Author Page for Robert Farley

Interesting Times

Nice post by Matt Yglesias:

Late 1990s America was aesthetically unsatisfying to a lot of intellectual types, including intellectual types who write about politics. They yearned for a more heroic age, found the disaster of 9/11 exhilarating, and hoped that the rise of al-Qaeda would provide the fodder for its creation. A sober view of the war on terrorism leads, however, to the conclusion that while counterterrorism is an important item on the policy agenda, it’s not much of a grand drama. Indeed, it’s kind of boring. I think it’s interesting, which is why it’s one of the things I write about, but I also liked writing about Social Security, possibly the boringest thing ever. Instead of accepting that, though, we got the Iraq War which was well-suited to a big picture narrative about a world-historical clash.

I think this is right on target. Hitchens is the proto-typical example. You can feel the contempt dripping from his prose when he writes about the Clinton administration, but, really, it has nothing to do with Clinton and everything to do with Hitchens. He, and others, felt that the peace and prosperity of the 1990s left them without a dragon to slay. 9/11 and the rhetoric of the neo-cons offered purpose, never mind how perverse. The neo-cons manage to fit any conflict, no matter how inconsequential, into a grand historical narrative. Intellectuals like Hitch were given roles to play. Bizarrely enough, I almost think that there’s a certain integrity to Hitch’s dedication to this role. He understands himself to be Orwell, purging the left of its most dangerous illusions, even if it means destroying the left entirely. To break from this role would be almost as bad as a Horatio inventing new lines in order to save Hamlet.

Lexblogging: Woodford Reserve

Visited the Woodford Reserve distillery yesterday, and bought a liter of their delightful product. Bourbon is glorious, and great bourbon inspires contemplation of divinity.

Lexington does have its charms. The booze even makes up for the pickup truck I followed home today. Said truck had a Confederate flag for a rear window, another Confederate flag flying from its bed, and, I swear to God, a smokestack exhaust. To be perfectly honest, I’m glad that I wasn’t carrying my baseball bat. If my poor little Honda had been able to make more of a dent, I might have considered doing something stupid.

Thoughts on the Blogosphere and Patriotism

I think that a couple of comments in this thread deserve greater attention. In presenting a damning set of evidence regarding comparative social mobility in Europe and the United States, DJW makes this unfortunate demand:

If you’re going to make claims this stark and certain, it might behoove to check and see if they’re actually true before you hit publish.

I am sure, upon reflection, that DJW would realize that any such policy, widely practiced, would result in the end of the blogosphere. This is, after all, a forum in which strident, unsupported assertion is appropriate and indeed called for.

More importantly, commenter Michael makes the following argument regarding social mobility in the United States:

Which countries are offering such great opportunities? I mean, perhaps I should move to one of these countries since they provide so much more.

DJW answered the first part of this; check out his comments for full and exhaustive evidence of greater social mobility in Europe than in the United States. It’s the second part that interests me.

Now, I don’t want to pick on Michael more than is fair, because I hear this sentiment regularly from conservatives, and Michael has been good enough to put up with and even try to correct all of our socialist moonbattiness, an effort for which I am grateful in the same way that I am grateful to the Mormons who try to save my tattered soul. Nevertheless, it deserves a response. I think that Michael’s argument more or less boils down to “America: Love it or Leave it”.

This is a sentiment I’ve never understood. The argument seems to be that, by suggesting that the United States falls short in one or another category, I am in fact suggesting that the United States is a bad place and that I’d rather not live here.

Clearly, this isn’t true. There is much that I love about the United States. This love does not prevent me from seeing the glaring flaws in American society, flaws that I think ought to be fixed. Indeed, much that I love about American has been the result of the efforts of those who would criticize it. I would go so far, in fact, as to argue that I have a deep affective attachment to America, and would likely prefer to live here even if I could reliably find better economic circumstances somewhere else.

I don’t choose to live here because the food is better. I don’t choose to live here because I think I’ll make more money. I don’t choose to live here because I enjoy the low taxes and the lax regulatory environment. I live here because it’s my home, and I have a great deal of affection for my home. This does not prevent me from noticing the problems with my home, or even from trying to fix them. Indeed, if the hope for a cash windfall is really the only reason you can find to love America, then I would suggest that your criticism of the patriotism of others is a bit, um, misplaced.

Maritime Defense Force

An actual recruiting ad. Watch.

Via Mike at Fish for Breakfast.

America’s Worst "Historian"

Werther does the necessary work of demolishing Victor Davis Hanson. Charles Murray isn’t the only transparent hack on the right. Via Wolcott.

