The Experts

Nicholas Kristof's latest column,"Learning How to Think," suggests that we find a way to "evaluate" or "regulate" professional "experts": those pundits who espouse on politics or finance and who prove incredibly influential in how people perceive the world. It just may be that we rely far too much on what authoritative folks proclaim as truth rather than sorting it out on our own. Kristof refers to two studies to make his case. One,

found that a president who goes on television to make a case moves public opinion only negligibly, by less than a percentage point. But experts who are trotted out on television can move public opinion by more than 3 percentage points, because they seem to be reliable or impartial authorities. (NYT)

Amazing, isn't it? David Gergen and the rest of CNN's political round table have more sway than the president.

The second study Kristof offers stems from an experiment in which a group of educators attended a presentation by an actor introduced as "Dr. Fox." "Dr. Fox,"

was described as an eminent authority on the application of mathematics tohuman behavior. He then delivered a lecture on “mathematical game theory as applied to physician education” — except that by design it had no point and was completely devoid of substance. However, it was warmly delivered and full of jokes and interesting neologisms.

Afterward, those in attendance were given questionnaires and asked to rate “Dr. Fox.” They were mostly impressed. “Excellent presentation, enjoyedlistening,” wrote one. Another protested: “Too intellectual a presentation.”(NYT)

So we bow to experts, and, apparetly, wo do so even when they're consistently wrong (cf. Cramer, Kristol, etc.). Primarily, this is because we're unaware of when an "expert" is wrong because they highlight their successes and ignore their failures (Kristol acknowledges that he's guilty of such behavior, by the way). Therefore, Kristol argues, a regulating body might not be too bad--it would help us "normal folks" choose who we actually listen to.

This kowtowing to experts--be they proven or self-proclaimed--isn't restricted to the TV watching, 'blogging, and Twittering common rabble; it's not that the general public consists of dummies who can't think for themselves whereas the "elite," the intellectuals, always do. If the "expert" sounds like an authority, if the rhetoric seems smart, anybody can be taken in. As Kristof says, "even very smart people allow themselves to be buffaloed by an apparent “expert” on occasion." I'd add "even people supposed to be the creme of the intellectual elite "can be buffaloed by an apparent 'expert' on occasion." Take, as one example, the following case:


In 1996 a pair of scientists, Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont pwned a group of famous literary and social critics whose intellectual prowess and expertise in postmodern philosophy was unquestionable. Sokal and Bricmont questioned these critics and revealed the hollowness behind their well-received theories. You see, if you stripped away the liberally employed jargon,
what emerged was. . .nonsense.

So how did Sokal and Bricmont manage to frsutrate such esteemed thinkers as Jacques Lacan, Jean Baudrillanrd, Julia Kristeva, Gilles Deleuze, Luce Irigaray, and Paul Virilio? the men submitted a paper, titled "Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," to the periodical Social Text. One the day that Social Text published their paper, Sokal and Bricmont announced that the paper was a hoax. A parody of then-current postmodern polemics in journals. The point? As Bricmont and Sokal explain in a 1998 article, "What is All the Fuss About,":

We show that famous intellectuals [. . .] have repeatedly abused scientific concepts and terminology: either using scientific ideas totally out of context, without giving the slightest empirical or conceptual justification -- note that we are not against extrapolating concepts from one field to another, but only against extrapolations made without argument -- or throwing around scientific jargon to their non-scientist readers without any regard for its relevance or even its meaning. (Bricmont and
Sokal)

Basically, too many noted intellectuals apply scientific language and theory to their arguments about culture and society when they didn't understand the scientific contexts. They didn't know what they were talking about but, because they were famous, because they used complex language, they were granted an authority that was, perhaps, undeserved.

Sokal and Bricmont's work met with huge hostility; rather than admit, "okay, perhaps that scientific hypothesis doesn't really square with my idea," intellectuals rounded on Sokal and Bricmont and accused them of having any number of ulterior motives (you can read some of the fallout here). But who "won"? Although the intellectuals named by Sokal and Bricmont continue to be famous and cited as experts, it seems that, with the publication of their work, Sokal and Bricmont had a hand in postmodernism's downfall; either that or the men simply represented the late-1990s zeitgeist. According to this chart, pomo has been on the wane ever since the time when Sokal and Bricmont published their 1997 parody.

