the fear of being ridiculed by other members of the community.

Our foreign policy is being driven by a pack of 11 year old girls?

Are you trying to get Yglesias in the sack? Just asking.

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or non-use,” Sen. Clinton said on Aug. 2, chastising Sen. Obama of Illinois for saying the idea of attacking suspected terrorist targets with nuclear weapons was “not on the table"

This is a clear statment that the nuclear option should be "on the table" if it is to be an effective deterrent. Whether gratuitous or not, it is clearly a threat.

Considering what happened to Joe Wilson when he disagreed - not even on a policy point, just on verification of a fact; I'd say this was a deadly serious game - while authoritarian neocons are at the helm.

Then there is the radical idea espoused by Obama at the AFL-CIO debate: debate these issues in public and let the people judge their merits. Someone has an ax to grind? Fine. Point that out but the idea, whatever it is, can still be evaluated on its own.

Are you trying to get Yglesias in the sack?

Aren't we all?

What is so difficult to understand?

Simply put, we have the foreign policy gurus of Pre-9/11 and Post-9/11. If one looks to the views posited, there is a distinct difference. As such, today's "experts" got it wrong, and still have it wrong. And the current tussle between Clinton and Obama on Pakistan and "actionable intelligence" is another of these indicators.

And if you'll notice, none of these "experts" and whether they are consulting for either the Democrats or the Republicans, called for a Declaration of War as required per the Constitution in the run-up to the Invasion of Iraq. Consequently, short-sighted and lacking in intellectual vigor is their best charactistic for self-serving politics. And they, the 'experts' call themselves "scholars". And the irony of ironies is thay they are employed by 'think' tanks. Sheesh and shinola!

Jaango

Unfortunately, this doesn't really provide an algorithm for figuring who's more likely to be trustworthy and who isn't. After all, how do you figure out which people are slaves to peer pressure and which ones aren't? Beats me.

Here's an idea, if they can rise above the level of middle schoolers, they might deserve attention.

Aren't we all?

Make your move. He's wide open.

Peer pressure is something to be contended with when speaking your mind? Hmmm. I have a coping mechanism for that. How about when you speak your mind you're right? Seems that would kinda trump the peers mocking you.

I feel this even when commenting on some blogs. You come to learn the CW/group think of the place and think twice before going against it, at least if you want to be part of the 'community' in good standing, which can mean alot to many.

.

Having worked as both a congressional aide and a senior legislative policy analyst for the better part of two decades, I can say with firm conviction that the best and most effective public officials are those who possess the self-confidence necessary to be fully inclusive and considerate of all points of view, especially those that might run contrary to their own personal opinions or knowledge.

Conversely, I've also learned -- sometimes through bitter personal experience -- that the worst and least accomplished politicians are those who are all too quick to flatter themselves, and who surround themselves with ingratiating sycophants who tell them only what they want to hear, rather than convey what they truly need to know.

Those who would readily compromise their personal integrity merely for the sake of career advancement, are really no better than your average hooker plying her or his trade along the sidewalks of Kuhio Ave. in Waikiki.

I think the real issue is one of self-definition. "Experts" like to think they know a lot more about the judicious use of force than what Atrios likes to call the "dirty hippies", i.e., peace protesters and the like. Having to agree with the dirty hippies is too painful for them to contemplate.

Thus, the experts tend to support EVERY proposed war. Hawkishness is seen as smart and sophisticated, doveishness is seen as naive. The willingness to kill lots of people is seen as a badge of honor-- the willingness to make difficult choices (with other people's lives, of course).

Peer pressure? No, pathetic cowardice.

Kevin,

Thanks for your frank admission that peer pressure has a lot to do with your formulation of opinion. Spekaing in terms of broad generality I think this is a bigger problem for the left in general.

My argument is as follows. Most people on the right are led into group think because they belong to an organization such as a church. The purpose of said organization is to promulgate a faith or way of thinking. So people on the right participate in group think, but at least they are conscious of it.

People on the left, however, buy hook line and sinker the illusion that they are their own man or woman. They gather in informal communities with other people who also desperately want to believe that they are independnet thinkers and discuss all the common conclusions that they have reached "on their own". Ones who disagree with the premises of the group are weeded out by self selection. The group only wants to find "independent' thinkers who reinforce their opinions. Ones who disagree with the positions of the group are not really welcome, neither do they try to stay. Group think is a far more pernicious problem than the problem on the right. The right, especially the religious right is heavily into group think, but at least they are up fron about it. The left lies under the illusion that they are not buried under the same problem.

Kevin: how do you figure out which people are slaves to peer pressure and which ones aren't?

