You may recall that I mentioned the other day that David Gelernter’s WSJ op-ed was the occasiona of substantial reaction. One of the reactions came in the form of this interview at Slate with Dr. Gelernter which I recommend you read in full.

I thought it reflected a substantial failure of a meeting of minds. Let me cite an example. Am I mistaken or did the interviewer believe that any unfair or specious criticism of a non-white president was ipso facto racism while Gelernter did not?

I have active memories of thirteen presidents. I do not recall any of those presidents who did not receive unfair or even untrue criticism, some more than others. That’s politics not prejudice. If politics as usual is construed as racial bigotry what should we conclude from that?

Matthew Yglesias believes he and those with political beliefs similar to his are being victimized by the major media outlets:

The reason is something I’ve dubbed “the hack gap” over the years, and it’s one of the most fundamental asymmetries shaping American politics. While conservatives obsess over the (accurate) observation that the average straight news reporter has policy views that are closer to the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, the hack gap fundamentally does more to structure political discourse.

The hack gap explains why Clinton’s email server received more television news coverage than all policy issues combined in the 2016 election. It explains why Republicans can hope to get away with dishonest spin about preexisting conditions. It’s why Democrats are terrified that Elizabeth Warren’s past statements about Native American heritage could be general election poison in 2020, and it’s why an internecine debate about civility has been roiling progressive circles for nearly two years even while the president of the United States openly praises assaulting journalists.

The hack gap has two core pillars. One is the constellation of conservative media outlets — led by Fox News and other Rupert Murdoch properties like the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but also including Sinclair Broadcasting in local television, much of AM talk radio, and new media offerings such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller — that simply abjure anything resembling journalism in favor of propaganda.

The other is that the self-consciousness journalists at legacy outlets have about accusations of liberal bias leads them to bend over backward to allow the leading conservative gripes of the day to dominate the news agenda. Television producers who would never dream of assigning segments where talking heads debate whether it’s bad that the richest country on earth also has millions of children growing up in dire poverty think nothing of chasing random conservative shiny objects, from “Fast & Furious” (remember that one?) to Benghazi to the migrant caravan.

I have two questions. First, can anyone parse this sentence for me?

One is the constellation of conservative media outlets — led by Fox News and other Rupert Murdoch properties like the Wall Street Journal editorial page, but also including Sinclair Broadcasting in local television, much of AM talk radio, and new media offerings such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller — that simply abjure anything resembling journalism in favor of propaganda.

Does he mean that Breitbart and the Daily Caller “abjure anything resembling journalism” which I could potentially see or does he mean that all “conservative media outlets” do so which I think is an exaggeration?

The second is can you give me an example of the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Associated Press bending “over backward to allow the leading conservative gripes of the day to dominate the news agenda”? Or does that just mean they’re being reported?

David Gelernter’s essay at the Wall Street Journal is eliciting quite a bit of comment. This snippet resonated with me:

Not that every leftist hates America. But the leftists I know do hate Mr. Trump’s vulgarity, his unwillingness to walk away from a fight, his bluntness, his certainty that America is exceptional, his mistrust of intellectuals, his love of simple ideas that work, and his refusal to believe that men and women are interchangeable. Worst of all, he has no ideology except getting the job done. His goals are to do the task before him, not be pushed around, and otherwise to enjoy life.

but I don’t agree with this:

In short, he is a typical American—except exaggerated, because he has no constraints to cramp his style except the ones he himself invents.

Mr. Trump lacks constraints because he is filthy rich and always has been and, unlike other rich men, he revels in wealth and feels no need to apologize—ever. He never learned to keep his real opinions to himself because he never had to. He never learned to be embarrassed that he is male, with ordinary male proclivities. Sometimes he has treated women disgracefully, for which Americans, left and right, are ashamed of him—as they are of JFK and Bill Clinton.

And this does not resonate with me at all:

But my job as a voter is to choose the candidate who will do best for America. I am sorry about the coarseness of the unconstrained average American that Mr. Trump conveys. That coarseness is unpresidential and makes us look bad to other nations. On the other hand, many of his opponents worry too much about what other people think. I would love the esteem of France, Germany and Japan. But I don’t find myself losing sleep over it.

