Explaining vs. Justifying

There's an interesting exchange up on Brad DeLong's journal between himself and his former professor Jeff Weintraub, centred around a question many left-wingers respond to with vitriol whenever they see posed.

My wise ex-teacher Jeff Weintraub asks whether I really wish to endorse ... the

specific formulation you quoted approvingly from... Lindsay Beyerstein... that there are "very, very few" westerners "who make excuses for brutal theocratic thuggery." [That] doesn't hold up under serious examination. Instead, it's the kind of polemical overstatement that slides into its own form of absurdity and outright... and, I suspect, it amounts to a distortion and trivialization of what you yourself actually believe. OK, perhaps she really meant to say something else, and just didn't get around to refining this formulation.... But if we take this claim seriously as stated, then I would have to say to anyone who found it plausible--I know people who do, and I read others--that they are describing a different planet from the one I'm living on.

Read the whole thing. What's nice about this particular conversation is that instead of descending into the typical non-sequiturs, red herrings, ad hominems and caricatures of one's antagonists usually found in such situations, both sides not only actually stick to the issue (revolutionary!) but discuss it in a sophisticated manner. That said, I do think Mr. Weintraub gets the better of his old student in this particular debate: there's just no denying that there are many, many Westerners who aren't just making excuses for terror in the service of theocracy, but are actively cheering it on, willing the jihadists to victory. Such individuals may be rare amongst the blogging world's high-profile commentariat, but dig into places like this one or this one and it's easy enough to confirm that such sentiments are indeed common amongst the rank-and-file, and no mere right-wing caricature. Heck, even the sainted Cindy Sheehan has said some incredibly vile things (also see here) which none of the people I've observed exploiting the woman's grief have seen fit to distance themselves from.

I think Brad DeLong mistakes his own honorable motives for criticizing the handling of events in Iraq for those of the rest of the people who stand with him on his side of the aisle. Liberal commentators like him, Matthew Yglesias and Kevin Drum are reasonable enough and seem to be clearly motivated by a desire for the best for their country and the people of Iraq, but go lower down the food chain and considerably baser motivations are very clearly seen to be widespread. This sort of thing isn't exclusive to the left - it's equally obvious that a lot of the "base" support for the war in Iraq stems from a mixture of greed, imperialist yearnings, religious fanaticism and outright racist contempt for "wogs" and "ragheads" - but it serves no one's interest but that of the political propagandist to close one's eyes to the reality, which is that many Bush-bashers would love nothing more than to see Iraq collapse into anarchy, and don't give a damn about the people of that country beyond their utility as means of scoring cheap political points back home.

Comments

[Russell L. Carter]

Ah. But why is there so much vitriol? Could it be that the symmetry you imply here, is in fact not correct? And that a state of continuous war is awfully convenient for authoritarians pursuaded that in time of war the actions of the State are above reproach? I.e., one side of this debate has most of the power, and has a demonstrated inclination to assert executive power at every opportunity, to the extent of denying habeas corpus to those it merely defines to be enemies. Given that context, one can be excused I think for disdaining a certain preoccupation with analytical nuance on the matter of defining 'enemy', especially when that preoccupation greatly enlarges the pool.

[Abiola Lapite]

"a state of continuous war is awfully convenient for authoritarians pursuaded that in time of war the actions of the State are above reproach?"

Even accepting the complete truth of this, nothing could be better guaranteed to alienate possible allies than to refuse to put clear blue water between oneself and those who are cheering on Islamist brutality in the name of "resistance." The "No Enemies on the Left" slogan didn't work too well during the height of the McCarthy era, and it sure isn't working now. Come to think of it, back then too, many decent liberals refused to admit to themselves that some of their staunchest allies were in fact in the service of the enemy, and some are still refusing to do so even *today*, after both the Venona transcripts *and* the Mitrokhin archives have confirmed that the likes of Alger Hiss and Harry Dexter White were traitors.

"Given that context, one can be excused I think for disdaining a certain preoccupation with analytical nuance on the matter of defining 'enemy', especially when that preoccupation greatly enlarges the pool."

I completely disagree. No matter how much one may despise Bush and his political allies, refusing to acknowledge that murdering thugs like Zarqawi are by far worse says to reasonable people that one's own moral judgement isn't worth a damn, while one's sanity is questionable at best. It isn't enough to show in however many ways that Bush is bad, bad, bad, you also have to show that your side has something *better* to offer, and when I see people on the left cheering on jihadists and yet others refusing to acknowledge the extent of such madness, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say "Better the Bush-loving devils I know" than to throw in one's lot with people who actively seem to hate one's own country and everything it represents. Cindy Sheehan shooting off her mouth about how "This country is not worth dying for!" or how her son enlisted to fight for America rather than Israel just makes me disgusted and angry at *her*, and even more so at the people who are using her (with her enthusiastic assent, I must say) as cover for their own partisan agenda.

