Related posts...

• From Tea to Shining Tea: An Interview with Stephen Gordon
• Factions
• conservatives as self-parodies

In the discussion I moderated between yourself and Conor Friedersdorf, you made it pretty clear that you viewed the Iraq War as one of necessity and not choice. Given that view, what is your reaction to the increasing evidence that the Bush Administration, specifically Vice President Dick Cheney, authorized the use of enhanced interrogation techniques in what the Administration termed the War Against Terror?

Fortunately, this doesn’t pose a problem for me. Though I do have only one good cordless, I do have an extra electric drill, or two. So, if the CIA ever runs short, at least they know where to come. Oh, and a Milwaukee Sawz All that really torques – but I’d be hard pressed to part with it, even for such a good cause.

The more serious answer is, I have utmost faith in former VP Cheney to understand and act upon what is the best interests of our country. And that by and large applies to our intelligence community, too. So, I am without concern in this regard, excepting that Obama either can’t control AG Holder, or he is simply looking for a political card to play for some reason. I believe he should be held accountable in either case and tossed out of office in 2012, if not before. But I would certainly not advocate torture, even if I do see him as something of a danger to America.

While you’re not alone in it, that confidence is something many Americans are having a tough time finding given the perceived moral fuzziness around the Administration’s reasoning for going to war and using said tactics. What forms that confidence for you?

I’m not clear upon what it is you base your question. “Many Americans”? How many? What is it that tells you this is a significant concern for “many Americans”? I understand some question it, including those aligned with Obama. But even he said it was time to move forward sometime back and that seemed to be a popular decision for “many Americans”.

I’ve observed Dick Cheney for over two decades. And I also think more has been made of some alleged war on terror tactics by the opposition purely for political purposes. Isn’t that like creating a straw man then using it to launch an attack?

I’ve never known Cheney to do anything to harm this country in those decades, why should I expect that of him now for no reason? He seems to be a loyal, patriotic law abiding American to me. Always has. So, given no evidence to the contrary, the onus should be upoin his critics to tell me why I should mistrust him somehow. And not the reverse.

Well, to haggle a bit, according to this fairly recent Gallup poll, only 37% of Americans have a favorable view of former Vice President Cheney, which is a seven point improvement from March. So it seem fair to conclude that, in fact, a sizable majority of Americans, 63%, have a negative view of former Vice President Cheney.

But to the meat of your response, is it then your contention that if someone is patriotic that they are thereby incapable of doing something wrong or morally unacceptable, even, perhaps, in the name of said patriotism?

One’s popularity doesn’t necessarily equate to distrust. So, while understanding your point, it actually does nothing to suggest anything as to how many Americans might mistrust him in this sense, let alone have deep concerns over any of his actions. Several times Hillary Clinton had rather negative popularity ratings among the people. Are you saying she may have also been torturing people other than her husband in the WH basement because of her poling?

As to the moral question, certainly one can not argue that patriotism is some guard against what some might characterize as immoral behavior. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on two Japanese cities. Dresden was firebombed by the allies in WW II. Sherman burned his way across Georgia in the Civil War, a war waged by Abraham Lincoln despite the deaths of 600,000 to 700,000 Americans. Were these men immoral? And if not, than why not and why would anything Cheney allegedly deemed appropriate, torture or not, be so, given that no one suggests he ever did anything to kill so many men, women and children as all of the others above?

At most, as I understand it, anything Cheney allegedly endorsed discomforted some likely terrorists and I’ll even grant for purposes of discussion some few may have died. Truman murdered approximately a quarter million mostly innocent civilians in two days with two bombs. Exactly what principle of moral certainty is it that would permit “many Americans” to judge Truman, Sherman or Lincoln American heroes, while also alleging that Cheney is an unprincipled, evil man perhaps potentially guilty of war crimes?

The only answer I can come up with is a sort of moral equivalence, or lack of same, mostly driven by one’s particular political ideology. That’s hardly an American standard of justice. If anything, it’s in fact un-American to do that. So, you’ll have to give me some clear, firm moral standard I can apply to all of the above including Cheney and get your proposed answer. Because I can’t do it based upon anything that might be termed objectivity, fairness, justice or even a simple truth.

Was and is Truman seen as “just” or “moral” simply because he was popular in America at the time and remains so even now? I doubt a quarter million Japanese would agree were they alive to express an opinion. So we’re back to the question of whether or not one’s popularity has anything to do with one’s morality, or being above or under suspicion for something. By that standard, Paris Hilton would be the most moral, trustworthy American living at times over the last decade. So, is that your argument? Or am I missing something here? And, if so, what is it?

Well, each of the decisions you mention were certainly morally controversial, both for their time and, at least in some circles, today. I suppose that one might offer that morally controversial decisions of the past do not absolve morally controversial decisions of the present from scrutiny and that any such decision needs to be considered on its own merits.

In terms of applying a moral argument, one might be inclined to say, and, indeed, some opponents to enhanced interrogation techniques have suggested, that one’s government ought not to make decisions that cause people overt harm if it can reasonably be avoided. If we take that as our applied argument, would you be inclined to think that the techniques authorized by Cheney were, indeed, unavoidable given the surrounding circumstances?

Given that neither you, nor I were aware of all the specific intelligence available that drove the decision to invoke whatever tactics were allegedly employed, what is it you are asking me to judge? On the one hand, you admit to morality being relative, on the other, you want to stake out a position for the sake of debate that wants any relativism removed from the thinking behind a judgement of some kind on Cheney.

Also, your argument for purposes of debate seems to suggest that perhaps neither Lincoln, nor Truman, nor Sherman were genuinely moral men. Do you believe that and is that the basis of your argument that Cheney might have adopted allegedly immoral tactics against terrorists?

I could be wrong, but it seems your position is trapped here to where it has to admit this is all just a matter of opinion. Some might believe that whatever tactics were employed were, in relative terms, fine. Others may find them not so. And there seems to be no axis for the decision making process other than perhaps political alignment, or popularity.

Debating opinions rarely gets anywhere if not done based on pertinent, mutually acknowledged facts. So, again, I’m suggesting that if we could view Truman, Sherman and Lincoln as having engaged in acceptable, even if tremendously harmful, behavior because, relative to the realities, it was the right thing to do, what is different as regards Cheney’s alleged actions?

Given the scale of the actions of the other three men I named, I’m hard pressed to understand why we are even debating Cheney, given that for all we know, the particular sect of terrorists involved here was and is at least interested in securing nuclear weapons and detonating same, say in New York City if they could. Given that potential reality, is anything the CIA is alleged to have done inappropriate, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fine under Truman? See my point?

Other than perhaps some folks not liking Cheney, or finding some tactics he allegedly endorsed somehow unpleasant, I can’t see where you have put forth any solid argument that says Truman was fine, but Cheney went over the top – in either real, or relative terms.

Lastly, doesn’t he almost have to be guilty for the debate to even take place as you’re defining it? I suggest, as per our system of justice, it’s the opposite that should be assumed. So, can you prove Cheney guilty of something given that we weren’t there, don’t know all the facts and realities and never really will? I don’t believe any court ever will, just as they’d never convict a Lincoln or a Truman of anything. In all three cases, we were at war. It seems to me the Left, not meaning you, somehow wants to usurp executive authority here in a manner in which it has never been done in the past, even in the face of the far more deadly and destructive behavior of Lincoln and Truman.

If one is guilty of any crime, than I’d suggest so must be all three if any objective standard of judgment to be employed. And if we can’t do that, then all that we’re left with is an opinion on which well meaning people might disagree.

That’s a fair point about our respective awareness of the specific intelligence available at the time.

As a final question, I wonder, then, given that the average American isn’t likely to ever have access to that type of information due to its sensitivity, does that place citizens in the awkward position of never really knowing whether the actions taken by their government representatives are potentially morally objectionable until much later down the road, at which time rectifying and/or ameliorating those decisions that are deemed morally objectionable becomes much more difficult and if so, is that state of affairs acceptable?

As a follow on, does such a state of affairs, if the description seems accurate, not seem to invite potential abuses regardless of the ideological or party affiliations of the representative/administration in question?

