Extra Ordinary Ideas

South for the Winter

I'll be in Naples, Florida for free food and fine conversation between today and Sunday, so don't expect to hear from me much more this week.

Washington, DC: High 28, low 25, snowing like heck for the next three days

Naples, FL: High 80, low 64, partly cloudy

Good thing I packed my bikini!

A Natural Mistake?

Wired contributor Steven Johnson has a piece in this month’s issue commenting on shifting alliances within the nature vs. nurture debate. I don’t doubt that there are shifting alliances here, but I’m a bit critical of Johnson’s characterization of the underpinnings of “conservative” approaches to related policy issues. Efforts to array ideological groups on a one dimensional “nature vs. nurture” spectrum are hardly new, but I wonder if this map doesn’t require at least a second axis to be at all useful.

Johnson first suggests that people “lean one way or the other [nature vs. nurture] because their political views led them there – the patina of science just makes the biases easier to hide.” Okay, fair enough.

He then writes that historically, “Conservatives believed in the power of nature. If you rose to the pinnacle of society or sunk to its depths, you had only yourself to blame.” Now, this makes conservatives sound like a bunch of eugenicists. Even real lefties – which I think Johnson is not – don’t usually accuse conservatives of favoring a smaller government approach because people are all helpless victims of their genetic makeup. Of course, if it really is his thesis that conservatives believe in “nature,” then the use of the word, “blame” is incoherent. Why would any blame be forthcoming for acting in a manner determined by your nature?

Obviously, the missing ingredient here is the conservative embrace of the concept of free agency. Conservatives tend to believe in an atmosphere of relative freedom because they think that individuals can make decisions to transcend both nature and nurture. Perhaps we need to make this line graph look a little more like the Nolan Chart?

Johnson then attempts to bring us up to date by suggesting that “economic conservatives” are trending toward nurture: “Milton Friedmanites are almost too attached to evolutionary theory. Darwin is invoked to justify the free market system: Rational self-interest is an innate strategy that capitalism simply reflects (“greed is adaptive”). The only problem is that in recent years, evolutionary theorists have shown again and again that the instincts for altruism and social cooperation are a logical outcome of selfish genes. Communal society is as much a part of our genetic inheritance as competition is, which means unfettered markets may be more an invention of culture than an expression of our underlying biology.”

Now, I don’t know of every fiscal conservative Johnson has been talking to or reading, but I don’t generally hear capitalism and Darwinism compared except by enemies of the former. Comparisons of free market competition with evolution generally wrongly assume that both disadvantage the weakest members of society. In fact, free market competition benefits weak as well as strong swimmers by winnowing out ineffective institutions and strategies. The losers in the free market are poor ideas, not poor people.

Moreover, I don’t know of any fiscal conservatives who believe that free markets are incompatible with civil society, as Johnson appears to suggest. Indeed it is precisely on “altruism” and “social cooperation” that such conservatives rely for those social support roles they would have government eschew. Accordingly, it makes little sense to suggest that the place these impulses hold in evolutionary theory is an argument against the "naturalness" of market behavior.

Johnson, who keeps a blog that looks just like this one (the pitfall of templates, but I'm too ignorant to tailor mine), links to Reason and Andrew Sullivan. Now, he is hardly a political animal, blogging primarily about science and Apple Computers, with occasional forays into social commentary and network theory. Still, I’m surprised that a writer so familiar with market liberalism’s pundits would unwittingly describe the movement in the manner of its enemies.

Iraqnophobia

Since well before the birth of this blog, I’ve suffered from an odd ailment: an unwillingness to really engage the critical issue of the incipient conflict in Iraq. This is not due to an insufficient appreciation of the importance of the issue. Lives are at stake. National security is at stake. Our policy will shape America’s future role as world superpower, for good or for ill.

Rather, I’m reticent because I know that I do not know enough about foreign affairs or military strategy to have an informed opinion, and – for a non-foreign affairs specialist – I am too slow out of the box to have any real hope of catching up to the high-level discussion.

Moreover, this issue is being addressed so exhaustively by smart fellow bloggers that I could study it nonstop for a week, only to add little value to recent online deliberations.