Aside: Sokal and Bricmont published a book on the entire affair, titled Impostures Intellectuelles (Fashionable Nonsense), in which they revisisted the furor over the paper submitted to Social Text and elaborated upon cultural critics' misappropriation of science's ideas. Sokal and Bricmont also addressed the following:

A secondary target of our book is epistemic relativism, namely the idea -- which is much more widespread in the Anglo-Saxon world than in France -- that modern science is nothing more than a ``myth'', a ``narration'' or a ``social construction'' among many others.(Let us emphasise that our discussion is limited to epistemic/cognitive relativism; we do not address the more difficult issues of moral or aesthetic relativism.) Besides some gross abuses (e.g. Irigaray), we dissect a number of confusions that are rather frequent in postmodernist and cultural-studies circles: for example, abusing ideas from the philosophy of science such as the underdetermination of theory by evidence or the theory-dependence of observation in order to support radical relativism. (Bricmont and Sokal).

Is this an area where the extreme left and the extreme right merge? The suspicion that modern science is a "social construction" or a "myth"?

Further aside: Do visit the Postmodern Generator. After you've been wowed by the author's expertize, be sure to read the material at the bottom of the page.

Emboldened Insurgents

So was there a secret meeting between minority party members wherein they decided to borrow language from the “War on Terror” in their mission to redefine themselves?

Last week, Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) announced that the GOP should model their tactics on the Taliban:

Insurgency we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban -- no, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their front line message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with. [L A Times]

Mr. Sessions didn’t elaborate on which of the Taliban’s methods—how “they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes”—he found particularly admirable. He added, however,

I think insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them, I think what's happened is that the line was drawn in the sand.... We either work together, or we're going to find a way to get our message out.[L A Times]

So the point is to “disrupt,” “change a person’s entire process,” and “find ways to get [the] message out" instead of "trying to do something about them”? It’s true that the Republicans need to find diverse, and fresh, ways to get their message out, but if their goal is to “disrupt” rather than fix, doesn’t that make them—obstructionist?

It’s peculiar, as well that Representative Sessions chose the Taliban as a model of insurgency considering the Taliban’s reliance on violence and suppression to “get their message out,” and Mr. Sessions clearly didn’t equate with a GOP “insurgency” with violence, but, as MSNBC points out, there are certainly more valuable examples out there (e.g., Gandhi, the Boston Tea Party, etc.). You can't help but wonder if his public approbation of a Taliban-styled insurgency help to embolden them? Speaking of embolden: from Politico,

"When your opponent trips and falls on his face, it certainly emboldens the opponent," added Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) [of the Gregg withdrawal] "It certainly emboldens us," McHenry said.

Facepalm.

Also, Saul Anuzis, who recently lost his campaign to become the new RNC chair, appeared at a Republican "Tech Summit" last week and offered this strange analogy (via Slate):

"Why do revolutionaries use Kalashnikovs?" he asks. "Because they won't jam. It's not the best gun, but you can throw it in the mud, pick it up, and it still works. This is a revolution."

So harnessing new technologies and developing new applications is equivalent to an assault rifle most often identified with the Red Army and terrorists? Yup. Insurgentizing all over the place.

But wait! Now they're insurgentizing each other:

March 01: It seems that two conservative California talk show hosts, John and Ken, have "launched a fatwa" against Republican Assemblyman Jeff Miller. Miller's crime? He didn't call for the ouster of the Assembly's Republican leader, Mike Villines, who helped reach a compromise on California's "legislation to temporarily raise taxes to help solve the state's budget problem" (PE). Miller voted against the legislation, by the way, but apparently that wasn't good enough for the party purgers" the "fatwa"calls for a recal election to remove Miller from office.

March 16: John and Ken engaged in a bit of political theater to further their "fatwa." At a "tax revolt rally" this past weekend, and:

The raucous California tea party featured such dramatics as the spearing of a likeness of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's head, and the sledge-hammering of a pile of Schwarzenegger dolls, videos and movie memorabilia - even an action hero lunch box.

The radio hosts' "fatwas" target a handful of moderate GOP legislators who sided with Democrats to end the state budget impasse. Their calls to recall those lawmakers have reverberated throughout the Republican grassroots.