Fair points, Scott. I’d like to add a couple of points.

We are talking about situations of war here, which are, constitutionally, the province of the executive branch and also the province of such things as covert intelligence, covert ops, etc. So, yes, the danger you mention exists. But we have representative government, after all. We elect leaders and bestow certain powers upon them. I’m not sure second guessing them, particularly when said questions appear to come only along partisan political lines, is productive. They represent us, like it or not – and under incredible pressures we don’t know or understand in certain instances.

I don’t want to read NY Times exposes on our intelligence gathering under Obama any more than I liked them under Bush.

But that does not mean I am against as much sunshine as possible when it comes to governance in general – and across party lines. So, why I think it is fair to question elected leaders regularly, in certain areas, I’m afraid a certain amount of trust is the best thing we have.

There will always be some risk, I believe we have the best system, which doesn’t mean it is perfect. But I no more want to go back and impeach Truman for what he did, than I do Cheney or Bush. Now, when some things come out – as was the case with a movie suggesting Clinton dropped the ball on terrorism during his years – okay, we can argue and debate that – just as it is fair to argue and debate Bush and Cheney now. Where I draw the line is the kind of Special Prosecutor crap Holder and Obama seem to be embracing now.

Such actions are more likely to weaken our national defense than they ever will strengthen it. I doubt very much if Obama is going to want prosecutors running around behind his war decisions whenever he is finally tossed out of office as the incompetent he seems to be. If you think I feel good about trusting him on National Security just now, frankly I don’t. But he’s entitled to that trust based upon an open election. So I wouldn’t support any witch hunt of an investigation there either, not now, nor when he leaves office.

Related posts...

• Creating a New Establishment
• Dick Cheney: Conservative of the Year?
• I’ll See Your Beck/Palin 2012

However, experiences of the morning have brought a particular element of the whole foofaraw back into focus, namely the ways in which cultural cues are both deeply embedded and a priori inform our political discourse in what I take to be unhelpful ways.

The lead in: despite only working at the company wherein my employment currently resides for four and a half months, I have come to be considered management. I wasn’t hired into any kind of management specific role and to this day my job title and description remain ephemeral at best. None the less, walking around this office I am treated with a certain deference (unwarranted in my opinion) because of the perceived position of power I happen to occupy.

From my experience, when you’re management, it is important to demonstrate that no task with which any of your employees might become saddled is too small or too lowly for you to perform, as well. My conception of management, cast as it was in the fires of not-for-profit work, is that you recognize and acknowledge the power differential that tips in your favour, but that you conversely pitch in and participate in getting whatever work needs to get done.

Full stop, period, bottom line.

To that end, today I am wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and boots, both because I have to move the president of the company from an office in one building to and office back in the primary building, and because it happens to be casual Friday and the first day of Stampede here in Calgary. To move all of the items from one office to the next, I am also pushing a cart between the two buildings out in the public, in addition to wearing “moving office” appropriate clothing.

Now, because I look the way that I do and because I’m pushing a cart around, people with whom I’ve been interacting with outside have been treating me qualitatively differently than when I am, say, walking around in a suit and tie, which is my normal garb. Even with an event where jeans and a t-shirt are as ubiquitous as they are during Stampede currently running, there is a noticeable difference to how people approach me.

To the average passerby I am no longer “management”, I have become a physical labourer and they have altered their behaviour patterns towards me in what they take to be the appropriate fashion. It never enters their mind that the criteria by which they determine what behaviour patterns are appropriate are entirely arbitrary, all they know is that we have certain cultural cues about you treat certain classes of people and they are abiding by those cues — rightly or wrongly.

Nothing particularly controversial there.

The point: so it generally seems to go in our political discourse as well, but in the case of cultural cues that enter into our politics we have a few monkey wrenches that create difficulties for our smooth analysis. As pertains to politics and the culture wars, the use of cultural cues because key elements in normative statements of derision about “the other side” and their unfitness for ascendancy to the levers of governance within society.

So it also seems to go with Dan Riehl and Robert Stacy McCain (two examples, go through their respective websites for many other posts on this topic) as pertains to their reactions towards Conor Friedersdorf and the results here I take to be muddy at best.

