Month: June 2007

Like many others, I have mixed feelings about the career and work of Richard Rorty. But two books made a big impact on me trying to figure out the world: "Philosophy and the Mirror Of Nature," and his Oakeshottian essays: "Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity." He broke out of the stale discourse of analytic philosophy to take readers on a vivid detour through the history of human ideas, beaching us somewhere on the post-modern shore. I share none of his enthusiasm for the collective idea, but his brilliance and his humaneness shone through. John Holbo provides a fitting eulogy here, and the NYT obit is here. Perhaps the best recent profile was in Lingua Franca. Jurgen Habermas remembers him here. Money quote:

One small autobiographical piece by Rorty bears the title ‘Wild Orchids and Trotsky.’ In it, Rorty describes how as a youth he kicked around the blooming hillside in north-west New Jersey, and breathed in the stunning odour of orchids. At the same time he discovered a fascinating book at the home of his leftist parents, defending Leon Trotsky against Stalin. This was the start of the vision which accompanied the young Rorty to college: philosophy is there to reconcile the celestial beauty of orchids with Trotsky’s dream of justice on earth.

Keep the orchids, dump the Trotsky. Like every other human being dreaming of "justice on earth," Rorty died without its coming to pass. Gitlin bows his head here, and Michael Dorf contrasts Rorty with William James here. A libertarian take can be found here. It’s not a rave, as you might imagine, but I’m grateful that Rorty stumbled across Oakeshott in his final decade. When contrasted with Christianists or the new natural lawyers, postmodern liberals and conservatives have a great deal in common. The Atlantic has an interview here, with Rorty dissing the trend in analyzing human events and society through too biological a lens:

Atlantic Monthly: Over the last four or five years or so, with Wilson’s book, Steven Pinker’s How the Mind Works, Robert Wright’s book The Moral Animal, and a whole slew of books on evolutionary psychology, there seems to be a trend toward reducing all human behavior, all human society—in some ways all human knowledge—to a biological basis. Why do you think that is?

Rorty: I wish I knew. It seems to me as desperate as the attempts by Reagan to find out what was going to happen in the Middle East by reading the Book of Revelation. I really don’t understand what the attraction is. It’s as if people thought if they could find a science then they wouldn’t have to think politically anymore. That was one of the attractions of Marxism: if you really understood the basic determinants of everything then somehow your politics would be prescribed for you. But Marx at least had a good cause to take up—namely, the fact that the workers weren’t getting enough money. Pinker and Wilson don’t even have a good cause to take up.

In death, of course, there is much contingency and irony. But, alas, no solidarity. You leave this earth alone.

The two had a meeting yesterday, according to Juan Cole:

The two discussed a wide range of political and religious issues. The meeting was said to be intended by Sistani to "reassure" al-Sadr with regard to Sistani.

Whether this is an ominous sign of Sadr’s rising clout or an encouraging sign of a post-occupation Shiite unity I have no idea.

The ticket may be a long-shot, but the connection between the two has already been established. One element of the coming campaign – and a function of its accelerated national schedule – is that two candidates will have it wrapped up pretty early next year. We will then have an opportunity to watch the candidates staff up over several months, give us a glimpse of their rival cabinets and teams. Jon Rauch explores this in the new Atlantic. A relationship between Obama and Powell would be a perfect blend of old-school Republican realism and diplomacy with a fresh, and internationally powerful new face in the presidency. My sense is that this country desperately wants to unite behind a rational, sane, realist in foreign affairs, who can appeal beyond either party’s base. If we end up in a polarizing Clinton-Giuliani race, then I predict a serious third party candidate. But Obama-Powell as a flavor is so obviously in demand from the American public, and from a world eager to give the U.S. a second chance.

Kathryn-Jean Lopez is an interesting specimen – young and a creature of the "conservative" cocoon and "conservative" welfare state. So I guess one has to forgive an astonishing statement like this:

Every once in a while —  say, if there’s a Supreme Court opening this summer, as has been rumored, and he nominates a judge like Alito or Roberts – President George W. Bush may just remind us why we fell for him in the first place. It might not be the best marriage, but we share a love — a love of country, a love of democracy, a love of the Constitution.