"It's becoming the fatwa party ... the Jon and Ken party," said Hoover Institution media fellow and GOP consultant Bill Whalen. (San Francsico Chronicle)

"Fun and games" aside, you've got to wonder if it is altogether wise to adopt the language of your enemy (e.g., terrorists) to target your own. Moreover, why are David Frum and David Brooks demonized for criticizing elements of the Republican Party, and these two men aren't?

And 2008's Cliches Are. . . .

Lake Superior State University's annual list of "banished words"--those terms and phrases that rapidly became cliches--has been published. Among the nominees: "green," "maverick," "Wall Street/Main Street," "bailout," and "first dude."

It's a good, albeit brief, list. What's missing? I'd like to suggest a series of words and phrases that had already become tiresome by June:
1) "under the bus"
2) "drinking the Kool-Aid"
3) "carrying water for"
4)"taking the blue pill/red pill"
5) "cultist"
6) and how about eliminating the nouns created by adding "Mc" to an adjective? e.g., "McSame, McHottie"?

“Political Advertisement”

In 1984, New York artists Antoni Muntadas and Marshall Reese started a video project, titled Presidential Advertisement, for which they’ve gathered together political commercials from the past fifty years. They re-edit their project every four years, adding fresh ads to reflect the zeitgeist and technological innovations. Muntadas and Reese’s video is now 75 minutes long (15 minutes longer than the election-2000 version). The New Yorker recently featured a column on the project, and writer John Seabrook writes,

Watching “Political Advertisement” in its entirety is a powerful but disorienting experience. Time hurtles forward with each Presidential election, but there is no clear progress on the fundamental issues. Jobs, better schools, tax relief, help for small businesses, change, peace through strength, and out-of-touch Washington insiders ebb and flow in importance. It’s morning again in America in 1984, with the Reagan ads, but soon it’s nighttime, with the darkening sky of a 1992 Ross Perot spot on the national debt. (Seabrook)

Because the ads are presented chronologically and sans commentary, the film highlights how presidential campaign rhetoric remains, essentially, unchanged. While this isn’t entirely surprising (as Seabrook suggests, political ads do shape our political discourse), it’s rather saddening to realize that for 52 years, politicians have spoken of addressing and resolving the same problems. Of course, many of these issues have been about for much longer than 52 years, but to have them presented on film underscores something akin to cultural wheel spinning. And yet…we continue to have faith in presidential candidates who do little more than echo previous candidates. What’s that word? Hope?

NPR: "'Socialist' Charge Draws on Old Fears"

A link to an audio piece by NPR's Geoff Nunberg on past and present uses of the term "socialism" in American politics--and why it's so powerful.

Bachmann, Hayes, & the Culture War Backfire

Suddenly we return to the liberals=anti-American meme. Not so sure it will work this time, however, as the people responsible for such utterances distance themselves from their statements almost immediately. I won't go into Governor Palin's comments on "the real America" (for which she has now apologized); instead, let's look at Representatives Bachmann and Hayes.

Last week, Rep. Michele Bachmann, who is up for re-election in her Minnesota district, went on Chris Matthews's show, Hardball, and "said of Barack Obama, "I'm very concerned that he may have anti-American views." She then went on to call for a "penetrating expose" by the media into the levels of patriotism among her colleagues on Capitol Hill" (L A Times).

Facing a backlash, Bachmann is claiming media victimization. Per Politico:

MICHELE BACHMANN says that, when she said that BARACK OBAMA may have “anti-American views” and that the media should investigate members of Congress to determine who’s “pro-America” and who’s “anti-America,” she was really just asking: “What does Barack Obama mean by change?”

Bachmann says she’s been the victim of lies from liberal bloggers, distortions from CHRIS MATTHEWS and “a spin machine in overdrive.”

“I never called all liberals anti-American, I never questioned Barack Obama’s patriotism, and I never asked for some House Un-American Activities Committee witch hunt into my colleagues in Congress.”

While it's true that Bachmann never called for a commencement of some HUAC-type panel, her suggestion about the media investigating "unAmerican" politicians certainly evoked the spirit of McCarthyism. But in saying "I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views,” she certainly does seem to be questioning Obama's patriotism. Semantics?