H.L Mencken answered it (from memory, so it may not be exact, and I would love it if someone could find the exact quote) "Don't trust anything anybody says who would be fired if he said the opposite."

Like anyone else, I feel it myself anytime I write a post that I know my commenters and fellow bloggers are going to jump on.

The fact that you still post them is one of the reasons we read you religiously. Also the fact that you are willing to change your position at times given the correct type of negative feedback. That type of interaction is what it should be all about.

Careerism does impede that type of interaction. Unfortunately, almost everyone, regardless of their position is subject to inappropriate peer pressure. Nobody said democracy would be easy.

One rationalization for organizing the Professions, as well as Academia, is that those organizations become farm teams, where talent and merit can be recognized, independent of the pressures of the Big Leagues.

Reputation should matter. The esteem of peers should matter. But, it should matter in a way that promotes virtue, skill, knowledge and good judgement.

The Club will be organized, and can be organized badly, or not. As it stands, the Club is organized badly.

Some of the factors at work are rather obvious. The creation of "think tanks" in Washington has become increasingly corrupt and superficial. A lot of these organizations consist of little more than a fax machine and a conduit for lobbying money. And, they exist to eliminate the need for competence, or long testing in a more demanding environment.

Another factor is that the News Media is no longer discriminating between genuine experts and guys who please.

Our foreign policy is being driven by a pack of 11 year old girls?

No, but as Somersby has pointed out, our national media is.

Shorter John Hansen: I know you are, but what am I?

Bruce: "Another factor is that the News Media is no longer discriminating between genuine experts and guys who please."

And who are preternaturally partisan. Bill Kristol. George Will. Need I say more?

anandine >"H.L Mencken answered it (from memory, so it may not be exact, and I would love it if someone could find the exact quote)..."

This is as close as I could find...

"It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place." - H. L. Mencken

not, of course, suggesting that your quote isn`t a real one, just that I couldn`t find it via some quick Googling

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams

It would be much simpler to define (and list) whoever is not one of the Very Serious People foreign policy club. If they had sense enough beforehand to realize that Iraq was going to be a disaster, said so, and never said that is was "essential", they're not on the list. They're on a much shorter list of commenters with common sense.

"I don't really have anywhere special to go with this ..."

Agreed.

Kevin should check out Greenwald's post on the topic, also. I'm not sure why Kevin keeps missing the point of what's really going on in this "foreign policy" debate ...

He thinks the key issue is whether someone is gunning for a government job or not ... but I'm not sure that's really the primary dynamic here. Rather, I think it's the ... the fear of being ridiculed by other members of the community.

—Kevin Drum

Yes, or put another way, the desire to be accepted. That's why, to the MSM, the very most serious people are those who ignore what they have said in the past and spout DLC AND Weekly Standard bullshit simultaneously without blinking at the contradictions.

While thinking about ways to ameliorate the effects of peer pressure and groupthink put your left index finger to your lips and remember your childhood. I may be funny to bring up a meal your ate when you were young, but you tried it, and now it is one of your favorite foods.

I dunno, I think I'd rather be ridiculed and rejected than have the blood of 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians and the fate of Yet Another Failed South-Asian State on my hands.

On the other hand, if doing the DLC-thing, and "triangulate and compromise" gets you in the door, one could at least pretend one's TRYING to make things better, when one knows that the second they diverge from the groupthink, they're out on the street.

Isn't it better to be out on the street?

Reminds me of the old joke:
Q: If you hate the USA so much, why don't you leave it?
A: What, and become a victim of their foreign policy?

"Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrents to keep the peace, and I don’t believe any president should make blanket statements with the regard to use or non-use."

OT, I guess, but seeing the HR Clinton quote above made me think that her attack on Obama is really disingenuous. The discussion was not about using nuclear weapons to "deter," which we do mainly just by having lots of them. It was about making offensive use of them against others who are not deploying them. That's not "deterrence." That's something quite different, and I think she's quite wrong to say that "Presidents since the Cold War" approved of it.

In the spirit of conversation, let me say that I'm skeptical of this.

Let me say that I'm skeptical of your skepticism in the sense that I've percieved similar "careerist" tendencies in some of your own posts. All too often, you employ the Michael Kinsley technique of claiming something is "all very confusing" and that you " don't know what to make of this" when you are reluctant to take an real stand on something that is actually pretty clear. I've been left with the impression in many cases that you're being deliberately obtuse to maintain the appearance of being a "centrist". I presume that you're looking to move up into some mainstream media gig at some point and don't want to appear "too liberal".

Like anyone else, I feel it myself anytime I write a post that I know my commenters and fellow bloggers are going to jump on.

