There’s been a lot of hubbub, both here and elsewhere in the blogworld, about the Becker-Posner blog. But if it’s intellectual firepower in a group blog you’re after, you should be reading Left2Right. Here’s its mission statement, which should be good for setting off a round of debates.
In the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, many of us have come to believe that the Left must learn how to speak more effectively to ears attuned to the Right. How can we better express our values? Can we learn from conservative critiques of those values? Are there conservative values that we should be more forthright about sharing? “Left2Right” will be a discussion of these and related questions.
Although we have chosen the subtitle “How can the Left get through to the Right?”, our view is that the way to get through to people is to listen to them and be willing to learn from them. Many of us identify ourselves with the Left, but others are moderates or independents. What we share is an interest in exploring how American political discourse can get beyond the usual talking points.
The contributors so far include Elizabeth Anderson, Kwame Appiah, Josh Cohen, Stephen Darwall, Gerald Dworkin, David Estlund, Don Herzog, Jeff McMahan, Seana Shiffrin, and David Velleman. Wowsa. And many other names you may have heard of, from Peter Railton to Richard Rorty, are listed as being part of the team. This should be worth following.
Definitely lots of firepower there; it’ll be interesting to see how many of these folks turn out to be compelling bloggers as well as thoughtful scholars. David Velleman has already posted on a lot in the brief time since the blog began; he has an excellent post on the de factor resegregation of schools across America’s suburbs and exurbs here; I think that’s an important aspect of the problem to include when thinking about the conservative hostility to public school guarantees and reforms.
Whoops, excuse me, Stephen Darwell authored that particular post. And, of course, it’s one which Brian linked to already. Gaaah.
That’s quite a lineup. I’ve added it to the blogroll.
Wow; quite a list. Like the ACS’ “Constitution in 2020” blog it represents a major influx of the academic great and the good into blogging. In both law and philosophy, I’d think that the “legitimation” that Henry brought up last week now has to be considered pretty well complete.
Or, possibly, impersonators thereof.
They seem sincere in their desire to establish a framework for discussion with the right (though a few caricatures of conservative views still slip in)..
But the posts are uncontroversial enough that rightists can largely agree with them. I’d like them try to offer substantive views on accommodation of varying stripes of Islam by Western countries, or on contemporary alternatives to the market economy.
This is more irony right? Kinda a continuation of the Posner bit? Right? I know shouldn’t have to ask but this politics so I am uncertain.
‘In the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, many of us have come to believe that the Left must learn how to speak more effectively to ears attuned to the Right. How can we better express our values?’ Etc.
side by side with
‘Vehicles in New Jersey are covered with decals representing little ribbons inscribed with the legend: “Support Our Troops.” I have done a lot of driving recently and have noticed geographical disparities in the distribution of these symbols. There are fewer in the Midwest and very few at all in the LA area. They are also disproportionately displayed on SUVs and vans, which isn’t surprising given that the owners are disproportionately reliant on the oil supplies that our soldiers are in Iraq to protect (among their other purposes).’
that is irony. Intentional or not.
How can I get through to the right?
I know! Why don’t I point out that they support a bloody war in order to fill their SUVs with cheap gas(in part).
That should do the trick! I am getting through you right wing bastards! You support murder to save a few hundred dollars year on your fuel bill!
Now we are building bridges!
So far, watching the “dialogue” between the lefty posters and their righty responders in the comments has made me pretty glad to be a libertarian noninterventionist. The post about the support-the-troops ribbons was especially nausea-inducing: in this corner, the total cultural cluelessness and muddled hypocrisy of the supposedly cosmopolitan left; in the other, the mission civilisatrice altruism of the humanitarian-bomber right. If this constitutes reasoned engagement, so much the worse for reasoned engagement.
Serious question: why would you want to build those bridges (from Left to Right)?
Bigmacattack is right they are way off from their mission statement. Their way of reaching out to the right is to sincerly explain why we hate them. Like that is going to change people’s minds.
Self Describing themselves as “really smart” – check.
Patronizing tone – check.
Seething bitchiness emanating from writing – check.
Seen this before – check.
I think they might better be left2themselves
Not so impressed. There’s quite a bit of good thinking there, but it’s often naive and behind the curve.
Contrast with Berube, an academic on top of the issues, or Laura Rozen, a specialist policy wonk.
The site needs verve and engagement. I hope it lives up to its potential.