Regardless, she's regretting it all now. Not only has her opponent received a significant increase in donations since her Hardball appearance (about $800,000), but now she's facing a Republican challenger to her re-election hopes:

Aubrey Immelman, 52, is a psychology professor at St. John's University in Collegeville, Minn., who ran against Bachmann in the Republican primary. He finished second, with just 14 percent of the vote, but he got his campaign off the ground again Saturday by announcing he will run as a write-in candidate on Nov. 4 in the hope of knocking Bachmann out. (Star Tribune)

Uh oh.
[Update 10/22: the NRCC has now pulled funds from Bachmann's re-election bid].
A Bachmann aside: this is the same woman who "blamed the recent financial crisis on loans 'being made on the basis of race, and little else'" (MPR). She had to do some backpedalling after that one, too.

Now we get this.

On Saturday, Republican Rep. Robin Hayes warmed up the crowd at a North Carolina McCain rally. According to several reporters and witnesses, Rep. Hayes told the crowd "that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God" (Politico).

After reporters publicized those comments, Hayes denied and denied that he ever said such a thing. . . at least, until a tape surfaced to prove that he made those remarks. Hayes claims that he doesn't remember making those statements.
As The Plank writes,

Hayes is in a tight reelection race with Democratic challenger Larry Kissell, who lost to Hayes in 2006 by a mere 329 votes. If Bachmann is any precedent, Kissel may find fundraising a little easier over the next few days.

Yup. Uh oh, again. (already, bloggers are calling for folks to donate to Kissel. Here's one examples). [Update: according to Politico, the RNCC is worried about Hayes's re-election hopes as well].

Although the general GOP poll slide seems to have prompted such rhetoric by Bachmann, Hayes, et. al., and while the Republican base loves it, what are the chances that it will play well with the Independents? These voters are crucial to the McCain campaign, but will they find this particular re-ignition of the culture wars appealing? No. They seem pretty fed up with it all, hence the Ayers/terrorism flop and the Socialism bust. Those keywords ain't so hot anymore.

Aside: For more on the Hayes/McCain rally, and some indications of the audience's anxious, and at times tepid, response to McCain's White House effort, do read this piece at the New York Observer. Also, a fine article responding to the flurry of "anti-American" claims, "The Republicans Have Lifted the Lid Off Their Rightwing Id" at The Guardian is worth your reading time.

Added:Here's Glenn Greenwald's excellent discussion of the Republican party and how the "Libs hate America" meme has lost its power.

Of Politics, Messiahs, and Optimism.

Some rough thoughts to be revised later:

Jonanthan Chait has a fine piece at The New Republic wherein he examines what he calls "The right's silly obsession with the Obama 'cult.'" The classification of Obama’s following to that of “cult” has become something of a cliché with both online and mainstream print commentators, with Pro-Clinton, Pro-McCain, and other, more starkly anti-Obama groups. In just one example, Coalition Against Anti-Christian Rhetoric's press release (and ad) utilized quotations from Oprah Winfrey and Chris Matthews to suggest Obama’s election to Messianic status. But, as Chait presents it, is this treatment of Obama fair, or even new to politicians? Not quite.

After detailing examples of “Obama as Millenial cult leader” stylings from Conservative pundits such as Charles Krauthammer, Chait lands a solid blow in reminding readers of the nearly full-blown Messianic treatment G W Bush received following 9/11 when he became, for many, the agent of God. That President Bush “spoke” to God and acted with God’s grace became a popular talking point (and a popular point of criticism). Chait asks, isn’t this the very definition of “Messianic”? Casting a political figure as a “Messiah” isn’t new, then. It’s not a fresh point of discussion; the focus has simply switched from one major party to the other. So what prompted the turnabout? From "The Messiah Complex-Complex":

The hysteria about Obama's alleged messianism is, in part, a calculated response to his wild popularity with the Democratic base. McCain does not inspire strong loyalty among Republican partisans. (Indeed, a year ago, conservatives were still savaging him as a self-righteous poseur, and, while they've now discovered virtues in McCain that previously eluded them, it's too early to whip up full-blown Bush-style worship.) The cult accusation is a way of turning Obama's strengths--his rhetorical skills and intense support--into a weakness.

This sounds reasonable. Just as Democrats derided the “cult of Bush” by presenting the President’s supporters as herds of mindless sheep (another cliché) and extremist Millennial Christians set on bringing about the Rapture, Republicans are deriding Obama’s supporters as herd of mindless sheep set on some idealized vision of a secular paradise. Something else the two have in common: the treatment of both men as “Messianic figures” lead, almost inevitably, to comparisons with Hitler (yet another cliché ).