Good. It keeps you honest.

The best algorithm is to notice the use of language. The disingenuous use fuzzy weasel words and support their arguments with plenty of "everyone knows" and "it's common knowledge that.."

The phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is dishonest. Any "serious person" who uses it in a non-mocking way should be ignored.

Of course liars can be blunt and concise, but it's pretty rare since most liars try to protect their rears in case they're found out.

OT, I guess, but seeing the HR Clinton quote above made me think that her attack on Obama is really disingenuous. The discussion was not about using nuclear weapons to "deter," which we do mainly just by having lots of them.

You don't say.

I guess that makes Hillary a VSP. More Experienced. More Mature. Less Naive. A Liar.

If being coy about the first strike use of nukes against non-nuke entities is to be U.S. policy then I want nukes, preferably with mobile platforms and enough of them to allow at least one counterstrike. Encouraging this sort of reaction from us furriners is surely the very serious thing to do.

And fear of ridicule from the likes of Billy Crystal, David Broder, Peter Beinert (no, I still haven't forgiven the snively little twerp for his snorts of contempt) and Bobobobobobo? Christ, that should be a badge of honor.

There is a real need to spread the blame on this issue. In this administration the man on top living in a buble sends a clear message throughout the administration and government that people speaking out are not welcome.

However it is that very stay on message speaking point mentality that has made this a two term administration. Those of us who have contributed to a political environment which search for every mistaken word or policy option considered as evidence to beat politicians with instead of looking at real deeper policy issues have to share some blame.

Don't get me wrong these guys are as low as we have seen in a long time but has the environment not created them? or at least made then succesful.

The question is how to create future administrations which understand the value of having uncomfortable, unpopular and free spoken advice without it being a major political liability.

The problem with all the so called foreign policy experts is that they were trained in the bilateral world of the cold war. The soviets had 18,000 nuclear weapons. We had 30,000. It only took 1000 to destroy every significant population center on the planet. The world was very simple. It was in that world that the "very serious people" grew-up.

The Soviet Union is gone. The neocons and a significant number of others in the foreign policy establishment simply assumed we were the world's remaining super power. For the neocons that meant they were free to engage in resource colonialism--Iraq is the prime example. The non-neocon members of the foreign policy expert class simply didn't know what to do.

Nobody was around to tell the neocons that the end of resource colonialism didn't have anything to do with the cold war. Traditional colonial empires are obsolete. They became obsolete with the invention of the AK-47 and the television set.

The non-neocon foreign policy experts are still scratching their backsides wondering what to do. All of them are just as easily fooled as anybody else who watches CNN or Fox News for a living.

The truth is to this day there are no real post cold war foreign policy experts in Washington. There haven't been any since the 1989. There are just a bunch of blind men and women of good will and an assorted bunch of neocon fools. They are all floundering around.

A whole new generation will need to grow up and take power before there again are any very serious members of the very serious people foreign policy club. Until then Kevin's opinion is just about as good as Richard Clark's.

The question is how to create future administrations which understand the value of having uncomfortable, unpopular and free spoken advice without it being a major political liability.
Posted by: Colin Crolly on August 9, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

I think Obama has found the solution.

Talk to the voters as if they were adults.

Talk to the voters as if they were adults.

A-fricking-men.

Today I was half listening to a radio interview with a TV writer. He attributed the success of /The Sopranos/ to the fact that David Chase threw out the established TV writing convention of deleting all bits that wouldn't be understood by a moron.

Politics isn't that much different, and after 7 years of the Gilligan's Island Presidency, there is a huge pent-up demand for adult, intelligent leadership.

I had my own issues with Powers's memo, and I agree she overstated the "gratuitous threat", but I think you're oversimplifying the case for nuclear ambiguity.

Certainly, you don't want to see a candidate caught up in all sorts of hypotheticals, and presidents will need some latitude in their foreign policy options. But if a candidate were asked, "Would you have used a nuclear strike to take out the Branch Davidians", I don't think "Are you completely nuts?" is a foolish answer.

We've become a little too enamored with this concept that everything must always "remain on the table" or else the game is up. Within reason, it's fine, but it's that kind of common wisdom -- the idea that in politics tough talk always wins over reasoned diplomacy and that people want a cowboy rather than the statesman -- that has helped prop up the more belligerent aspects of Bush foreign policy. They've done a lot to push the bounds of this, paving the way for the idea that an American nuclear first strike might be acceptable, and that it doesn't really count if we use "tactical" nuclear weapons. I think this nonsense has gotten enough play in the media that some pushback is more than warranted.

