Some people are bred to be Conservatives, with Conservatism in their mother’s milk. They are raised with Conservative sensibilities by Conservatives parents and friends. However, these are few in number. Given the fact that there has been a right-ward political shift in the latter half of the twentieth century, most contemporary Conservatives where not born Conservative, but had Conservatism intrude on them. Thus, most Conservatives have story about how they became Conservatives.
I would like to claim that my Conservatism came upon me as a bolt from heaven on the road to Damascus, but my intellectual journey was a little more prosaic. It was the consequence of two books read back-to-back during my junior year in high school: The New Industrial State by John Kenneth Galbraith, and Up From Liberalism by William F. Buckley, Jr.
Galbraith painted a picture of the world dominated by economic elites who controlled the majority of us who could not think clearly for ourselves and bought into the consumerism that kept the elites wealthy. My goodness Americans were foolish enough to by cars with aerodynamically useless tail fins. Americans were helpless or worse a little dull unless properly supervised by a caring Liberal government, people like Galbraith, whom we could entrust to make decisions on our behalf.
By contrast, Buckley painted a picture of individual autonomy that presumed a self-capacity for decision that Galbraith did not admit. Moreover, Buckley passed along an essential Conservative intuition. In our daily lives, it is by use of the money that we earn that determines the breath of our choices. The more resources we individually control, the freer, in an important sense, we are. Hence, when we are taxed by the government, a that freedom is diminished. This is not to say that taxes are never justified, it is just that when they are applied, the benefit of the taxes must be measured against the constriction of freedom they entail.
Although Buckley’s work was infused with the ideas of Edmund Burke, our Founding Fathers, Alexis De Tocqueville, Frederick Hayek, and Milton Friedman, he himself was not a first-rank theoretician. He was, rather, the clever, erudite, iconoclastic proselytizer of Conservative ideas. In this role, he excelled, founding the National Review, hosting television’s Firing Line, and even running for Mayor of New York to exploit it as a forum for his Conservative ideas and to critique contemporary Liberalism.
On the occasion of Buckley’s death much will be written about his accomplishments and to this I can add little original. However, it is likely that my small experience with Buckley’s prose was duplicated by many in different circumstances with a different set of Buckley’s writings (He was enormously prolific) but ended in the same result: another Conservative. It is a measure of the power of his mind that he could, through the use of words, influence the thoughts of many he would never meet, but who would nonetheless become his intellectual and political progeny.
The NY Times and the Lack of Intellectual Diversity
Sunday, February 24th, 2008Even with the best of intentions, it is difficult to humans to be dispassionate in the evaluation of evidence. We all have internal narratives of how the world works. When presented with evidence that buttresses our ideas, we tend to accept such evidence. When confronted with evidence that challenges or questions our notions, we try to find reasons to dismiss or discount that evidence. This is not necessarily an inherent character flaw. If we entirely bounced between different ideas as new evidence presented itself, we would be all sail and no rudder. Our world view should be responsive to new evidence, but there should be a measure of inertia that allows us to consider new contradictory information as provisional.
One important control on ideas is to have peers, particular with diverse ideas critically examine our conclusions. It is the lack of this intellectual diversity that cost Dan Rather his job at CBS over its story about President George W. Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service. Rather’s report was in large measure based on documents that proved to be forgeries. These forgeries were so obvious that once the story ran on the 60 Minutes II news program, bloggers were able to quickly demonstrate that the fonts in the forgeries post-dated the time of the supposed documents, and could be easily re-created with Word and a copy machine. Rather and his compatriots at CBS did not start out to broadcast false information. However, the documents were so in keeping with their beliefs and their desires that normal journalistic skepticism was dispensed with. They just had to be true.
If the politics in the CBS newsroom were not a mono culture, the obvious flaws in the documents would have likely been discovered before CBS embarrassed itself and further diminished its already declining credibility.
One might have hoped that other organizations would have learned from this conspicuous and well-document error, but the NY Times apparently hasn’t. On February 21, the paper published an article that implied that Senator John McCain had a sexual relationship with a lobbyist and that this relationship resulted in special favors. A critical examination of the article reveals that no one said that they knew there was a romantic relationship and the principals deny it. Moreover, the most McCain apparently did for the telecommunications lobbyist’s company was to request that the government act on the company’s license application that had already taken twice as long as to consider as normal. Moreover, he explicitly wrote that he was not urging the government to make any particular decision only that it make whatever decision it needed to make in a timely manner. Hardly the stuff that scandals are made of.
Who knows? There may actually be a scandal somewhere in this or any candidate’s past, but if the NY Times had adult supervision it would have waited for more evidence before publishing this as a page 1 story. The story undercuts the NY Times credibility and partially immunizes McCain against similar charges in the future.
Bill Keller, the executive editor of the NY Times and the person who had to give the final OK for publication in the wake of the controversy conceded: “I was surprised by how lopsided the opinion was against our decision [to publish] with readers who described themselves as independents and Democrats joining Republicans in defending Mr. McCain from what they saw as a cheap shot.” This suggests the the NY Times newsroom does not even have sufficient population of moderate Democrats and independents to bring intellectual diversity. The “Gray Lady” is apparently not meeting enough people with a variety of ideas and growing a little senile and tone deaf in the process.
Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »