One thing I had hoped to see after the 2008 election was a decrease in some of the more unsupportable slanders of the outgoing Bush Administration. I thought the decrease in its political utility after Obama's victory might allow some of the more fair-minded varieties on the left to revisit certain controversies in a new light and drop from their repertoire baseless criticisms. Slate, though home to its share of Bush haters, often demonstrates an ability to rise above the foolishness (but not today).
K. Anthony Appiah has posted a review of Alan Wolfe's The Future of Liberalism. The first half is a decent intellectual exercise; the second: Bush bashing (emphasis added):
The last of Wolfe's most original trio of temperaments—the taste for realism—can also be traced back to Kant. We have just lived through an anti-liberal administration hostile to science, one that fantasized we could load the atmosphere with carbon while keeping the Earth's ecology in balance and asserted, against all the evidence, that urging sexual abstinence would stop the spread of AIDS. Wolfe argues that it is liberals, not conservatives, who dare to know.
(...)
... and that it is the (Republican) party's hostility to realism that explains the unwillingness to accept scientific arguments about global warming.
If this is true, how do you explain the unwillingness of many scientists to accept the global warming argument? Furthermore, how do you explain liberals' hostility to scientific arguments criticizing global warming alarmism? They exist and are not merely the product of Exxon-funded crackpots, as liberals would have you believe.
As for keeping the Earth's ecology in "balance", that's a completely inappropriate way to describe the environment, but explains Appiah's readiness to view carbon dioxide increases as a danger. Nature is constantly changing - it is not a balancing act. Perhaps Appiah has heard of the theory of evolution? How does that theory mesh with a view of a balanced environment? If nature is balanced - how does natural selection fit in?
It's probably better to keep evolution, and toss out ideas of "balance."
More canards from Wolfe:
Wolfe argues, for example, that it is the modern Republican Party's distaste for governance that explains the stunning incompetence of the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina or of its occupation of Iraq...
The federal government did not occupy Iraq, the military did, and I've never heard anyone refer to the army as a federal government program or that Republicans have an aversion towards it.
As for Katrina, Appiah thinks Wolfe is wrong about that anyway:
The failures of FEMA in New Orleans look to me as much like the results of cronyism as of a bad theory.
New Orleans wasn't the only American city to flood due to a natural disaster during the Bush years. However, the federal response to the second incident avoided criticism. Was it because Republicans suddenly lost their distaste for government (Wolfe) or because Bush ended cronyism (Appiah) or because the local response in Cedar Rapids, prevented the collapse of law and order which FEMA needs to operate? FEMA is not a police force - it can't hand out bottled water and write checks when there is anarchy. If liberals want to prevent another Katrina, they'd better honestly evaluate what went wrong or we're doomed to repeat the mistakes. Bush is gone, and there's nothing more to be gained by continuing to repeat dubious arguments as to who is responsible for the slow response to Katrina.
Near the end of the piece, Appiah offers a further critique of Wolfe:
The argument against conservatism lies in what the world would look like if conservatives carried out their policies competently. On that issue, the Bush years may offer less insight than Wolfe believes.
Want to know what the world would look like if liberals had their way? California, which is in a free fall. Twenty years of liberal dominance has turned the envy of the world into a fiscal basket case. California used to have a conservative streak to it, but tipped solidly to the left a generation ago. Its geography, climate, resources and wealth should make it one of the pillars of the country. Instead, it's going to the solvent states, cap in hand, looking for a massive bailout. I think that deserves mention in any analysis of the future of liberalism.
"Nature is constantly changing - it is not a balancing act. Perhaps Appiah has heard of the theory of evolution? How does that theory mesh with a view of a balanced environment? If nature is balanced - how does natural selection fit in?"
This comment of yours stood out quite a bit. First of all, you ask a few questions there as if there is no answer. But there is an answer. You just don't understand it, and make no attempt to.
Everything in the natural world seeks equilibrium. It absolutely is a balancing act. When one part of a given ecosystem goes out of whack, it effects everything else because the equilibrium is disrupted. This is why when certain plants and animals are introduced into an environment where they did not evolve, it causes chaos. But when there's equilibrium, or balance, the ecosystem thrives. This is a fundamental concept of nature that apparently you missed in 7th grade science class.
Certain species, such as bees, are called keystone species because, without them, the ecosystem collapses. Even the phrase "keystone species" implies balance. It is derived from the keystone in an archway. For without the keystone to equalize the forces, the archway would collapse. Likewise, without bees to spread pollen, all plant life on earth would die off which would lead to all herbivores dying off which would lead to all carnivores and omnivores dying off since they feed on the herbivores. If you were to witness this process, you would even see the system trying to reach equilibrium once again (but it would eventually fail). The carnivores would eventually start feeding on each other until every last creature died off or something took the place of the bees.
Now, Natural Selection is a process which is both related and unrelated to the equilibrium concept. In one case, when there is an imbalance, or a niche, it leaves room for the evolution of new species to fill that niche. But in other cases, such as humans, species can create their own niche and introduce imbalance into the system. From there the system seeks to balance itself out again, but it's a slow process that takes hundreds or thousands of years.
With technology moving far beyond the speed of evolution, the ability for humanity to introduce ecology-changing stimuli into the environment increases tremendously. And the ability for plants and animals to cope with new stimuli remains constant.
So, for you to sit there completely ignorant of this very fundamental concept of the balance of nature and then try to make a point about climate change is quite arrogant and foolish on your part. But at least it's consistent with all of your other arrogant, ignorant foolishness that you throw out on this blog.
"Want to know what the world would look like if liberals had their way? California, which is in a free fall."
I love your in-depth analysis on that one, John. You wouldn't be pulling that one out of your ass now would you? Moron.
Posted by: Eric | February 17, 2009 at 02:17 PM
Eric, your comments are priceless.
Posted by: Lucille | February 20, 2009 at 06:35 AM
If you wanna buy some other things which are not listed in our website:
http://www.rs-item.com
http://www.rsloads.com
http://www.g2gmart.com
please contact with our customer service with on-line chat or add our Email,we will stock it for
you in a short time after you told us what you needed.
Posted by: runescape gold | February 20, 2009 at 09:49 PM
In runeup.com you can buy rs money,and also we have cheap rs powerleveling,you can play very well with these.
Posted by: buy rs money | June 19, 2009 at 08:38 PM
If you want to play well in RS game,you can buy cheap runescape money and cheaprunescape power leveling in our website.
Posted by: cheap runescape money | June 19, 2009 at 08:39 PM