We need to break away from the idea that Lethal Weapon foreign policy is effective policy or smart politics, and that's not going to happen if Democrats try to turn reasonableness into a sign of inexperience or weakness.

The truth is to this day there are no real post cold war foreign policy experts in Washington.

That was a very good comment at 6:18 PM, corpus juris.

Channeling Robin Hanson:

I think betting could be part of the solution. Perhaps all foreign policy journalists should be required to place money, in a publicly visible way, on their predictions.

Or maybe anyone who wants to can place such bets in prediction markets, and then we can use what the journalists say as a (noisy) signal on how to make the wisest investment. If we set up such markets properly, I would anticipate they would predict outcomes better than the average policy journalist (which is fine, it doesn't mean what the journalist is doing is useless)

We need to break away from the idea that Lethal Weapon foreign policy is effective policy or smart politics, and that's not going to happen if Democrats try to turn reasonableness into a sign of inexperience or weakness.

The unfortunate fact is that the HRC campaign, her backers amongst the establishment, her cheerleaders in the MSM, and their enablers in the liberal blogosphere have branded Obama as the "inexperienced" candidate, and *anything* *and* *everything* he says will be used as "proof" of this conclusion, no matter how reasonable it is, and even (and especially) when he is simply reiterating something HRC said.

Rove should check his file cabinet -- I think he is missing a copy of his manual.

Royko: We've become a little too enamored with this concept that everything must always "remain on the table" or else the game is up.

Agree. We have policy positions and debates about many things. To say that use of nukes should not be subject to the same, especially in this day and age, is mind boggling; it is the nuclear non-proliferation elephant in the room.

mk: Or maybe anyone who wants to can place such bets in prediction markets...

It's been tried (see here), at least in a limited form. Otherwise known as the Policy Analysis Market (PAM), or more popularly the "terrorism betting markets".

daCascadian, Mencken was talking specifically about newspaper editorial writers and why he never paid any attention to them.

I don't really have anywhere special to go with this, since, given the current state of the art in human nature, there's no way we're going to do away with the baleful effects of peer pressure in the foreign policy community — or any other community — anytime soon. Like anyone else, I feel it myself anytime I write a post that I know my commenters and fellow bloggers are going to jump on. Still, there might be ways to ameliorate the effects of peer pressure and groupthink, or at least to cut through them a bit.

One thing I have to say, particularly after what I've been reading the last several days: the left blogosphere is every bit as much a captive to its own groupthink as anyone else. It may despise the conventional wisdom of, say, the foreign policy community, but it is in no way better, only different. In fact, I'd say that it imposes, or attempts to impose, its own orthodoxy with every bit as much rigidity and even fanaticism as many of the communities it despises.

And there's nothing like being on the opposite side of arguments from others in the left blogosphere to help one realize just how tendentious and simply weak logically the arguments they can present really are. (I of course imagine they think that my own arguments are likewise bad and unconvincing.) Honestly, it's sometimes hard to maintain a lot of respect for even the supposed shining lights of the left blogosophere.

Just at random, take this point made by Greenwald today:

This was vividly illustrated by the sharpest exchange from last night's debate, where both Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd excoriated Obama for his comments on Pakistan, not on the ground that Obama's statements were wrong on the merits (i.e, not that we should avoid military action inside Pakistan under those circumstances), but instead on the ground that he committed the sin of actually discussing with the American people what our foreign policy would be.

Did anyone argue that Obama "committed the sin of actually discussing with the American people what our foreign policy would be"? Wasn't the argument, quite obviously, that he was potentially telegraphing intentions to the enemy, and that was not a good thing? An honest debater, who of course would not be Greenwald, would simply say, look there are two countervailing concerns here, one of communicating directly to the American people on the one side, and one of telegraphing intentions to the enemy on the other. Which prevails? Then, of course, one could have a serious debate about which of those might prove more important in the case at hand. But all this is not even hinted at in Greenwald's absurd mischaracterization.

And this man is considered one of the intellectual giants of the left blogosphere. God fucking help us.

Where are the wiser heads in the left blogosphere? I guess I've long ago concluded that there really aren't any. Maybe Kevin himself is as good as it gets; he's bright, he's pretty well informed, he really does eschew genuinely tendentious arguments, and he learns from experience. As bad as the conventional media and conventional politicians and the conventional pundits and the conventional wonks might all be, they just aren't as pathetically limited a crew as the blogosphere. Honestly, take away the large numbers of people involved in the blogosphere, and the clout that such a crowd represents in a democracy, and what's left? While I do think that criticism from still another point of view is healthy for democracy, and the blogosphere certainly represents that, it is many ways and very typically itself just another orthodoxy driven by its own not always intelligent agenda by people of completely unremarkable insight, knowledge, and skill.

frankly0, you're the only sane one amongst us all....

frankly0

Damn I have to agree with you.