Now, let’s get all the cards on the table before we move forward.

There have been a series of relatively ugly exchanges since what I took to be a pretty healthy and interesting debate here at this site. Sides have been chosen, lines have been drawn and all that. When push comes to shove, I tend to find myself lining up with Conor. I like Conor’s approach, I respect his intellectual acumen, and I appreciate the vision he brings to the table when it comes to squinting his eyes to the horizon of conservatism’s future. Not everyone has the same reaction to Conor, needless to say, and in the timeless words of now Senator Stuart Smalley, “that’s, okay.”

But look, that I generally come down on the side of “Team Friedersdorf” in this debate, does not mean I can’t appreciate where Riehl and McCain are coming from and see some truth in the analysis they present. I have managed to maintain a cordial and respectful tenor with both Conor and Dan throughout this scuffle, about which I’m pretty happy and I happen to think that Dan, while I might not agree with him most of the time, is a really smart guy. I think you only have to listen to the audio of the discussion between he and Conor to appreciate how much Dan Riehl brings to the table. Dan calls it like he sees it in a pretty gruff fashion that doesn’t tend to be my particular cup of tea, but they guy simply isn’t any slouch. And despite my general lack of interaction with Robert Stacy McCain, I would offer a similar analysis of his approach to politics in general from what little interaction I have had.

Now in reading over Dan and McCain’s responses to Conor, it seems that they are utilizing certain cultural cues to form a particular analysis about who Conor is and what he’s all about: Conor went to Columbia (Conor corrects my inaccurate lifting of his academic history from McCain’s blog in the comments) , he’s blogging for The Atlantic, he’s educated and makes no bones about using that education in debate. Ergo Conor Friedersdorf is an elitist and is not to be trusted.

Dan has indicated that he has talked to a handful (large or small, I don’t know) of people about Conor and that they have  backed up the analysis he and McCain have presented there within. Okay, fine. But as far as I can tell, the tarring and feathering of Conor as an elitist didn’t start there, it started with those cues (though if I’m mistaken I have no doubt that Dan will promptly correct me, and I’ll be happy to redact if that is the case).

However, what strikes me most about this is that it seems to be the same line of attack that Dan and McCain tend to use in deriding liberals. So my armchair analysis of all of this is that at core Dan and McCain take Conor to be a liberal in conservative’s clothing who isn’t to be trusted because he fits certain cultural cues and cannot, therefore, fulfill certain conservative requirements.

There are two challenges I have with this kind of analysis, both very different and mutually defeating.

Firstly, the analysis that liberals tend to be snotty elitists who look down on the common people of America is an argument that is not entirely without merit. I don’t have statistics or broad behavioural analysis to back the claim up, I have only my own anecdotal experience to offer in this regard. But traveling as I have over the past ten years in largely liberally minded circles, I can say from my own experience both in my own thinking and in interactions with others that there is a grain of truth to this charge.

But a single grain don’t make a whole field.

When Dan and McCain (among many, many others) make claims like this, they know that there is some truth to what they’re saying and, more likely than not, those to whom they are saying it know there is some truth to it. But it just isn’t the whole truth insofar as one simply cannot say that every single liberal is an elitist snob, because, in fact, every single liberal is not an elitist snob. Nor does going to a particular school or working at a particular company, speaking a particular way or, as the case may be, wearing a suit and tie or pushing a cart with jeans and boots on make you a particular way.

The sin of this analysis is not that of omission, but of overreach. And in that regard, the use of certain cultural cue as a mean of performing political analysis is deeply flawed because, as conservatives such as Dan and McCain constantly remind us of the average American: people are far more complex and nuanced than said cues on their own allow us to see.

Which leads into my second challenge with this line of argument: namely that by tarring and feathering liberals writ large and Conor Friedersdorf in general as elitist via certain contingent cultural cues, Dan and McCain commit the exact same sin that they use to condemn Conor and liberals.