Mr. Hanson, Cal State Fresno’s contribution to human letters, is the favorite historian of the administration, the Naval War College, and other groves of disinterested research. His academic niche is to drag the Peloponnesian War into every contemporary foreign policy controversy and thereby justify whatever course of action our magistrates have taken. One suspects that if the neo-cons at the American Enterprise Institute were suddenly seized by the notion to invade Patagonia, Mr. Hanson would be quoting Pericles in support.

Once we strip away all the classical Greek fustian, it becomes clear that the name of his game is to take every erroneous conventional wisdom, cliche, faulty generalization, and common-man imbecility, and elevate them to a catechism. In this process, he showcases a technique beloved of pseudo-conservatives stuck at the Sean Hannity level of debate: he swallows whatever quasi-historical balderdash serves the interest of those in power, announces it with an air of surprised discovery, and then congratulates himself on his boldness in telling truth to power.

And, near and dear to my own heart, Werther smashes Hanson’s pretensions regarding World War II and the “Western Way of War”:

Seven-eighths of all Wehrmacht combat-division-months (i.e., one division spending one month in combat) during World War II occurred on the Russian Front.[6] It was the Red Army, as Churchill admitted, which “tore the guts out of the German Army.” Without diminishing the courage of the assault troops of D-Day, the successful operation in Normandy would have been impossible in 1944 without Stalingrad and Kursk.

Can human imagination encompass the fact that there were 27 million Russian deaths in World War II? That fact was a demographic catastrophe from which Russia has never recovered. Yes, Stalin was a swine, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was an act of treachery. But that does not entitle comfortable court historians to simulate outrage at how the American role in World War II has allegedly been belittled by (uncited) Marxist scribblers. Equally, the memoirs of German veterans of the Russian Front generally regarded a posting to the West as virtual salvation compared to the relentless meat grinder of the East. Their testimony has more credibility regarding the Russian contribution to World War II than the jeremiad of a shallow intellect.

Finally, for those of you who might doubt Werther’s assertion about the attractiveness of Thucydides to the boys at Naval War College Review, see this article comparing the position of Taiwan to that of Melos. While the authors make some clever comparisons, they also take pains to mold the situation into a neo-con vision of clashing empires. . .

True Face

New Orleans seems to be drawing the racist right out of its hole. In good times, the right can manage a cosmetic effort to obscure the racial element of its program. They can ignore the fact that American conservatism has historically been tightly bound to an ideology of white superiority, or at least convince themselves that it is no longer so bound. At times, even I have wondered if conservatives had finally managed the trick of “making gay the new black” and setting forth on a program of exclusion that has the merit, at least, of being different.

But when something like Katrina happens, they scurry back home. Is Dear Leader the problem? No, can’t be, must be the blacks. Are budget cuts to areas critical for good governance the problem? No, can’t be, must be the blacks. Is the stocking of major relief agencies with inept political appointees the problem? No, can’t be, must be the blacks. And the problem of the blacks can be solved by just shooting a few looters. . .

David Neiwert has all the ugly details. Wade in at your own risk.

Bob Denver, RIP

A relatively minor tragedy compared to the rest of the week, I know. He lived a full life, died at age 70. Nevertheless, I can’t help feeling a bit sad. I don’t believe that my affection for Gilligan’s Island as a six year old has been matched by any television show since. Back in the day when UHF and VHF actually meant something, Gilligan’s Island always seemed to find itself on the weakest UHF transmitter. No matter how bad the reception, I watched at every opportunity, probably until I was ten or eleven. I also loved Far Out Space Nuts, which appeared on a different UHF station once a week right before Gilligan’s Island.

Chiang Finds a Home. . .

From MeiZhongTai:

Late Presidents Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo will be laid to rest next March or April, according to the Taipei Times. It is understandable if some readers are confused by this fact. After all, CKS died in 1975 and CCK died in 1988.

Upon CKS’s death, he was temporarily entombed in Taoyuan. I say temporarily because his body was just ‘awaiting proper burial in China.’ Likewise, his son was temporarily buried nearby upon his death. The state funeral at Wuchih Mountain in Taipei County is being conducted in accordance with requests by CCK’s widow (who has since passed) and other members of the Chiang family.

This burial is interesting because of the symbolism of permanently burying Mr. “Retake the Mainland” himself on the island of Taiwan (as opposed to the Zhejiang Province of China, where he wanted to be buried).

Interesting. I wonder if there’s been any PRC reaction.

Rehnquist Dead

I’m sure Scott will have something more substantial.

Friday Cat Blogging. . . Hermione