Serious question: why would you want to build those bridges (from Left to Right)?
Presumably it is an attempt to rekindle the fires of the Democratic Party’s embrace of aggressive anti-Communism in the 1960s. Which is, obviously, in part responsible for the extraordinary strength of social-democratic politics in the USA today.
Having read the mission statement here and having used the link via Volohk COnspiracy I find Left2Right rather odd. If, as the mission statement says, there’s an attempt to listen to conservatives I find it rather failing. The first data point on terrorism post is a classic example. LEcturing conservatives that liberals are more intellectually honest is BOUND to win them over, ce? It positively DRIPS with, on the left, commonly held assumptions without explaining them, and though they’re commonly held on the left they are rather controversial(ex: WOT creating more terrorists. Fact? How, do terrorist orgs publish order of battle reports or organizational charts like the US, PLA, and other nations? That’s an assumption or a point of view, and not a fact(if it is a fact, show us the primary source material this is gleaned from.)). The Crooked Timber Crew should really mention something to Left2Right about how it’s failing its stated goal of bridging the gap by becoming yet another site to say ‘conservatives aren’t honest and just don’t get it do they?’
I’m glad I’m not the only one who found this almost a sad caricature of liberal intellectual elitism. I hate to use that phrase, because it is so loaded, but this is exactly the kind of boring lefty moralist/intellectual ‘we’re so much better than you, why can’t you understand that?’ prattle that drives conservatives and many centrists out of their skulls. I want the left to win; I really do. But if this is the best writing we can come up with as a ‘bridge’ we’re in deep trouble.
I agree that the McMahon post wasn’t the best thing to have on the front page the day the site went public. But I think many of the critics here are applying an unfair standard. The point of the blog is to work out what a bridge would look like - it isn’t necessarily to be that bridge from day one. Of course instantiation is one way to show how a bridge should look - but it’s hardly the only way.
Brian Weatherson,
No of course not. So tommorow we can expect a thoughtful follow-up from Jeff McMahan, maybe titled, Sorry SUV drivers WTF was I saying and WTF does that reveal about me?
or
Not.
“a bridge would look like”
In most countries the “bridge” between left and right looks like a Parliament - its the arena where ideas are debated back and forth. Whats wrong with that system?
Brian: the problem is the shape the bridge appears to be taking. The American left has failed to persuade not just because of the content and framing of the message (which this site does appear to be focusing on, which is good) but also because of the delivery of the message. The best messages in the world conveyed in the tones and language of the top 5-6 articles on left2right aren’t going to be persuasive to the vast majority of people, even among those who style themselves intelligent liberals, much less the ‘right’ they are trying to bridge to.
In most countries the “bridge” between left and right looks like a Parliament - its the arena where ideas are debated back and forth. Whats wrong with that system?
Nothing at all. It’s just that it presumes that both parties are capable of formulating a set of guiding principles based on more than “We’re just like the other guys, only somewhat slightly less so.”
Until such time as the Democratic Party decides to start standing for something other than its own existence (and I’m not holding my breath), we’ll have to make do with the alternatives.
Let’s accept it: the conservative responses on that site suggest that they do not want to be ‘reached out’ towards.
They want to rule, be kowtowed towards, and obeyed.
Brian Wetherson,
No, it isn’t just the one post. It was the bulk. I pulled my quote from the second or third post down. If it’s dialogue that’s desired don’t write conservatives are jerks’ type posts. Simple.
Your reply here is the mirror image of something that one of the LEft2Right folk posted—not being able to take criticism of ones ideas. That’s the fatal flaw of L2R right now. It makes claims that are false, and calling them on it brings cries of ‘not getting it’ or ‘being harsh’.
Also note: some of those complaining are asking that the snarky condescension and unexplained assumptions presented as facts be removed so that the mission of building the bridge can take place.
Although we have chosen the subtitle “How can the Left get through to the Right?”, our view is that the way to get through to people is to listen to them and be willing to learn from them.
There are people on the Right I can listen to and learn from. But they are all Democrats, conservative Democrats.
There is absolutely no chance to get through to Republicans, they are nuts; it’s hopeless.
why is it named left to right.
why not right to left?
i think this is baised against jews
A large and very distinguished group of professors have started a new group blog, Left2Right, with the goal of trying to understand Red America. Hint: It's not all like
Read more at The Volokh Conspiracy
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