The Constitution? After rescinding habeas corpus, authorizing warrantless wiretapping, setting up Gitmo, legalizing torture, threatening to amend the constitution for purposes of social policy, and politicizing the Justice Department to historically toxic levels? Only at NRO, I guess. And I thought even they were beginning to glimpse reality…

A reader writes:

Everytime I see your Beagles they’re lying around doing nothing without a care in the world. What kind of role model are you?

One they look down on.

I can see the rationale, and it’s hard to second-guess ground-operations. In general, giving local commanders the flexibility to exploit rifts between our enemies is a good thing. I wish we’d done more of it in the past, as Glenn Reynolds has consistently recommended. I’m also encouraged, like so many others, that Sunni tribes in Anbar are turning on al Qaeda. But directly arming them is a high-risk strategy, it seems to me. It’s high risk because they could turn around and use those weapons against U.S. troops in a heartbeat (we’re already training Shiite militias to do the same thing). And it’s high risk because any sign that the U.S. is decisively siding with any faction or militia in Iraq’s civil war carries the risk of alienating the other sides and factions and multiplying our enemies and intensifying their hostility. Right now, we are hated because we’re occupying. But deeper enmeshment in the civil war could add two more reasons to despise us: because we’re backing Sunnis or, from the alternative view, Shiites. It also strikes me that the Anbar tribes turned on al Qaeda for their own reasons and purposes. That’s a very good thing – and many Sunnis, as happened in Jordan, will turn on al Qaeda eventually. I think the best approach is to let them decide this on their own and with their own armaments. Then we have a pressing obligation: to get out of their way.

(Photo: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty.)

George Will casts a keen eye on Fred Thompson:

"Tulip mania gripped Holland in the 1630s. Prices soared, speculation raged, bulbs promising especially exotic or intense colors became the objects of such frenzied bidding that some changed hands 10 times in a day. Then, suddenly, the spell was broken, the market crashed—prices plummeted in some cases to one one-hundredth of what they had been just days before. And when Reason was restored to her throne, no one could explain what the excitement had been about. Speaking of Fred Thompson …"

Then this:

In a recent speech, Thompson expressed a truly distinctive idea about immigration. Referring to the 1986 amnesty measure that Reagan signed into law, he said: "Twelve million illegal immigrants later, we are now living in a nation that is beset by people who are suicidal maniacs and want to kill countless innocent men, women and children around the world."

Kids, do not try to deconstruct that thought at home; this is a task for professionals.

I have yet to see an iota of evidence that Thompson’s candidacy is any more than a manifestation of complete Republican panic and bankruptcy.

Mitt Romney is now spinning and even denying the religious doctrines he is obliged to support as a pillar of the Mormon church:

Another case arose when George Stephanopoulos of ABC News asked Mr. Romney about a Mormon teaching that Jesus will come to the United States when he returns to reign on earth. Mr. Romney responded that the Messiah will return to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, "the same as the other Christian tradition."

Mr. Grover said some of his radio listeners were astounded.

"They were just in disbelief, saying that’s not true, Jesus is coming back to Missouri," Mr. Grover said. "It’s the L.D.S. Church’s 10th article of faith that Zion will be built upon the American continent."

He’s also bucking the church on how he speaks of its history of polygamy, once a central doctrine of Mormonism. He’ll say anything, remember, and pretend to believe anything to gain power.

If you were out enjoying the summer this weekend, and missed the Dish’s car-blogging, here’s a quick wrap up of the highlights: Fred Thompson’s pro-choice past, caught on tape; how a beagle got me to propose marriage; a Playboy Book inscription from the past; Tagg Rommey’s TOTALLY AWESOME MySpace page; and Ron Paul’s astonishingly successful money drive on the web. Has he equaled McCain?

Weekend Round-Up

The president was his usual, well-briefed, diligent self on his trip to Borat-land:

On Saturday in Rome, the president agreed that there should be a deadline to end the United Nations talks, saying: "In terms of a deadline, there needs to be one. It needs to happen."

But on Sunday, Mr. Bush tried to backtrack when asked when that deadline might be. "First of all, I don’t think I called for a deadline," Mr. Bush said, during a press appearance with Mr. Berisha in the courtyard of a government ministry building. He was reminded that he had.

"I did?" he asked, sounding surprised. "What exactly did I say? I said deadline? O.K., yes, then I meant what I said." The reporters laughed.

What else are they going to do?