Thus, without analysis, I encourage you to check out "The Pentagon’s New Map" by Thomas P.M. Barnett. This article takes a strongly pro-war position. While I can see significant problems with some of Mr. Barnett’s reasoning, I appreciate the fact that he engages the larger issue (What should our intellectual/conceptual framework be for deciding what types of foreign military actions further our national security?) rather than completely burying himself and the reader in the messy specifics (Should we invade Iraq?).

The debate over war in Iraq can be, and should be, at least partially about developing principled criteria for intervention in the post cold war era so we won’t have to do all the intellectual work over again next time. Little of the public debate is taking place on that level.

UPDATE: Jerry Brito links to a lefty New York Times piece by Thomas Friedman critical of the "wolf is at the door" level of the war discussion. Friedman's thesis is that the Administration believes that the war is in America's long term security interests, but has decided that the American public will only support a war in response to a very immediate threat. Accordingly, short term dangers are emphasized (Friedman says exaggerated) while long term strategic thinking about national security - such as Mr. Barnett's article - is sidelined even when it supports the idea of intervention.

Not So Weighty

At grave risk of being called a catblogger:

Oh dear, I don't laugh until I cry very often, but this illustrated tale from Diana Hsieh did the trick. Cat owners should be seated.

A Portrait of the Artist as You

When lobbying for state and federal grants, professional artists carefully cultivate the impression that they are different from the rest of us. More sensitive. More passionate. More creative. Endowed with a rare ability to express shared cultural values and personal experiences. They are so important – these rare creatures – that government should support their full-time efforts as a public good. The alternative, they imply, would be a world without Art, and thus a society without meaning.

This tired mantra makes Dana Gioia, the new head of the National Endowment for the Arts, incredibly refreshing. A well-known poet of the New Formalist School, Mr. Gioia has also held a series of “real jobs,” including Vice President of Marketing for General Foods. Asked why a poet of his talent would devote so much energy to crass commercial pursuits, Mr. Gioia ironically observes, “My parents neglected to give me the private income that I so richly deserved.”

Mr. Gioia has long highlighted the twin moral failings of the professional art world, Artist Separatism and a consequent sense of Artist Entitlement. In an incendiary book titled “Can Poetry Matter?" he argued that much of today’s poetry, written only to impress other cloistered academics, does not matter. Too many artists are so convinced that “the masses” lack the capacity to appreciate good art that they wish to be paid by the public to chatter only to each other.

This attitude is most unfair to the masses, many of whom are artists some of the time. I know lots of lawyers, managers, analysts and secretaries who are also musicians, writers, dancers and singers. My father, in between making commercial aviation insurance deals, has written three novels, the first of which is actually fairly likely to be published this year, though not for any great profit.

I danced for many years at the student to semi-professional level before heeding the market’s advice that I try doing something more analytical for a living. I have friends of similar, fairly modest artistic talent who have remained dancers. They have various reasons for their decision to stick with art, including greater enjoyment of it, fewer injuries, or less in the way of other interests. None of these reasons makes them profoundly different from me as dancers. They just had a slightly different set of costs and benefits. Why should an artist who decides to take a “real job” be required to support an artist who, for lifestyle reasons of her own, does not?

A real-life Gordon Comstock, Mr. Gioia demonstrates not only that good art can be accessible, but also that a guy with a day job can be a good artist. Ironic as his new position at the NEA will be, his example is one that all artists would do well to ponder.

UPDATE: An appropriate addendum by one of the 20th century's wittiest women:

Bohemia by Dorothy Parker

Authors and actors and artists and such
Never know nothing, and never know much.
Sculptors and singers and those of their kidney
Tell their affairs from Seattle to Sydney.
Playwrights and poets and such horses' necks
Start off from anywhere, end up at sex.
Diarists, critics, and similar roe
Never say nothing, and never say no.
People Who Do Things exceed my endurance;
God, for a man that solicits insurance!

Courtesy of Alina

Word Watch

It's wonderful that the British term "shag" has finally found a place in the American vernacular. It's not as euphamistic as "sleep with," as potentially hyperbolic as "make love," or as crass as "f***." Hopefully the very useful word "snog" will not be far behind.

Journalistic Freedom

Amy Phillips found an excellent treatment of libertarian vs. conservative approaches to social issues in the Wall Street Journal, which I’ll reprint here:

*****************************************************
Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll
Libertarians have more fun--and make more sense.