This turnabout corresponds with something I’ve been mulling over lately. Optimism has, apparently, devolved into a negative characteristic. Not so long ago, it was among the most desirable qualities in a political figure. You can see this opposition in play in the plentiful comparisons, favorable and less so, between Ronald Reagan and Obama.

Regan’s optimism and idealized vision of America was, and continues to be, celebrated, while Democrats have been labeled as gloomy realists. You might recall how Democrats dismissed Reagan’s sunniness as an indication that he didn’t understand the problems that then-beset the nation; as Charles Krauthammer said in 2004, focusing on Reagan’s optimism was a way of trivializing his work and worldview. Many classified Reagan’s attitude as a type of pandering, a reliance on the pathetic appeal. "Insufficient" and “empty gestures.”

In a reversal, Republicans now qualify Obama’s optimism as an “empty gesture” in place of a plan, as a type of pandering to people’s angst over the country’s problem, a reliance on the pathetic appeal. Now the Republicans cast themselves as the “realists.” It’s an interesting turnabout, and it’s uncertain how this will play out. The comparisons between the country now and the country in 1980 are numerous, and I won’t bore you with those (but you can see this), but such analogies point toward the Republicans' fear: Reagan helped relieve the angst of the 1970s hangover; he was, in effect, a national savior who rescued our pride and confidence in proposing "morning in America." They want to prevent Obama's potential usurpation of that role.

Despite the men's vast ideological differences, both signify "hope"; whether this "hope" is a strength depends on your political affiliation. And why does any of this matter? Mostly because labeling politicians as "Messianic" figures who project an "empty optimism" simply illustrates the reliance on established metaphors and the dearth of innovation in political rhetoric and behavior in both major parties. What does it say about us that we continue to buy it?

A Call to "Unity"--Let's Drop the Cliches!

Much--okay, "most"--rhetoric of this (and every) election cycle involves a series of catchphrases that, while allegedly communicating ideas of great import and resonance, are devoid of substance. Perhaps, at first, such phrases offer promise--new thoughts, new analogies--but they quickly reach overkill and lose their impact. If you've ever read George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," you know that ain't a good thing. Why? Well, I'll let Mr. Orwell tell you: “By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself.” If you rely on cliches, it signifies that you're not employing your mind. You're spitting out not just ready-made phrases, but ready-made ideas. Clever, huh? Orwell again:

In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a "party line." Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestoes, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases -- bestial atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder -- one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

Okay, his examples aren't exactly contemporary for 2008, but keep in mind: he wrote this in 1946, and his point remains true. Repeat what you are used to hearing others say, and you're permitting others to think on your behalf. You are, then, a conformist.

So, then, some more recent examples of political cliches:

1) "Drink the Kool Aid" Oh, enough already. Regardless of who you refer to, this is one of the most cold hearted phrases someone could come up with. Hundreds died at Jonestown, for cripes' sake, and that is not the same as believing in the message of Bush, Clinton, or Obama. The Kool-Aid's been boiled dry.

2) "Carry water for" now a cliche, and it connotes toting a bucket of pee around (okay, maybe it's just me who thinks this whenever I hear this stupid saying).

3) "Throw under the bus." This one is d-e-a-d folks. Can you find a more interesting way of saying "betrayed"?

4) "Cultist" '/ "Cultee" See number one above.

5) "McSame" We get the point. He's a lot like Bush. He's also not Bush, and he has disagreed with the Current Occupant on numerous occasions. He won't be McSame, (but he will be McOld. Like the man said on SNL the other week, he does "have the oldness" to be president).

6) "Taking the Blue Pill" Oh, you've seen The Matrix (and maybe you even understand it). But enough of borrowing elements of the movie to analogize the elections (for you blessedly Matrix-ignorant souls, taking the blue pill = enjoying ignorance). Yes, it's step up from "drinking the Kool-Aid," but it's not much of a step.

I'm sure there are loads more that just aren't coming to mind, so I'll probably add to this throughout this glorious political season.

Addendum: Christopher Hitchens, quite the Orwell expert, has written an article on our "pallid political discourse." Enjoy.