So, with reference to the weekend’s big news story, Norman of Normblog writes that a particular pleasure has been
“The sight of some people trying to say ‘hooray’ through gritted teeth.”
If I understand this correctly, Norm is expressing his pleasure in some other people’s displeasure in having to express their pleasure in yet a third group of people’s expression of their pleasure in a separate individual’s displeasure. I don’t know what to think about this at all. Which is just as well, I suppose because at least it means that the chain of meta-levels ends here. I tell, you, this is why expected utility theory will never catch on ….
Just another right-winger playing BS insinuation games. Yawn. Stick in the roll of dishonor with Instapundit/Hitchens/Kaus/LGF/etc.
I was wondering how many metas it would take to get to expected utility theory.
For me, this comment by Norbizness (at The Poor Man) pretty much sums up a certain stance:
Immediately speculate about what this means for the war effort. Get inside the mind of a loyal Ba’ath henchman. If you’re in the Administration apologeia business, allow yourself a brief moment to gloat over the foolishness of lefties and hippies worldwide. You’ve earned it.
Question: Why do Timberites treat Geras with respect? Most of his war-related commentary that I’ve seen has this tone.
If Norm’s happy, I’m happy!
Matt, Barry: He’s treated with respect because he’s earned it, over many years of writing intelligent things about socialism. I (at least) disagree with him pretty sharply on the subject of the war, but it really ought to be possible for the pro- and anti- war left to have civil exchanges. My post was directed in a spirit of gentle mockery, and I’m afraid that I’m going to be deleting any further Norm-bashing which departs too far from this spirit.
OK, I’ll accept that Norm has a good previous record. I would like to have civil exchanges with the pro-war left, and ask only for reciprocity. (BTW, I can’t read Norm on this computer—if there’s an important link or something that I’m missing, apologies.)
Oh, poo. Delete the above if you like—I’m in a bad mood. I think there may be a trans-Atlantic gap here—I often feel that some of my fellow Americans are accusing me of loving Saddam or not caring about the lives of fellow Americans or some such, while arguments in terms of historical materialism are thin on the ground. The context is different in the UK I’m sure, so my touchiness may not be as appropriate with respect to Norm as it would with respect to certain American-based commentators we can all name.
While I admire Mr. Dsquared’s desire to maintain equanimity amongst the left, I really find it odd that he’d manage to do so. From reading Mr. Geras’s posts on the war and the anti-war left, he’s been pretty blunt in labeling anti-war lefties as objectively pro fascist dictators and as betrayers of the lefty cause. There isn’t much moralistic elbow-room in there. Either you don’t think your being called a supporter of a brutal mass murderer is much to get ruffled about, or you are spittle-spewingly pissed at Mr. Geras and all his insinuations. I really don’t see any room for a spirit of gentle mockery in all this, and I doubt Mr. Geras does either. It seems to me that if there’s any disagreement with Mr. Geras then it must be vehement. After all, “pro-mass-murderer crypto-fascist”, them’s fighting words!
I certainly hope this post won’t earn me the ignominy of getting deleted, ‘cause I really like your stuff d’squared, but oh well. I guess that’ll be the price us spade-callers must pay.
Hm. I think there’s a need for more careful reading, here. Norm has been pointing out the way some of the anti-war left has been omitting to mention the consequences of leaving Saddam in power. His point, as I understand it, is by all means oppose the war but do it by taking all relevant factors into account - not by mentioning some and shoving others behind the sofa. I for one have more doubts and haverings and quaverings about the war than Norm does, and than my colleague at B&W does, too - but I do emphatically agree that whatever stance one takes, one should do one’s damndest to take all the factors into account.
His point, as I understand it, is by all means oppose the war but do it by taking all relevant factors into account
No, I don’t think that’s his point at all.
The point here, I would say, is that one should give significant weight to the suffering of those who have to bear the cost. This is why I’ve felt from the very beginning of all this, given the scale of such suffering in Iraq, that those on the left who couldn’t bring themselves to support the war shouldn’t have opposed it either.
And do be careful that your wavering and quaverings don’t get you labeled as part of Mr. Geras’s “pro-tyrant” left.