I suspect group think is part of being human and wanting to be in a a a a group. It is hard to avoid.

frankly0: Wasn't the argument, quite obviously, that he was potentially telegraphing intentions to the enemy, and that was not a good thing? An honest debater, who of course would not be Greenwald, would simply say, look there are two countervailing concerns here, one of communicating directly to the American people on the one side, and one of telegraphing intentions to the enemy on the other.

If "he was potentially telegraphing intentions to the enemy" that would substantively change the equation, I and many others must have missed it. While I can't speak for Greenwald, I'm having a tough time understanding why what Obama said could hurt us in any substantive manner.

If anything, I wish Obama had gone further. I'd trade a no first strike commitment against tribal areas in Pakistan (or any other equivalent governments or areas) for substantive progress in nuclear non-proliferation any day of the week.

No guarantee that such a commitment would get us where we need to be, but without the US showing some leadership--and putting something on the table and making some commitments other than the half-assed mumbo-jumbo the US has shown in recent years--we don't have a hope of getting there.

As to your question "Where are the wiser heads in the left blogosphere?"... I can only opine that they seem to be stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq, and are oblivious to the big picture.

Another reason for frankly0 to hate Obama:

Obama is polling third in Iowa -- amongst REPUBLICANS!

Btw, frankly0, since no one else seems willing to do it, I'll explain this carefully to you:

That Obama "was potentially telegraphing intentions to the enemy" is and was "just a dishonest and stupid argument" and Greenwald was giving it the treatment that it deserved.

This is no different than the way Al is treated in this forum. Some stupidity is too stupid to bother taking seriously.

I would suspect the Pakistanis watch American television and they are more than that Obama has a chance to gain the White House. It probably didn't hurt for the Pakistanis to hear him say what he said. Maybe the Pakistani government will awaken to the idea that their free pass might becoming to an end.

I think franky0's comments about group think being common among those in the blogosphere is probably right. It is something we should all guard against.

Sorry, "more than aware." I am dropping words. Boy do I need a good night's sleep.

Anandine, I realize this lacks the "lying" angle you were fishing for but it does resonate with it.

As quoted by Al Gore in "An Inconvenient Truth":

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. -- Upton Sinclair

group think being common among those in the blogosphere

Bring up Nader and see how peer pressure and groupthink operate in the blogosphere.

Denounce the service of those who serve W. Bush's mission in Iraq and see how peer pressure and groupthink operate in the blogosphere.

Political Animal has a pretty good open comments forum, which I will always be indebted to, but many other 'liberal' blogs do not. Do not discuss Israeli crimes at TalkLeft or Firedoglake, or even lambast scientists who kill sheep while looking for the 'homosexual' gene at Next Hurrah.

Peer pressure is part of the human condition. We are social animals, afterall. As one who is almost always in the minority on most issues, and suffers many insults and libels for them, I cannot say why I am able to put myself in the position of outsider or pariah. I am fond of saying I may be wrong but always certain, so a form of faith in my certainty is one reason I say what I do. My thought processes are different than others, perhaps due to my left handedness; I am able to read between the lines and see things from current events and come to conclusions that are contrary to the common platitudes accepted by a super duper majority. But often time proves my hunches correct.

The question remains, why do I opine against the majority belief system in the face of such overwhelming opposition? I really cannot see any other alternative, unless it is to slink away from confrontation. I only wish I had more courage to risk my material well-being with more action. So, perhaps that explains my ability to opine with such abandon anonomously. I have no other way to make a difference in this world with the limits I have created for myself.

That Obama "was potentially telegraphing intentions to the enemy" is and was "just a dishonest and stupid argument" and Greenwald was giving it the treatment that it deserved.

Disputo you incline once more to the simple-minded.

Read my argument, please. I was not presuming that either the argument that we might "telegraphing our intentions to the enemy" or the argument that we should "be open with the American people" might necessarily win in the instance at hand. I was simply making the point that each represented a concern, and that an honest thinker would try to weigh one against the other. Of course, "telegraphing our intentions to the enemy" has to be unpacked. Which intentions? What kind of enemy? What are the real consequences? Likewise, "being open with the American people" should be unpacked for the case at hand.

My point was that Greenwald seemed to display no capacity for that kind of thought or honesty. I was deploring the fact that he is one of the supposed deep thinkers in the left blogosphere, and yet he comes out with this simple-minded, tendentious shit, and it is, of course, enthusiastically embraced by his even more simple-minded, tendentious followers.

Of which you, obviously, are one.