[Andrew]

Cindy Sheehan said plenty of nasty anti-American things but I haven't spotted a comment where she seems (to me) to be cheering on jihadists or saying she wants them to win.

Transcript of her SFSU speech:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Stewartrally.htm

[Abiola Lapite]

I never said that she was among those personally cheering them on: that's why I linked to Indymedia and DU when giving examples of places where people were doing so.

[dsquared]

[many decent liberals refused to admit to themselves that some of their staunchest allies were in fact in the service of the enemy]

and apparently many decent libertarians even today refuse to admit that people shouldn't be put in jail or thrown out of their jobs simply for their political beliefs.

[Abiola Lapite]

Since when has spying for the Soviet Union been a mere political belief, or are you trying to suggest that I think McCarthyism was a good thing simply because I used it as an example of how an atmosphere of right-wing hysteria doesn't justify liberal blindness to the actions of one's own partisans? If the latter, you're to be commended for your spectacular talent for misreading.

[dsquared]

Well, you've already endorsed the modern version of McCarthyism

(specifically, in http://foreigndispatches.typepad.com/dispatches/2005/07/no_more_sassy_r.html you thought that somone ought to have been thrown out of his job for his political beliefs)

so I didn't think you'd have objected to the 1950s version just because it was a long time ago.

[Abiola Lapite]

"Well, you've already endorsed the modern version of McCarthyism"

This is so incredibly stupid I'm at a loss for words. A private employer has a right to fire or hire whomever he or she pleases, and a paper which chooses to hire Islamist fanatics or Neo-Nazis to write puff-pieces for their causes is utterly irresponsible and likely to suffer the consequences in loss of public reputation. "McCarthyism" is when *government* officials harass you for your beliefs, not when your employer decides it doesn't want to be associated any longer with your disgusting ideas. Your dishonesty here makes me sick: are you going to claim next that it's "censorship" for a private newspaper to refuse to print something?

"so I didn't think you'd have objected to the 1950s version just because it was a long time ago"

Sure, in your mind justifying suicide bombers in print after abusing one's journalistic status to orchestrate a dishonest campaign for the jilbab is no cause for firing - no, it's "McCarthyism"!

I don't know why I'm surprised you should stoop to such depths in response to a post discussing the need for honesty: for you it seems people on the left can't possibly do wrong.

[dsquared]

["McCarthyism" is when *government* officials harass you for your beliefs, not when your employer decides it doesn't want to be associated any longer with your disgusting ideas]

So, the Hollywood blacklist wasn't part of McCarthyism then?

[are you going to claim next that it's "censorship" for a private newspaper to refuse to print something?]

Yes and John Stuart Mill agrees with me and said so in "On Liberty".

[for you it seems people on the left can't possibly do wrong.]

Not at all; I just take classical liberalism a lot more seriously than most of those who claim to follow it. By the way I can read and the Aslam article is still online, so I am unlikely to be fooled that it constituted "justifying suicide bombers".

[Abiola Lapite]

"So, the Hollywood blacklist wasn't part of McCarthyism then?"

Hollywood executives had the right to hire or not hire whomever they damn well pleased, just as I have the right to refuse to provide an outlet for whomever I want should I decide to start my own newspaper or pirate radio station tomorrow. No one is owed a job by anyone else, not even communist scriptwriters working in Hollywood.

"Yes and John Stuart Mill agrees with me and said so in "On Liberty"."

I don't give a damn what Mill thinks - I consider a dictionary a better reference in this regard, and privately owned newspapers refusing to provide a platform for Islamist nuts are entirely within their rights.

"I just take classical liberalism a lot more seriously than most of those who claim to follow it."

I *do* follow it, and a key part of what it's about is that individuals should be free to choose who they associate with, however much it might upset leftists inclined to scream "censorship" at their allies being snubbed. Maybe you ought to more closely acquaint yourself with said philosophy before attacking me for my support of the exercise of liberties you don't like. The "every privately owned paper must print every view" mindset belongs on *your* side of the aisle, not mine.

"so I am unlikely to be fooled that it constituted "justifying suicide bombers"."

No, talking of suicide bombers as having "expressed themselves" in a manner one personally wouldn't have chosen (as if they'd been exercising a lifestyle choice) while speaking in the same breath of the "sassy" nature of one's generation isn't exculpation, no sir ...