I don’t think this is true:

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama know their real sins. They know how appalling such people are, with their stupid guns and loathsome churches. They have no money or permanent grievances to make them interesting and no Twitter followers to speak of. They skip Davos every year and watch Fox News. Not even the very best has the dazzling brilliance of a Chuck Schumer, not to mention a Michelle Obama. In truth they are dumb as sheep.

but only because they’re not sufficiently self-aware to “know their real sins”. I don’t think that Mr. Gelernter understands politics or politicians. Few know their real sins and most have completely conflated their own personal good with the public good.

While at Reason Nick Gillespie retorts:

The most annoying (offensive?) thing about Gelernter’s piece, like others of its type, is that it presumes there really are only two possibilities, pro-Trump and anti-Trump, that swamp everything else, even traditional partisanship. Worse still, the binary hinges not on issues of substance or policy but ultimately on issues of style. To wave away Trump’s relentless cheapening of discourse—calling a porn actress to whom his personal lawyer paid $130,000 in hush money horseface is so fucked up on so many levels—is not really any different than being disgusted that he eats his steak well-done and with ketchup. Trump’s m.o. is to make everything about himself.

The best response to Trump’s general mode of discourse is to not take the bait and make everything about him and his personal preferences. There may be only two major parties in America, but the rest of the political spectrum is alive and well and the increasing number of us who are not represented by existing Republican and Democratic coalitions need to make our independent voices louder than ever. It bears repeating: Just 26 percent of Americans identify as Republican and just 27 percent of us identify as Democratic. Forty-four percent call ourselves independent.

which rings much truer to me.

I don’t think there’s anything of the “typical American” about Donald Trump and I challenge anyone to find anything in Mr. Trump’s history or actions, present or past, that would suggest that there is. I think he’s America’s id. Just as there were vague reminders of Jekyl in Hyde, there are some reminders of typical Americans in Trump. For one thing most Americans live within constraints. They aren’t just an accidental feature. They’re part of who they are.

In his column at the Washington Post Michael Gerson restates for the umpteenth time his argument for a perpetual military commitment in Afghanistan:

There is an unavoidable logic to a medium-footprint approach. Terrorist havens can’t be left in peace for jihadists to prepare and increase their technical sophistication. But striking from afar with drones and planes (as we’ve seen) is not enough to destroy these havens. American troops are needed on the ground to gather intelligence, provide reconnaissance and embed with local partners. And these troops, in turn, must be adequately protected.

But will Americans accept — will President Trump accept — what amounts to a limited but indefinite, forward military presence in the Middle East to preempt emerging threats? Will Americans conclude that the resulting military casualties are worth it to prevent potential terrorist murders of civilians?

This would require people to view commitments such as the one in Afghanistan in a different light — not as a war that will eventually end, but as the farthest outposts of homeland defense. And as the terrible price of security in a hostile world.

because there are some ideas so stupid they can’t be repeated often enough. Contrary to Mr. Gerson’s implication the history of our Afghanistan adventure has not been “the patient accumulation of successes”. It’s been at best one step forward one step back. Most of what could be accomplished there was accomplished in the first six months.

As I pointed out back in 2001 the only successful strategy in Afghanistan over the period of the last 3,000 years has been Alexander’s—settle a population there. How about you and your kids, Mr. Gerson?

We should have known. Some of us knew. If people like Mr. Gerson had been saying 17 years ago what they’re saying now, would we have invaded Afghanistan at all? I like to hope not.

In his op-ed in the Washington Post Hugh Hewitt has a one sentence statement of the great divide in American politics:

The court should neither “hurry up” nor obstruct social change. It should not try to redirect or dam the mighty river “Culture,” and it should cease trying to vacuum away the delicate compromises local, state and national legislators make between the deeply felt religious beliefs of a vast and diverse people. Rather, it should read closely the laws that Congress passes, hold them up to the Constitution’s guarantees and refuse the efforts of elected officials to punt power to bureaucracies.

Despite the conviction with which Mr. Hewitt makes that pronouncement there are many Americans whose beliefs about the Supreme Court are quite the opposite. They believe that it is the job of the Supreme Court to “do justice” and navigate the murky waters of the law to find passages to some foreordained destination.

That no compromise between these views is possible is evident from the vitriol of the last six months.

At Arc Digital Julian Adorney argues for the creation of a virtuous cycle:

But for the past two decades, partisan hatred has been on the rise. Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and political scientist Sam Abrams point to one cause: “rule changes and culture changes in Congress made it harder to maintain cross-party friendships.” With the decline of these friendships, civility in Washington has frayed.

