John Kenneth Galbraith, among his many other distinctions, is credited with making the phrase "conventional wisdom" a common part of the American vocabulary, thanks to his book The Affluent Society.
He reflects on the concept of conventional wisdom a bit in his latest book, The Economics of Innocent Fraud (2004). Referring in the opening paragraph of the introduction to his 70-year career as teacher, activist and public servant, he says:
During that time I have learned that to be right and useful, one must accept a continuing divergence between approved belief - what I have elsewhere called conventional wisdom - and the reality. And in the end, not surprisingly, it is the reality that counts. ... [I]t is my conclusion that reality is more obscured by social or habitual preference and persona or group pecuniary advantage in economics and politics than in any other subject.
The incomparable Daily Howler has been faithfully chronicling the ways in which our Potemkin press corps creates, disseminates and perpetuates conventional wisdom about matters political. Not surprisingly, those press corps truisms more often than not provide support to the views of the Republican Party, the party which is dedicated heart and soul to comforting the comfortable.
But sometimes the comfortable scripts of the press corps benefit the Democrats in the short run. One developing theme out of the debate could become one of those. This excerpt is from the generally liberal columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr. Bush Scowls, Democrats Smile WorkingforChange.com 10/01/04.
“It's one thing to be certain, but you can be certain and be wrong,” Kerry said. “It's another thing to be certain and be right, or to be certain and be moving in the right direction, or be certain about a principle and then learn new facts and put them to use in order to change and get your policy right.” Bush's core claim that he sticks to his guns is the flip side of one of his core weaknesses: that once he decides something, he never, ever, rethinks or challenges himself, no matter what the evidence says. [my emphasis]
Now, Dionne's column on the debates is decent, by Big Pundit standards, at least. And, of course, Kerry is happy to stress the point that Bush is bull-headed and unwilling to re-examine assumptions that turn out to be wrong.
But before this version crystallizes into conventional wisdom, it's worth thinking about in just what sense this may be true. Because, as Juan Cole noted in his blog post I linked earlier, Bush in fact has changed directions in Iraq in important ways.
The real problem with Bush's dogmatism, stubbornness, excessive "certainty," however we characterize it, is summed up well in the closing paragraphs of Seymour Hersh's Chain of Command (2004):
As he campaigned, in the summer of 2004, George Bush repeatedly reassured audiences that his policies had made America safer. "We've turned the corner," was the refrain in his stump speech. "We're moving America forward by extending freedom and peace around the world." Iraq and Afghanistan, he said, "are now governed by strong leaders. They're on the path to free elections." America, he added, would engage its enemies around the world "so we do not have to face them here at home." The President did not mention the missing weapons of mass destruction, the growing G.I. death toll, the civilian casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the adverse Supreme Court decisions in June of 2004 that challenged the legal basis of his postware prison system, and told him that foreigners, as well as American citizens, were entitled to due process even in a time of war. And he did not discuss growing alienation and bitterness as Americans, already torn by racial and religious differences, became increasingly politically and economically divided in the past four years.
We have a President who spent months terrorizing the nation with dire warnings about mushroom clouds emanating from Saddam Hussein's arsenal and then could say, as he did in a campaign speech in August of 2004, that it didn't matter. "We may still find weapons," Bush said. "We haven't found them yet. ... Let me just say this to you: knowing what I know today, we still would have gone into Iraq." We have a President who can stand aside as the dogs of war are turned loose on prisoners and then declare, as he did in June 2004, that "America stands against and will not tolerate torture. We will investigate and prosecute all acts of torture and undertake to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment in all territory under our jurisdiction" and that "freedom from torture is an inalienable human right." There are many who believe George Bush is a liar, a President who knowingly and deliberately twists facts for political gain. But lying would indicate an understanding of what is desired, what is possible, and how best to get there. A more plausible explanation is that words have no meaning for this President beyond the immediate moment, and so he believes that his mere utterance of the phrases makes them real. It is a terrifying possibility. [my emphasis]
In other words, Bush's stubbornness problem is not that he doesn't change course. It's that he refuses to recognize important realities that contradict his desired picture of how the world should be.
No comments:
Post a Comment