Here are some quotes from the article you claim does no justifying:

"Shocked would be to say that we don't understand how, in the green hills of Yorkshire, a group of men given all the liberties they could have wished for could do this."

"The Muslim community is no monolithic whole. Yet there are some common features. There are second- and third-generation Muslims without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. Which is why the young get angry with Muslim leaders who remain silent while the streets seethe. "

"Perhaps now is the time to be honest with each other and to stop labelling the enemy with simplistic terms such as "young", "underprivileged", "undereducated" and perhaps even "fringe". The don't-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn't mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more."

If this isn't justifying and excuse-making, I'd hate to see what the real thing looks like.

[dsquared]

[Maybe you ought to more closely acquaint yourself with said philosophy]

Don't be patronising. I actually gave a reference to the particular reference work of classical liberalism that I was talking about and you said that you'd prefer a dictionary. You are wrong to think that the dictionary would back you, by the way "government censorship" is not a tautology.

You also got confused between the distinct statements "you think it's censorship" and "you think they're not within their rights to do it"; you are wrong on this one too, as it is clear that if one owns a newspaper, one has the right to censor it. One of us needs to do more reading on classical liberalism, but it isn't me.

Exculpation is not the same as justification and nor is "excuse-making" the same as either. I've said this a number of times in the past; since you never give others the benefit of the doubt and get very angry when you believe yourself to have been mischaracterised, you really ought to be a lot more careful when you write, and a lot more careful when you read what other people have written.

[Abiola Lapite]

"I actually gave a reference to the particular reference work of classical liberalism that I was talking about and you said that you'd prefer a dictionary."

Since when has John Stuart Mill been the bible of libertarians? How many times have you seen me mention him with approval on here? In any case, this is irrelevant: even if it were Lord Acton or Hayek you were quoting, my agreement with them on other matters of philosophy still wouldn't have compelled me to reject the standard definition of the term "censorship" for whatever idiosyncratic version they were offering.

"You also got confused between the distinct statements "you think it's censorship" and "you think they're not within their rights to do it"; you are wrong on this one too, as it is clear that if one owns a newspaper, one has the right to censor it. One of us needs to do more reading on classical liberalism, but it isn't me."

No, one has a right to EDIT it, and "censorship" != "editorial discretion." You're the one fruitlessly attempting to sow confusion by eliding the difference between the two terms in order to reap the rhetorical benefits of the negative connotations of the first.

"Exculpation is not the same as justification and nor is "excuse-making" the same as either. "

Your saying so doesn't make it so. They are all one and the same thing I'm referring to.

"since you never give others the benefit of the doubt"

Rubbish. Who appointed you judge of my character? Have you read every word I've written and spoken with every one I'm personally acquainted with? What you REALLY mean is that I never give the benefit of the doubt to any of the left-wing rogues and charlatans you happen to have a soft spot for.

" get very angry when you believe yourself to have been mischaracterised"

Again, how do you know I'm "angry?" Since you seem to know my emotional state as well as a secret policeman, tell me, what am I wearing right now?

" you really ought to be a lot more careful when you write, and a lot more careful when you read what other people have written."

You take that advice first before daring to dish it out. As conveniently sloppy readers go you're one of the worst I've encountered - there seems to be nothing so quick to trigger absurd misreadings on your part as anyone daring to point out scum on the left, of which there are far too many.

That's the difference between the two of us - if someone points out that Lew Rockwell is off his rocker, Friedman was soft on Pinochet or George H. Bush was a race-baiter, I don't get all illogical out of some perverse feeling that I'm being personally attacked or something. I'm completely willing to admit that not everyone who agrees with me on most political matters is either sane or decent, and the fact is that I do so regularly on here, unprompted by you or anyone else.

[dsquared]

[Since when has John Stuart Mill been the bible of libertarians?]

Exsquueze me? I thought we were talking about classical liberals.

[No, one has a right to EDIT it]

No, one has a right to censor it too. You are not correct in your assumption that the specialised sense in which modern online libertarians use words like "censorship" (the sense in which "government censorship" is a tautology) exhausts the meaning of the words. The "negative connotation" is not there for rhetorical effect; if Ford commissions a report on crash safety and exercises "editorial discretion" over the chapter on the Pinto, then the correct term for what it is doing is "censoring".

[They are all one and the same thing I'm referring to.]

Well, since the title of this post is "Explaining vs. Justifying" I don't think we need to go any further into the question of who's the careless writer here.

[Again, how do you know I'm "angry?"]

Because anyone who used the kind of language that you regularly use when he wasn't angry would be a complete prick and I don't think you are one.

