressed his relief that the US invaded Iraq, otherwise Saddam would be sending perfume bottles filled with biological weapons to America. With Carlson's urging, Gaffney grudgingly admitted that there has been some mismanagement of the war, but that clearly isn't an issue with him. And, of course, Republicans (and others) who criticize the war are endangering our chances of "victory" in Iraq.

Reynolds For Congress

Last week Glenn Reynolds expressed his disappointment that Jimmy Duncan voted for the Democrats' anti-surge resolution. Elsewhere in the blogosphere, there has been loose talk about primary challenges to Republicans who oppose the surge.

While it is difficult to unseat an entrenched member of Congress -- Duncan has been in office since 1988 -- an obvious challenger for Duncan's 2nd district seat suggests himself. So I hereby draft Glenn Reynolds to oppose Duncan in the Republican primary in 2008. A campaign by Reynolds would educate the voters about how wrong Duncan was to vote against the war in 2002 and how well things have gone in Iraq since then. He can call upon the triumphal spirit of April 2003, with its frequent "Dick Cheny I-told-you-so updates." His natural Freeper allies can help with his campaign and his rhetoric:

Dear 'Honorable' John Duncan,
In the 2006 Mid Term elections, there were many issues driving Americans to vote for their new Representatives.

Chief amongst them, was the desire NOT to see a Speaker Pelosi, Democrat (Socialist-Communist) control of the House and/or Senate and a general support of the efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan. While we did lose that effort in general, I was sincerely pleased to see you and a Republican Senator return to DC, I felt Tennessee had done her job in the attempt to hold the traitors at bay. And yet, now, you stand amongst them.

I certainly did NOT cast my vote for a Republican (Conservative????) to stand with the "Cut and RUN", "America is the Bad Guy", "Retreat (I mean Redeploy) crowd of LOSERS that the Democrats are.
. . .

Will you be happier when we are fighting this 'religion' (CULT?) here in America? Are you REALLY sure you thought it was correct to cast your vote the same as Traitor Murtha? . . .

Reynolds shouldn't be discouraged at the failure of Duncan's last primary challenger; or that of Richard Roberts, who ran for an open seat in Tennessee's first district on the basis of his strong support for the war and implicitly rebuked Duncan in his campaign. By the time the 2008 primary rolls around, either the surge will have been a rousing success, or Reynolds (and Bush) will be able point the finger of blame in a variety of directions: Duncan, the Dixie Chicks, the Liberal Media, those Hollywood fat cats, etc.

Of course, Reynolds isn't just a stalwart war hawk. He is practically a Renaissance Man: distinguished law professor, author, and commentator on fine consumer products from digital cameras to New Zealand butter. A real catch for the 2nd district!

The American Book Review

The New Republic hosted an interesting exchange sparked by Jeffrey Herf's call for a new weekly review of books.

Our country and our culture badly need a new weekly review of books. Currently, most of our major book reviews are failing to inform a non-specialist but sophisticated audience about American scholarship. The American Association of University Presses estimates that the 95 university presses in this country publish about 10,000 books a year. The New York Times Book Review, not to mention the book reviews at The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and Wall Street Journal devote a tiny fraction of their reviews to these works of scholarship. The Times reviews ten or less non-fiction books a week and those are overwhelmingly published by the New York trade publishers who advertise in the book review and who publish books aimed at a mass public.

It's an excellent idea and I would probably subscribe, or at least occasionally buy it on the newsstand, if such a publication existed. I disagree with David Bell about publishing it on the web instead of in print. Web publishing is less expensive, but the ideal length of an article or review on the web is somewhere below 1000 words while a serious book review publication would feature longer pieces.

There is no way that all books will get all of the attention that they deserve, though a few get far more than they deserve, but a publication like the one that Herf calls for would help.

Liberty, Community, and Place in the American Tradition

You marvelled at the blog, you couldn't put the book down. Now attend the conference!

"Liberty, Community, and Place in the American Tradition"
Saturday, March 24, 2007

Program Overview
How have Americans' fundamental beliefs about liberty, community, and place shaped their way of life? This ISI conference will explore this question through a discussion of key American events, persons, and cultural moments. Join us on March 24 for stimulating discussions of the lessons to be learned—or unlearned—from Benjamin Franklin, the course of prairie populism, the later Thomas Jefferson, and the music of Bob Dylan, among other items on the agenda.

The Delusion Caucus

The "Victory Caucus" (a collection of rightwing bloggers) is up in arms about "White Flag Republicans" who oppose the surge, including Tennessee's (and Instapundit's) 2nd district representative Jimmy Duncan.

A.C. Kleinheider notes that the Nashville Tennessean ("A Tennessean Joins GOP's Iraq Critics) is under the impression that Duncan is some sort of Jimmy Come Lately to the opposition to the Iraq when he voted against the original resolution in 2002 -- when such Democratic profiles in courage as Senators Kerry and Edwards foolishly gave it their support.

UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt, a "Victory Caucus" field marshall grills Iraq War General William Odom on some of the benefits of the invasion:

HH: I’m asking whether or not you thought the Libyan disarmament had anything to do with our invasion of Iraq?
WO: None.
HH: And do you believe that the Oil For Food scandal would have been detected if we’d left Saddam in power?
WO: Look, we would have been less worse off, much better off, had the food scandal gone on, and Saddam were still there.

Is Hewitt for real?