The idea here is that liberals and elitist pseudo-conservative (including Conor) are most grievously charged with looking down their noses and failing to see the fundamental worth of average individuals because they are stuck on themselves. Rather than seeing people as people these apostates instead see average people as the plebes based on erroneous conceptions. But Dan, McCain, and other conservatives of their ilk perform the exact same kind of blinder gymnastics in painting a broad swath of people with a single brush based on what for at least some of those people are equally erroneous conceptions.

You’ve basically traded stereotype for stereotype and are, at the end of the day, no further ahead in your analysis, except perhaps within the confines of your own mind. As much as salt-of-the-earth conservatives are warranted in challenging liberals and elitist pseudo-conservatives  upon their biases about a certain segment of the population, so too ought those same conservatives have the courage to challenge themselves — or at least be open to challenges from others — on the exact same kind of biases at play in their analysis. I say that because I think that in no small part, those biases are deeply in play within their analysis.

This play of shadows represents my biggest problem ideologically determined politics: the use of inaccurate or, at best, partial cultural cues is so fundamentally inherent to our discourse that we only ever really avail ourselves of a much smaller proportion of the picture than to which we have access. In so doing, we make decisions — albeit often times unconsciously — not to see each other and remain firmly ensconced in our own chosen biases and limitations.

That we might consciously choose to make ourselves aware of those limitations and transcend the confines of our biases informs the glimmer of hope to which I doggedly hold on and around which I fashion my own meager political project.

Related posts...

• The Great Debate – Redux
• Update On Friedersdorf/Riehl Discussion
• Calling All Leaguers

Dan and Conor were really great about rolling with the technological punches and really engaged one another on a variety of topics. It’s an hour well spent. My favourite moment? Dan’s explanation about the God box. If that teaser isn’t reason to sit and listen to the whole thing I don’t know what is.

My apologies for not communicating that the discussion wasn’t going to be live, such are the perils of part-time unpaid blogging. Again, if you would like to post follow up questions, feel free to do so here and Conor and Dan can answer if/when they the time to do so.

Update: argh, problems with the file embedding, have tried a new format.

Related posts...

• Re-Thinking Political Coalitions
• Calling All Leaguers
• The First Rule of Fight Club…

I can tell you that from the fits and starts we managed to get into tonight that it’s going to be a great conversation and one that you won’t want to miss. Stay tuned for the info on rescheduling and my apologies for the delay.

Here’s a sneak peak of things to come.

I’m not a member of the social conservative right, for instance. So, I’ve more than once felt like, “Jeez, I wish these people would shut up.”

Less than a three minute minute clip and already we have gems. Tell me you don’t want to hear a full hour of that…

Update: so we are now booked to resume the discussion via a different technological platform (likely Blog Talk Radio) on Monday, June 15 @ 8:00pm EST. If all goes as planned (and it didn’t last time, so who knows) you will once again be able to tune in live to the dicsussion via a BTR button that I will attempt to embed within a post here on the site. Live questions will likely be submitted through my email address, which I will post (no, I’m not looking to find ways to “make my love for her harder”, so save your spam). And if you’re feeling really sassy, we will also likely have a number you can call to get on the line with Dan and Conor, though I’m not sure that we’re quite ready to take live callers just yet — we shall see.

Update Redux: we seem to be having some trobles with the audio play back of links on the site, so if you haven’t figured this out already, to listen to the clip (which is short, but a good listen), right click the link if you’re on a PC and Apple click the link if you’re on a Mac. Apparently I offended a voodoo calculator the other day and it has turned around and used some bad joo-joo to turn all technology against me. Apologies once again.

Related posts...

• Calling All Leaguers
• Intellectual Insecurity
• A Plea for Engagement

Related posts...

• You Say Elitist, I Say Potato
• The Great Debate – Redux
• Calling All Leaguers

The purpose of this post; however, is to solicit questions from you that can be put to Conor and Dan while we have them on the line. So fire away because both Dan and Conor, as well as everyone here at the League, are curious to see what you come up with. As always, keep it clean, civil, on topic, but still interesting and challenging.

Thanks much.

Related posts...

• The Great Debate – Redux
• You Say Elitist, I Say Potato
• Houston, We Have A Problem – UPDATED