Okay, fair correction. I was paraphrasing, or attempting to paraphrase, what I take to be Norm’s cumulative position, from memory, rather than going over there to find an apposite quotation. Lazy of me. But I was thinking of comments like this one -
“Let them say, if they have the courage, stupidity or whatever else it takes to say it, that they think it would have been better for the Iraqi people to still be enduring the torments they suffered under Saddam Hussein than to be in the position they are now in, for all its many difficulties. Just say it: ‘It would be better if the torture chambers and all the other paraphernalia of murder and oppression in Iraq were still in place’. And unless you can say that, then you should back off the ‘idiots’ and ‘so-called left’ stuff.”
So I should have skipped the ‘by all means’ part, at any rate. But I think my basic point about including all factors stands.
Fair do’s—that’s a question that’s worth answering. And here I feel that Mr. Geras tends to neglect what Matt Yglesias calls the “opportunity cost.” Namely: Saddam’s fall from power is certainly a good thing. But bringing him down cost umpty-ump billions and many lives, disrupted most of our international alliances, and tied down the effective fighting force of the U.S. Had we not done so, we could have accomplished many other good things.
For instance, full funding to fight HIV in Africa; peacekeeping in Liberia (when I saw the Liberian crowds carrying the Nigerian peacekeeper on their shoulders, my thought was “That should be an American”); actual reconstruction of Afghanistan.
So I disagree, civilly I hope, with Mr. Geras’s rhetoric in the above quotation. I do not “think it would have been better for the Iraqi people to still be enduring the torments they suffered under Saddam Hussein than to be in the position they are now in, for all its many difficulties.” But I also do not think that the means were justified by the end in this case. (I recognize that that post is responding to some fairly virulent anti-war talk, but at the end of it Mr. Geras seems to say that the whole anti-war movement is in denial. Hence I take it personally.)
I (at least) disagree with him pretty sharply on the subject of the war, but it really ought to be possible for the pro- and anti- war left to have civil exchanges. My post was directed in a spirit of gentle mockery, and I’m afraid that I’m going to be deleting any further Norm-bashing which departs too far from this spirit.
Would you describe his writings on the anti-war left to be “gentle mockery”?
I wouldn’t even describe some of the writings on the anti-war left on CT to be civil or gentle, rather dishonest and contemptuous (do I need to give examples?). I don’t know enough of the history of the white left to really analyze this phenomenon of yearning civility between a certain kind of leftist for those to his right on whatever issue (a yearning quite nicely described by Prof. Healy’s remarks about “But what’s so unpleasant about what seems to be the truth here?”) but I look forward to someone who does have more of the context laying it out tho.
I think you word you want for Norm’s (if I may call him Norm) peculiar emotion is “Überschadenfreude”, or something like that. I’m not sure because I just made it up.
Mr. Weiner, with regard to your post:
“Mr. Geras tends to neglect what Matt Yglesias calls the “opportunity cost.” Namely: Saddam’s fall from power is certainly a good thing. But bringing him down cost umpty-ump billions and many lives, disrupted most of our international alliances, and tied down the effective fighting force of the U.S. Had we not done so, we could have accomplished many other good things.”
I’ve always found Norm’s case for the war strong, but I believe you’re right here. Norm’s case for the war is largely moral. In short, getting rid of Saddam is very meet, right and just so let’s just do it. I think this alone is a reasonable case for the war, but there are plenty of other good things the US could’ve done with the money and people. So why does Iraq take precedence? I think this is a genuine weakness in the Norm’s position. He places ethical considerations above prudential considerations in a case where they both seem to point toward the same course of action. Why not avail yourself of the prudential argument for getting rid of Saddam? Here’s where Norm’s leftist internationalism gets in the way: The prudential argument is based partly on the fact it’s in the UK’s interest to get rid of Saddam. Marxists have hard time saying that patriotism is a valid motive for war. Would that Norm were as partisan for his country as he is favorite football clubs!
It doesn’t much matter to me: I think it was very meet right and just and it helped out US long term interests in a way that say, peacekeeping in Liberia, wouldn’t have. Both ethical and prudential motives gave it precedence over the alternatives. Of course, I’d love it if we could keep the peace in Liberia but you I believe Iraq is more pressing
Would you describe his writings on the anti-war left to be “gentle mockery”?
No, and I’ve certainly remonstrated with him about them. But I don’t think it helps matters for CT to fuel the fire.
I’m with Matt and Barry: irrespective of wht else he’s written, his web-writings seem so reptilian that his past oeuvre is as securely on my Unread Books list as the Collected Works of Steven den Beste.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review