[Abiola Lapite]

"Exsquueze me? I thought we were talking about classical liberals."

And when again did one classical liberal get to speak for *all* of them? Do you assume they all had a Borg mind or something, and were incapable of disagreement on any issues large or small?

"No, one has a right to censor it too. You are not correct in your assumption that the specialised sense in which modern online libertarians use words like "censorship" (the sense in which "government censorship" is a tautology) exhausts the meaning of the words."

And why not? It's the same sense in which the dictionary uses it, and the same sense in which it is used in constitutional law. Why should I reject this supposedly "narrow" sense for one which grants you the power to fog the issue for people who are in the main going to take it in said "narrow" sense anyway?

"if Ford commissions a report on crash safety and exercises "editorial discretion" over the chapter on the Pinto, then the correct term for what it is doing is "censoring"."

No, it isn't. Ford would be guilty of many other sins if it refused to own up to its liability, e.g. misrepresentation or fraud, but "censorship" wouldn't be one of them. Only if, say, Ford lobbied a government official to have a third-party report bowdlerized would it be censorship. Just because a private party uses its editorial discretion in ways most people wouldn't approve doesn't make it "censorship."

"Well, since the title of this post is "Explaining vs. Justifying" I don't think we need to go any further into the question of who's the careless writer here."

Har, har! You crack me up! Didn't you get from the start that I was in agreement with Jeff Weintraub in *not* seeing much of a practical difference in how these two terms are used in online political discussions? Again, way to go with projecting, as you're the careless one here, not me.

"Because anyone who used the kind of language that you regularly use when he wasn't angry would be a complete prick and I don't think you are one."

Nice one; too bad I don't agree with this false dichotomy. I'm blunt by nature and call things as I see them, and if you imagine I'm overwrought with anger all the time, I'm more than happy to disappoint you. That you don't like the directness of my writing style is unfortunate, but I'm not in the slightest bit inclined to change it.

[dsquared]

Main Entry: censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable

[Andrew]

I hesitate to inject myself into this, um, blunt debate, but dictionaries appear to disagree over the precise meaning of "censor" - dictionary.com and m-w.com agree with dsquared's above definition [i.e., no mention of government], while the OED defines censor (v.) as "To act as censor to; see CENSOR n. 2b; spec. with reference to the control of news and the departmental supervision of naval and military private correspondence (as in time of war) or to the censorship of dramatic or cinematographic productions" with censor n. 2b as "An official in some countries whose duty it is to inspect all books, journals, dramatic pieces, etc., before publication, to secure that they shall contain nothing immoral, heretical, or offensive to the government."

[Jeff Weintraub]

Anyone interested in this exchange between Brad DeLong and me might want to check out the ADDENDUM I just added, which includes responses to some of the comments.

--------------------------------

Addendum: Jeff Weintraub writes:

I didn't actually expect Brad to post this particular exchange of messages (I thought we were just in the middle of discussing the issues, and we hadn't even gotten to the concrete cases yet), but life is full of surprises, and no harm done. Reading it does seem to have boggled some people's minds, which can be a good thing. On the other hand, judging from the comments, the results often generated more heat than light, since very few of the comments had much to do with any of the arguments that Brad and I were actually making.

The main reason seems to be that some readers didn't quite understood what this exchange was about. In line with the topic of Brad's post, I'm willing to make some excuses for them--and they were indeed partly excusable--since they came into the middle of a conversation, and the larger context for these particular messages was missing. (For reasons of space, Brad also had to quote from my messages selectively, and there's no way he could link to the whole message.) So some readers were a bit bewildered, and they went looking for things in my message that belonged to different parts of the discussion, and sometimes they responded to things they assumed I was saying that weren't really there, confused me with Bill O'Reilly, and in other ways let their imaginations run riot.. Brad said he intended to invite people into a high-level virtual seminar, but sometimes things don't work out exactly as planned. Well, so it goes.

At this point, it's probably not worth trying to reconstruct the larger conversation that Brad and I were actually engaged in. But here are a few accumulated responses to some of the comments. Basically, all I'm asking is (1) that both pro-Bush and anti-Bush people should make more careful distinctions and avoid wild exaggerations, and (2) that if we're going to have serious arguments about these issues (about which there are a lot of legitimate positions) we should begin by facing reality, recognizing the obvious, and not trying to deny (or obfuscate) the undeniable.

None of my responses below is very extensive, but the ones to Arjun, Jim Dandy, meno, Bruce Wilder, and AlanDownUnder touch on the most important substantive issues.

[ ETC. ]