BY SUSAN LEE
Wednesday, February 12, 2003 12:01 a.m.

Sometime this month, Congress will vote on whether to ban cloning, human and therapeutic. Conservatives want a total ban, liberals only want to stop human cloning. What's mostly missing from the debate, however, is the libertarian position. And that's a shame. A little bit of libertarian thought would clear the political sinuses.

Libertarianism is simplicity itself. It proceeds from a single, quite beautiful, concept of the primacy of individual liberty that, in turn, infuses notions of free markets, limited government and the importance of property rights. In terms of public policy, these notions translate into free trade, free immigration, voluntary military service and user fees instead of taxes. Sometimes these policies are argued in a totally unforgiving way so that it's not easy to separate the lunatics from the libertarians. But it's a snap to separate libertarians from conservatives.

For starters, although these two groups do clasp hands on the importance of free markets, not all their fingers touch. To conservatives, the free market takes its force only as an economic construct--and even then, this is often reduced to an automatic complaint against high taxes. To libertarians, on the other hand, the model of a free market functions as a template for all things. Not only does the market operate as a continuous process for sorting through competing ideas as well as goods, it also allows each individual to express himself or herself. The latter is simply a consequence of the market's function in testing individual preferences. That some ideas triumph and others fail is necessary.

But perhaps the single distinguishing feature between conservatives and libertarians is that libertarians are concerned with individual rights and responsibilities over government--or community--rights and responsibilities. Consider how conservatives and libertarians divide over cultural issues or social policy. Libertarians are not comfortable with normative questions. They admit to one moral principle from which all preferences follow; that principle is self-ownership--individuals have the right to control their own bodies, in action and speech, as long as they do not infringe on the same rights for others. The only role for government is to help people defend themselves from force or fraud. Libertarians do not concern themselves with questions of "best behavior" in social or cultural matters.

By contrast, conservatives are comfortable with normative issues. Conservative thought works within a hierarchical structure for behavior that has, at its top, absolute and enduring values. These values are not the result of the agnostic process of the free market; they are ontologically inherent. Because conservatives assume that there is a recognizable standard of excellence, they deal easily with notions of virtue and moral behavior. For example, they argue that the state of marriage between a man and a woman possesses great virtue. And they can go on to distinguish lesser states of virtue in other types of relationships. This process of distinguishing isn't an entirely epistemological argument, however; it is based, in part, on tradition and, in part, on sociology taken from assumptions about "best behavior."

Libertarians believe that marriage between a man and a woman is just one among other equally permissible relationships; they eschew the question of whether there is inherent virtue in each possible state. The only virtue to be inferred is a grand one--that those involved are freely consenting and thus expressing individual preferences in a free market competition among these states. It is no wonder, then, that the cultural debate between conservatives and libertarians takes place over a great divide. Unlike debates over economic policies, there are no liminal issues. Indeed, there cannot be any because the strictness of the divide is a consequence of opposing matrices. Conservative thought proceeds from absolutes, hierarchies and exclusivity. Libertarian thought promotes relativism and inclusiveness--although, admittedly, this tolerance comes from indifference to moral questions, not from a greater inborn talent to live and let live. Conservatives favor tradition and communitarian solutions, and resort to central authority when it serves their purpose. Libertarians value individual creativity and are invariably against central authority.

All this falls to the bottom line in obvious ways. Conservatives are against gay marriage, they are often ambivalent toward immigrants, and patronizing toward women; they view popular culture as mostly decadent and want to censor music, movies, video games and the Internet. They crusade against medical marijuana. For their part, libertarians argue for legalizing drugs; they are in favor of abortion and against the government prohibition of sex practices among consenting adults. They abhor censorship. In the conservative caricature, libertarians believe in sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll--but it is not far from the truth. Unfortunately, these debates are often animated by the fact that conservatives see libertarianism only as the face of what it defends: transgendered persons adopting children, video games of violent sadism and, yes, cloning. Simply put, the shocking and repellent decline of civilization. But for libertarians, these are merely some of the many aspects of a civilization that is advancing through vast and minute experiments. The exercise of freedom trumps the discomforts of novelty.

