SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LindyBill who wrote (100909)2/17/2005 9:07:36 PM
From: LindyBill  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793592
 
Beinart Can't Buy A Clue At TNR

By Captain Ed on Media Watch

Peter Beinart takes a break from the book he's writing to pen a column for The New Republic on Bush's emphasis on democracy as his second-term theme, and how liberals need to counter it with rhetoric of their own. Peter is a very nice and earnest young man, but he frequently gets his assumptions incorrect, and this column provides a clear example. As the blog Nationals Review points out, Beinart uses an assumption about John Kerry that is demonstrably false as a support for the rest of his argument about liberal enthusiasm for democratization as foreign policy:

Bush's second inaugural doesn't challenge liberals at the level of policy; it challenges them at the level of rhetoric. And, unless they respond in kind, they'll experience the same fate that befell John Kerry. In policy terms, Kerry probably had a more serious democratization agenda than Bush. But, rhetorically, he never matched Bush's grandeur. And, in the United States, where it is great causes and missionary impulses that rouse citizens to engage with the world, Bush's language captured the public imagination, and Kerry's did not.

Unfortunately for Peter, that analysis of Kerry's position on democracy just doesn't hold up. Kerry has a long history of indifference to democracy, and Nationals Review picks up one prominent example of this, from the May 29, 2004 Washington Post:

Sen. John F. Kerry indicated that as president he would play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia, instead focusing on other objectives that he said are more central to the United States' security.

That prompted the Washington Post to issue a scathing editorial about Kerry's lack of commitment to the primary pillar of the American government Kerry hoped to lead:

"WE NEED A reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government" in Iraq, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said in December. "That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in the country -- not cutting and running in order to claim a false success." On another occasion, he said: "It would be a disaster and a disgraceful betrayal of principle to speed up the process simply to lay the groundwork for a politically expedient withdrawal of American troops."

Contrast that with what Mr. Kerry told reporters last week: "With respect to getting our troops out, the measure is the stability of Iraq. [Democracy] shouldn't be the measure of when you leave. I have always said from day one that the goal here . . . is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy."

Starting an argument by basing it on any John Kerry commitment almost certainly renders it flawed, but Peter really should have checked Kerry's campaign record. He never did fully support democratization as an end goal for Iraq or anywhere else, and more than once indicated that he didn't even think that democratization was necessary. And yet Peter argues that Kerry would have had a "more serious democratization agenda"?

Even better, Kerry couldn't even support democratization in Iraq after it happened. In that same article, Kerry had this to say about elections:

"The last time I looked, except for Florida, an election is an election," Kerry said.

And yet, the day after Iraqis braved bombs and bullets to cast their votes, Kerry downplayed the significance of the election, even though it didn't take place in Florida:

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe this election will be seen by the world community as legitimate?

SEN. KERRY: A kind of legitimacy--I mean, it's hard to say that something is legitimate when a whole portion of the country can't vote and doesn't vote.

That's the man Peter argues has a stronger streak of democratization support than the President who insisted on sticking with the elections that the Iraqis risked their lives to hold.

Needless to say, after using Kerry as a foundation for his Democrats-are-better-democratizers hypothesis, Peter's argument quickly descends into farce:

The assumption that the United States can do no wrong leads naturally to unilateralism: Why sully our democracy-promotion efforts by partnering with other countries, which lack purity of heart? That implication was particularly widespread in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's overthrow, when conservatives argued against giving Turkey, France, or the United Nations a genuine role in the occupation on the grounds that Iraqis might distrust their motives.

Peter seems to forget that Turkey, France, and the United Nations flat-out refused to accept any role in the post-invasion occupation. In fact, the UN bugged out after their former Ba'athist spy-service guards allowed a bomber to kill a couple of dozen UN staffers, all because they refused American security. France refused to cooperate before and after the invasion, saying that the US had to turn over all authority to the same UN that refused to come back to Iraq after the bombing. Jacques Chirac wanted US troops under UN control, as he refused even with a UN-led occupation to commit any troops to the Irq effort. Turkey didn't want democracy at all in Iraq; it wanted a strongman to keep the Kurds oppressed and under control, the better to control their own Kurds from rising up against them.

As I said, Peter is a nice and earnest young man, but he seems to live in a parallel universe, or perhaps he just takes poor notes and performs lousy research. If he thinks that building on the strength of purpose of John Kerry is the path for Democrats to take back power on a national basis, I vote for the parallel universe.



To: LindyBill who wrote (100909)2/17/2005 11:34:19 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793592
 
here is another liberal demohack under fire: ( he was undersecretary of treasure under bill slick administration)
Furor Lingers as Harvard Chief Gives Details of Talk on Women
By PATRICK D. HEALY and SARA RIMER

AMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 17 - Bowing to intense pressure from his faculty, the president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers, on Thursday released a month-old transcript of his contentious closed-door remarks about the shortage of women in the sciences and engineering. The transcript revealed several provocative statements by Dr. Summers about the "intrinsic aptitude" of women, the career pressures they face and discrimination within universities.