In the Trump era, that hostile, partisan atmosphere describes the whole country. The lack of civility threatens to push us further away from a unified nation into two warring camps.

There is another way. Sometimes in a conflict, one party will offer the other an olive branch. Kindness, like hostility, is reciprocated. This can trigger a benevolent cycle, as one party de-escalates and apologizes, prompting the other party to do the same, until civility and goodwill are restored. But someone has to take the first step.

to oppose escalating incivility. Requite evil with good. I think that such a thing is only possible in a Kantian ethical system; it’s practically incomprehensible to instrumentalists.

IMO one of the factors in the rising political temperature is suburbanism. Civility is by definition the qualities or habits needed to live in a city. When most of the people live in the suburbs they may never have developed the skills necessary to be civil. They think it’s optional.

The argument that Tyler Cowen is trying to make in his piece at Bloomberg:

Following the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, there have been many calls for reexamining the U.S.-Saudi relationship, even for imposing sanctions. As an economist, I understand there are diplomatic fine points to this relationship that lie beyond my expertise, but still: It is worth reviewing the economic and exchange-based reasons why U.S.-Saudi relations have been so robust.

First, trade between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia is currently about $24 billion per year. You might think that the U.S. is now energy-independent, but many U.S. allies, most notably Japan, rely on oil imports. Part of the larger U.S. foreign policy stance is promising those allies freedom from major supply disruptions.

appears to be that the relationship between the U. S. and Saudi Arabia is a commensal one. I don’t think he succeeds but I do give him credit for articulating a different argument pretty well. The U. S. is afflicted by many parasites and the parasites have a commensal relationship with one another.

My conclusion from that is not only do we need to revisit our alliances we need to start making more demands of our presumed allies.

BTW $24 billion is on the order of .1% of GDP. Our economy grows more than that in a month.

What do you do when you’re a state without income taxes but also want more revenue? You impose a carbon tax as the legislature of the State of Washington has done. The editors of the Wall Street Journal complain:

Washington’s tax might reduce global emissions by all of 0.02% in 2035, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently estimated a global carbon price of between $135 and $5,500 per ton would be necessary to forestall a climate apocalypse. This level of taxation would be a political nonstarter anywhere.

But if the Washington referendum passes, liberals will be emboldened to push carbon copies in other states and Congress. Some on the right advocate a national carbon tax along with a supposed “dividend” for taxpayers, but here all revenue is for Olympia politicians. The story in Washington shows that liberals care more about increasing tax revenue to spend than they do about reducing emissions.

Washington’s carbon tax is not only regressive but ineffectual both because it is so low and because carbon emissions increase geometrically with income.

Here’s a modest proposal. Impose a $10,000 per ton carbon tax, prebated on a varying scale based on income up to $300,000. That wouldn’t be nearly as regressive, would have the potential of generating a lot more revenue, and might actually reduce carbon emissions.

The only question I have about Robert Kagan’s latest Washington Post column is where was this column when the WaPo was hailing Mohamed bin Salman as a reformer?

Many Americans have an odd fascination with the idea of the reforming autocrat, the strongman who can “modernize” and lead his nation out of its backward and benighted past. This was the hope for Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, a hope now somewhat diminished by the hit he appears to have ordered against Post contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey.

Sympathetic Americans saw Mohammed, or MBS, as he is known, as a transformational figure seeking to reform Saudi Arabia’s one-commodity economy and to reconcile Islam and modernity. If doing so required more not less dictatorial control, if it entailed locking up not only fellow members of the royal family but also women’s rights activists, moderate religious figures and even young economists raising questions about the dubious figures contained in his “Vision 2030” program, then so be it. Only a “revolution from above” held any promise of reforming that traditionalist, hidebound society. You know — omelets, eggs.

He’s being overly kind and insufficiently specific. It wasn’t Americans broadly who exhibited an “odd fascination” with MBS. I don’t recall any dinner table conversations to the effect of “Boy, what a great reformer that MBS is!”
To the contrary tt was Mr. Kagan’s editors and those of the other major media outlets as well as his columnist peers. Why are they so attracted to dictators? I can only speculate. I can’t remember who made the observation but it’s apt. They don’t want to live under an authoritarian system but they do want to run one. The lesson here is that we are ill-served by our pundits.

Mr. Kagan, the first step on the road to recovery is acknowledging you have a problem. It’s clear that you and your peers have a problem. When does the acknowledgement come?