Brooks point is hilariously historically naive, and it must be intentional. If only Sotomayor had had the good fortune to attend Princeton in the decades that Princeton DID NOT ADMIT ANY WOMEN AT ALL, she would have certainly found it welcoming of all races and genders. The bad faith is palpable; in the fifties and sixties, Princeton was not sure that admitting wealthy east-coast Jews, who were the new category let in the door in the 20s and 30s, was such a good idea.


While both Andrew and David Brooks' quotes are preposterous, intelligent people can find a way to abhor evil and also aggressively critique the response to evil if that response happens to be deeply flawed. Lots of conservatives are much more disturbed by victimology than they are by actual discrimination, because they are self-centered and culturally ignorant. Then again, lots of straight white males are uncomfortable with liberal identity politics because it seems to implicitly disinvite them from the party. I'm more concerned about the latter group's reaction than I am about the former.


When you say that "Institutions, traditions and the past belong to those with power" I have to disagree. The past does not belong to those with power any more than the air is the property of the birds that fly in it. The past, together with its institutions and traditions is the common property of all men and women. At various points in time those traditions have privileged the powerful over the weak, but those same traditions and institutions have also stood for social justice, for the rights of humankind, and for the freedom of the weak and powerless to stand up to authority when that authority is seen to be overbearing.

And finally this:

This is true with respect to long-standing traditions, but with respect to powerful institutions versus the powerless, you're presenting something of a false dichotomy between conservatives and liberals. Liberals often side with teachers unions, for example, over inner-city parents who seek vouchers for school choice. Liberals often also privilege Wall Street firms and big business over entrepreneurs. They also privilege alumni of elite schools over smart folks from less well-connected backgrounds.

Consider this: there's a banker in Texas who didn't lose a dime during the financial crisis, because he saw the nonsense for what it was and kept his powder dry. His bank has profited while others have sought government welfare. He's a self-made billionaire. But he happens to be a Michigan State dropout. His name is Andy Beal. Don't you think this is the sort of guy the President ought to be tapping for economic advice, instead of the Ivy League grads who lost billions on Wall Street? Beal may have money, but he doesn't have any pull, since our current liberal President adheres to the status quo of privileging established Wall Street institutions such as Goldman Sachs despite their failures.

These are all obviously pulled from comments on yesterday's post on conservatism, Sullivan and Brooks. It's also worth adding one other critique--the conservative position on war. I got into a conversation with a historian via e-mail over this, and then thought some on it. I think there is a credible argument to be made that there was nothing conservative about the Iraq War. I don't mean conservative in opposition to liberal, as much as I mean conservative in opposition to radical. I see similar thinking in Lincoln's opposition to the Mexican-American war, a fight pushed by people who called themselves conservatives, much like Bill Kristol calls himself a conservative. This is obviously a major area where the power/privilege critique comes up short.


One last thing.

Last night I had my first dream ever about blogging. It was about a guy I'd banned from the site, who somehow managed to worm his way back in and was trolling everywhere. Who the fuck dreams about blogging? And what kind of bloggers have dreams about trolls? Am I sick or what? You know the worst part of my job is the best part--I think about it all the time. It lives with me constantly. I go to bed thinking about writing and wake up thinking about writing. Only my family occupies more space in my head. I think even my friends come second. That's a horrible thing to say. I would change it if I could. This isn't a complaint--I love my job, and love all of you who take the time and wrack your brain to offer feedback, either in comments or e-mail. The site is greatly enriched by the community, and more selfishly, I am enriched.

This isn't empty homily. I'm on my fourth of fifth book from the Reconstruction/Civil War period. Two out the last three books I've read were recommended by commenters--one of which (the Steven Hahn joint) I'd never even heard of. So much of writing is listening, and I spend more time then you think listening to commenters like deva, deborah, socgrad etc. One of the reasons why I have such a heavy ban/delete hand is quite selfish--I need to hear what people are saying. Ad hominem and strawman are static, noise, the din clouding out the sincere. My nightmare for this blog is not being unable to hear.

I don't think of blogging as a final verdict on my politics, as much as I think of it as a factory without walls. You are watching writing get made, largely because you are watching thinking get made. And then a few times a year, you'll see the final product of that thinking in long form. And even then I reserve the right to revisit that long form and dissent from my own words, to recast them, revise them, and reject them completely, if need be.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to