Dr. Summers's remarks, which have only been described by others until now, have fueled a widening crisis on campus, with several professors talking about taking a vote of no confidence on the president next week. That idea alone is unprecedented at Harvard in modern times.

Among his comments to a conference of economists last month, according to the transcript, Dr. Summers, a former secretary of the United States Treasury, compared the relatively low number of women in the sciences to the numbers of Catholics in investment banking, whites in the National Basketball Association and Jews in farming.

He theorized that a "much higher fraction of married men" than married women were willing to work 80-hour weeks to attain "high powered" jobs. He said racial and sex discrimination needed to be "absolutely, vigorously" combated, yet he argued that bias could not entirely explain the lack of diversity in the sciences. At that point, the Harvard leader suggested he believed that the innate aptitude of women was a factor behind their low numbers in the sciences and engineering.

"My best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon - by far - is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity; that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude; and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination," Dr. Summers said, according to the transcript.

"I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them," he added.

Over and over in the transcript, he made clear that he might be wrong in his theories, and he challenged researchers to study his propositions.

He also urged research on "the quality of marginal hires" to the faculty when efforts to diversify are under way. Do these hires, he asked, eventually turn into star professors? Or "plausible compromises" that are not unreasonable additions to the faculty? And "how many of them are what the right-wing critics of all of this suppose represent clear abandonments of quality standards"?

Several Harvard professors said Thursday that they were more furious after reading the precise remarks, saying they felt he believed women were intellectually inferior.

Everett I. Mendelsohn, a professor of the history of science, said that once he read the transcript, he understood why Dr. Summers "might have wanted to keep it a secret."

"Where he seems to be off the mark particularly is in his sweeping claims that women don't have the ability to do well in high-powered jobs," said Professor Mendelsohn, part of a faculty group that sharply criticized Dr. Summers's leadership at a meeting of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences on Tuesday. "There's an implication that they've taken themselves out of that role. But he brings forward no evidence."

Howard Georgi, a physics professor who has been part of a successful effort in the physics department to recruit women for tenured positions, said, "It's crazy to think that it's an innate difference." He added: "It's socialization. We've trained young women to be average. We've trained young men to be adventurous."

After releasing the 7,000-word transcript, Dr. Summers said in a letter to the faculty that he should "have spoken differently on matters so complex" and that he had "substantially understated the impact of socialization and discrimination."

"The issue of gender difference is far more complex than comes through in my comments," he wrote.

The senior member of Harvard's governing corporation, James Houghton, released a letter shortly after the transcript was made public, offering praise and support for Dr. Summers.

In recent weeks, the Summers controversy has led to a wider debate among academics about not only sex differences but also the state of campus political correctness - with Dr. Summers's supporters insisting that a left-wing cabal on the faculty was seeking to bring down his presidency over his remarks.

Among his critics on the faculty, the current outrage against him amounts to a culmination of reaction to three years of sharp-edged remarks, actions and displays of attitude that to these professors have been divisive and unworthy of one of the world's leading universities. Dr. Summers gained notoriety several months into the job by offending a leading professor of black studies at Harvard, Cornel West, who promptly decamped to Princeton University.

Yet some Harvard professors and leaders said that the critics were focusing too narrowly on remarks that were meant to be private and provocative, and that they were losing sight of Dr. Summers's accomplishments at the university.

"My primary response to the transcript is that President Summers has profoundly apologized," said Edward Glaeser, a Harvard economics professor who is a strong supporter of Dr. Summers. "At this point the university will be much better served by looking forward rather than by parsing his comments."

After the transcript was issued, Dr. West volunteered his reaction to the latest imbroglio.

"I've been praying for the brother, hoping he would change," Dr. West said in an interview. "It's clear he hasn't changed. I feel bad for Harvard as an institution and as a great tradition. It was good to see the faculty wake up. The chickens have come home to roost."

While Harvard professors plan to convene Tuesday to discuss the transcript and Dr. Summers's leadership, and some have spoken of a vote of no confidence, it is the Harvard Corporation that has decisive influence over Dr. Summers's fortunes. It stood behind him on Thursday.

Several female scientists who were at the National Bureau of Economic Research forum and who expressed outrage at Dr. Summers's remarks there said they felt vindicated by the transcript. Critics had accused them of misinterpreting his meaning and overreacting out of political correctness.

"I'm glad his words are finally out there," said Shirley Malcom, who grew up in segregated Alabama and is now the director of education for the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington. "Because so many of us have been accused of implying that he said things he did not, and now people can actually judge for themselves."

Sara Rimer reported from Cambridge for this article, and Patrick D. Healy from Albany.

nytimes.com