To push my argument further, libertarian thought, with its fluid cultural matrix, offers a better response to some of the knottiest problems of society. It is, especially when contrasted with the conservative cultural matrix, a postmodern attitude. In fact, it is precisely this postmodernism that enrages conservatives who are uncomfortable with a radical acceptance that, in turn, promotes change and unfamiliarity. Yet no matter how scary (or irritating), libertarian tolerance provides a more efficient mechanism in dealing with those places where economics, politics and culture clash so intimately.

Although libertarians tend toward an annoying optimism, no reasonable observer would venture a prediction on the winner of the conservative-libertarian debate. The outcome depends crucially on where societies ultimately fix the locus of coercion between liberty and authority for politics, and between tolerance and conformity for culture. One can imagine, though, how discouraged F.A. Hayek must have felt in 1944 when he sat down to write "The Road to Serfdom." Now, few doubt that Hayek has won and that the economic argument has been settled in favor of free markets. What remains is the battle over politics and culture. One down, two to go.

Ms. Lee is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
*****************************************************

There it is folks. We've been officially pronounced to have greater coherency and funness on the conservative WSJ editorial page!

There’s a group out here in DC called the America’s Future Foundation that exists in part to “bridge the gap” between conservatives and libertarians. Bridging the gap apparently involves organizing a steady stream of entertaining “social events” for those of us geeky enough to consider a well-lubricated debate on federal cloning policy a party.

Though conservative-libertarian relations within AFF have not been without a bump or two, the conservative young Republicans running the organization have been gracious to market liberals, openly admiring the coherence of libertarian arguments even when they nonetheless refuse to accept them.

Still, I just can’t shake the feeling that they try so hard to keep us around primarily because we’re cooler. And yes, I do "tend toward an annoying optimism."

Good News

My NPR affiliate's semi-annual Guilt Campaign ends tomorrow!

Mich-y Thinking

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear an affirmative action case concerning admissions to the University of Michigan this spring. The so-called U-Mich case has turned the heat up on the always-simmering controversy over racial preferences in state schools.

With the possible exception of the abortion debate, no contemporary controversy is so deleterious to the clear use of language. “Affirmative action” polls pretty well, but “racial preferences” do not. “Quotas” poll worst of all. Are there meaningful differences between these things, and if so what are they? Politicians seeking to remain on the right side of their favorite constituencies have little interest in clarifying their terms.

The President has historically sought a moderate tone on this issue, balancing the demands of his base against a pet political project of his – making the Republican Party competitive among minority voters. In line with this strategy, his administration has decided to file a brief in the U-Mich case opposing the university’s admissions program on the relatively narrow ground that it is a “quota system.”

But on its face, the U-Mich program is not a quota; it is a preference. The U-Mich admissions formula does not set aside a certain number of slots for “underrepresented minorities” (a recent language permutation reflecting the exclusion of Asians and East Indians from preferential programs), but rather adds 20 points to the admissions profile of each African-American, Hispanic or Native American applicant.

Nonetheless, there is a way in which the President could be right. The U-Mich program could amount to a quota if the size of its preference – 20 points rather than 15 or 30 – was designed to result in a freshman class with a certain percentage of minority students. Proponents of preferences tend to refer to this percentage vaguely as a “critical mass.” If the size of the bump were determined based on some other rationale – say, as a rough stab at quantifying the effect of racism – the U-Mich system would not be a quota system.

Polls results imply that Americans consider this intellectual distinction important, but I’m not so sure. Rather, I suspect that many poll respondents think of preferences as “plus factors” (to borrow a phrase from the Court’s Bakke decision), used to choose between “equally qualified” applicants, while “quotas” admit “less qualified” minority applicants.

But what is meant by “equally qualified?” Even assuming for a moment that one is using the word “qualified” in the traditional sense to refer to academic preparedness (a whole separate can of worms), determining academic preparedness is far from an exact science. Two applicants with SAT scores 30 points apart are not necessarily differently prepared academically. One might have taken the test in a cold room, or next to a guy with a bad cough. High school transcripts, plagued by grade inflation and radical differences in academic standards, may reveal even less.

At what point does an admissions committee consider a gap in our imperfect measurements sufficiently probative of academic preparedness to merit consideration in the first place? Even assuming that line can be drawn, does Joe Public believe that admissions preferences should be delimited in the same spot? Despite all the ideological sound and fury surrounding this issue, these basic, factual questions have yet to be answered. Unfortunately, the principals in this public debate have every reason to prefer clouds to clarity.

