The Post-modern Presidency
I've just been reading an old article by that name from Josh Marshall in Washington Monthly. It presents a telling analysis of several key elements of the Bush approach to governance, which is worth reading for perspective on the current campaign. In it, he suggests that a pre-determined agenda shapes their approach to evidence, their attitudes about those who present evidence that does not further the agenda, and their rhetorical use of the unprovable, or disprovable, assertion as justification, to portray their own predetermined agenda as the solution to whichever problem is current in the news.
Thus, a tax cut originally proposed as an answer for an overlarge surplus becomes just the thing for a time of recession, and yet again in a time of war. In Marshall's analysis, one starts with Bush's pre-existing agenda, to cut taxes, and then one tailors one's justification to suit the moment, using assertions that may be plausible, but cannot be proven or disproven. Maybe a tax cut will help the economy, maybe it will create jobs, maybe postponing it will stall the recovery. We can't actually prove it will or won't, until later. One can always find some "expert" who will say what you want.
Those who have learned to think this way develop a bias against evidence. Since the goal is the pre-existing agenda, ideas and people supporting that agenda become "right", and those who present evidence in opposition come to be seen as biased, and shaping their interpretations to suit their own ends. Thus, the numerous CIA reports that undermined the case for Iraq were signs that the CIA was "soft on Iraq." Shinseki, the man with the most experience, who had actually done it before, was overruled by Wolfowitz, whose experience was at a think-tank desk, but who understood the agenda. Shinseki, and the other military men who expressed doubts, were being obstructionists, promoting their agenda of delay and Pentagon bloat.
This disdain for evidence extends beyond their decision-making into actions to hide, or reshape, evidence to fit the agenda-driven narrative. Often this takes the form of disputing the science underlying a report, or simply canceling, or classifying the report itself. Look at the way they have handled the issue of global warming.
As Marshall points out, this disdain for experts, and the tendency to see them as obstructionists, has meant that the Bushies have no one around with the kind of real-world experience and skills that would allow them to actually implement something successfully. I think this pattern actually forces them to disastrous failure. Set a goal, ignore and deride anyone who disagrees with it, force the country towards it by using whatever justification sounds good and can't be disproven, and then? Those of us in the real world discover that reality has a sad habit of ignoring their ideology, while they continue pushing harder, and getting more angry at those who, in their "obstructionist" way, keep pointing out that it's a disaster.
Marshall calls them postmodernists, in that they seem to believe that ideology is all there is. Facts aren't really facts, they are just the other side's ideology dressed up in a "mantle of facticity" to thwart you. And since "facts" are just ideological, merely interpretations, it's easy to gin up a bunch that support you and ignore those that disagree. There is no point in questioning those who bring you information that comports with your agenda. If Tennant says it will be a slam-dunk, he is obviously on-board with the agenda, so he must be right. No need to ask him "Why do you say that? What is your proof? Show me the underlying evidence." That's old-fashioned thinking.
It's a good article. Written a year ago, it resonates more strongly today. From this perspective, Bush's responses in the debate start making sense, and you can imagine a new explanation for their ridiculous responses to the damning reports this week. It's easy to re-interpret the "facticity" of the Duelfer report, and re-justify your actions with the unprovable assertion that Saddam would have destroyed the sanctions and gotten the weapons. Poof. Problem solved, those pesky obstructionists out of the way, onward toward the goal!
Similarly, the indignant "It's just not credible" from the debate. Notice he didn't say it's not "true", which would suggest an objective reality. And I believe that for W. in fact, it is not credible, since it disagrees with him. Clearly, it is purely an opposing ideology, promoted by someone with a biased agenda, and it's just words, meaningless words.
Sadly for George and the gang, the "facticity" of objective reality is asserting its distinction from their ideology, and their redefinition engines have had to run at full throttle. As Jon Stewart said, the facts are looking awfully partisan. It remains to be seen if the electorate agrees with their post-modern interpretation.
Thus, a tax cut originally proposed as an answer for an overlarge surplus becomes just the thing for a time of recession, and yet again in a time of war. In Marshall's analysis, one starts with Bush's pre-existing agenda, to cut taxes, and then one tailors one's justification to suit the moment, using assertions that may be plausible, but cannot be proven or disproven. Maybe a tax cut will help the economy, maybe it will create jobs, maybe postponing it will stall the recovery. We can't actually prove it will or won't, until later. One can always find some "expert" who will say what you want.
Those who have learned to think this way develop a bias against evidence. Since the goal is the pre-existing agenda, ideas and people supporting that agenda become "right", and those who present evidence in opposition come to be seen as biased, and shaping their interpretations to suit their own ends. Thus, the numerous CIA reports that undermined the case for Iraq were signs that the CIA was "soft on Iraq." Shinseki, the man with the most experience, who had actually done it before, was overruled by Wolfowitz, whose experience was at a think-tank desk, but who understood the agenda. Shinseki, and the other military men who expressed doubts, were being obstructionists, promoting their agenda of delay and Pentagon bloat.
This disdain for evidence extends beyond their decision-making into actions to hide, or reshape, evidence to fit the agenda-driven narrative. Often this takes the form of disputing the science underlying a report, or simply canceling, or classifying the report itself. Look at the way they have handled the issue of global warming.
As Marshall points out, this disdain for experts, and the tendency to see them as obstructionists, has meant that the Bushies have no one around with the kind of real-world experience and skills that would allow them to actually implement something successfully. I think this pattern actually forces them to disastrous failure. Set a goal, ignore and deride anyone who disagrees with it, force the country towards it by using whatever justification sounds good and can't be disproven, and then? Those of us in the real world discover that reality has a sad habit of ignoring their ideology, while they continue pushing harder, and getting more angry at those who, in their "obstructionist" way, keep pointing out that it's a disaster.
Marshall calls them postmodernists, in that they seem to believe that ideology is all there is. Facts aren't really facts, they are just the other side's ideology dressed up in a "mantle of facticity" to thwart you. And since "facts" are just ideological, merely interpretations, it's easy to gin up a bunch that support you and ignore those that disagree. There is no point in questioning those who bring you information that comports with your agenda. If Tennant says it will be a slam-dunk, he is obviously on-board with the agenda, so he must be right. No need to ask him "Why do you say that? What is your proof? Show me the underlying evidence." That's old-fashioned thinking.
It's a good article. Written a year ago, it resonates more strongly today. From this perspective, Bush's responses in the debate start making sense, and you can imagine a new explanation for their ridiculous responses to the damning reports this week. It's easy to re-interpret the "facticity" of the Duelfer report, and re-justify your actions with the unprovable assertion that Saddam would have destroyed the sanctions and gotten the weapons. Poof. Problem solved, those pesky obstructionists out of the way, onward toward the goal!
Similarly, the indignant "It's just not credible" from the debate. Notice he didn't say it's not "true", which would suggest an objective reality. And I believe that for W. in fact, it is not credible, since it disagrees with him. Clearly, it is purely an opposing ideology, promoted by someone with a biased agenda, and it's just words, meaningless words.
Sadly for George and the gang, the "facticity" of objective reality is asserting its distinction from their ideology, and their redefinition engines have had to run at full throttle. As Jon Stewart said, the facts are looking awfully partisan. It remains to be seen if the electorate agrees with their post-modern interpretation.
posted by Paul at 8:31 PM |
|
email this