Update: Just to clarify, SAT points are nowhere near the same size as the "points" awarded under the U-Mich admissions system. In fact, the entire SAT only counts for 12 points in the U-Mich admissions process.

Utterly, Embarassingly Outclassed

This girl almost motivates to give up my career in ideas and learn to bartend or something.

Ketchup is a vegetable. It's the law.

I generally avoid eating anything good for me. It’s an offbeat manifestation of the same death wish (or, more accurately, immortality wish) that inspires smoking and drinking. I like to reject the idea that my body is vulnerable and requires care.

So I’ve had mixed feelings about a recent spate of news indicating that my diet may not be so bad after all. First, Dr. Atkins is in full renaissance with a new book claiming he was right all along about lots of beef being key to good health. (I love that my bosses’ bosses’ boss is on this diet; business trips are one steakhouse after another.)

Then, it turns out that at least two drinks each day are good for you. Whah? I’m going to have to retool my list of vices here.

Finally, I belatedly discovered last week that tomatoes – while botanically a fruit – were declared to be legally vegetables by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case called Nix v. Hedden in 1893. Who knew?

This last has inspired me to form a new public interest litigation firm to secure equal legal rights for my preferred diet and its practitioners. For my first case, I’m going to have chocolate cake declared to have vitamins.

Darwin in School

This story has been stuck in the back of my mind since January 5th. It’s about a high school geek whose parents decided to press charges against a football player for causing the geek to require nine stitches by shoving him in a locker room. The football player’s family, school administrators and at least one conservative think tank think this is a gross overreaction. I’m not so sure.

Bullying has admittedly become a bit of a cause celebre following the Columbine shootings, with some state lawmakers introducing special anti-bullying legislation for public schools. Legislators are famous for trying to legislate their way out of any problem, and an “anti-bullying” law would be as redundant as “hate crime” legislation. But a lot of the most objectionable behavior in schools violates existing laws against assault, threats, extortion and harassment.

If one adult assaulted another in a public park, causing a gash requiring a hospital visit, I don’t think anyone would be surprised to see the police called. If a stockbroker followed a lawyer to and from his office everyday making threats and calling him names the whole way, I don’t think many people would object to a little law enforcement. Adults feel entitled to walk through life with basic legal protections.

But when it comes to schools – largely public places where children are required by law to be five days a week – attitudes are much different. We are warned not to “micromanage the high opera that is American teenage life.” Children are told that it will be character building to “deal with their own problems” at school. I don’t know too many adults who have to make friends with bodybuilders so they don’t have their lunch stolen. Why do we think childhood should be like Lord of the Flies?

It’s hypocritical for adults to claim the protections of the rule of law, while consigning society’s weakest, non-voting members to the law of the jungle.

Blogorama III

Gene has harrassed me into inviting both nonredundant readers of this blog living in the DC area to come to the third occasional Blogorama on Kalorama this Thursday, February 6 at the Rendezvous Lounge, around 7pm. It's at 18th and Kalorama NW. See you there!

Tiger Abuse

Tiger Woods’ physicians have given him the green light to play in the Masters at Augusta this year, having recovered as well as expected from recent knee surgery. Unfortunately, as the debate over that august golf club’s lack of female members rages on, Tiger remains uniquely affected.

While the political Left has often urged him to take public stands on civil rights-related issues, Tiger has generally ducked. Refusing to comment accept to note his own hopelessly complex multiracial background, he implies that contemporary race issues are hardly black and white. At only 24, Tiger has been surprisingly steadfast in his resistance to left-wing activists’ efforts to highjack his image.

Instead of pointing fingers, conservatives and libertarians should carefully moniter their own efforts to do the same. Supporters of Augusta’s right to choose its members are as happy to seize on his remarks as would Jesse Jackson and Co. be if they comported with another agenda. We say we are celebrating Tiger’s ability to rise above politics; can we do the same when we admire him?

If we trot out his name to further a smaller-government agenda, we do Tiger a disservice. Some things, and some people, are bigger than the big issues.

Hardly Surprising

What's Your Sexual Appeal?

(link courtesy of Amy Phillips)