The Authoritarian Personality and its Consequences

If nothing else, the past 6 years of American politics and culture have revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the authoritarian personality. The cult of the personality surrounding Bush's few remaining supporters, and the general concern that his supporters have for national and personal security, shows how much the authoritarian mindset can stick with us, even as we make more progress in technology and culture toward a more tolerant society. As Arbitrista says, there are two kinds of unity. "The unity propagated by the right is one that demands obedience to authority, while the unity of the left calls for civic engagement." In addition, Arbitrista points to the central problem of liberal politics. "The key problem with liberal politics [is that] it doesn't know how to cope with an anti-democratic minority. You can't reason with them, you can't ignore them, and you can't silence them and remain true to your own liberalism."

There is a solution to this problem. The solution depends on an understanding of what makes a person susceptible to anti-democratic ideas. The first step is to understand the two dominant ways of viewing the world. I call these ways the "relational model" and the "information model". The relational model is based on relationships. The most important relationship is between the individual and God. God is viewed as the source of everything because the individual has no other explanation for the workings of the world. If the weather is cold or warm, that's God's doing. If a person is healthy or sick, that is God's doing. Since God is the source of everything, the individual must have a relationship with God in order to do God's will. The strength of this relationship in turn determines the individual's level of happiness in life: the individual is doing what they should do (according to God) and what they want to do (pleasing God) simultaneously. For such an individual, there is no greater source of joy. All other relationships in the individual's life mirror this primary relationship. These include the individual's relationship with family: husband-wife, father-son, mother-daughter, brother-sister, older-sibling-younger sibling. The family is mirrored in society: the leader adopts the role of mother or father; a boss adopts the same role, or the role of older sibling. All of these relationships provide a great deal of structure and certainty for the individuals, so the individual is able to depend on these relationships for everything.

The informational model entails the opposite dynamic. It relies on science, or at least careful study and scholarship of the environment, in order to produce happiness. The information model argues that the individual's understanding of the world through information is the source of everything. This gives the individual much more importance in society. As a result, the individual does not need relationships as much. Indeed, very smart individuals will likely see relationships as suffocating, because relationships may be a hindrance to the acquisition and understanding of information.

Thus, the informational model poses a significant threat to the relationship model - so much of a threat that the relationship model takes measure to limit or eliminate the influence of the information model. Under the relationship model, information serves a useful purpose only if it reinforces and strengthens relationships. Accordingly, the people who provide information are restricted, or censored, so that they provide only that information that reinforces relationships. At the extreme, the relationship model excludes people who consistently provide information that threatens relationships.

The information model leads directly to liberal democracies. The enlightenment thinkers, such as Kant and Mill, argued that absolutely certainty about the physical world is never possible. Thus, everyone has equal claim to Truth because everyone has access to information and the ability to use reason to understand that information. The problem is that it is impossible to know if one person's understanding of information is the best or most complete understanding. Therefore, every individual lives under a constant cloud of doubt - doubt of other people and self-doubt. This doubt is alleviated only by the exchange of information between individuals through conversation; publication of articles and books; performance of plays, operas, movies, television; exchange of information through debate. All of these ways of exchanging information become part of a culture. More important, the state acts to preserve all of these methods by protecting individual rights to self-expression, and by having elections that depend on campaigns to exchange information. This is also why the liberal democracy cannot suppress the intolerant, anti-democratic minority. It is impossible for the liberal state to know for certain that the anti-democratic minority is not saying something important.

The relationship model leads directly to authoritarianism. Relationships exist in a binary world. Either a person is in a relationship or he is not. There is nothing in-between. There are many simplified ways of thinking that are very similar: either you are with us (in the relationship) or you are against us (outside the relationship); you are good (supporting the relationship) or you are evil (threatening the existence of the relationship). These simplified ways of thinking do not provide a supportive environment for the information model because most information does not have an obvious and immediate impact on relationships. Most information is neutral. However, the act of acquiring information poses a threat to relationships because acquisition of information depends on anti-social behavior: reading books, conducting experiments. Reading is the most anti-social behavior because, until we learn to read each other's minds, the relationship between the author and the reader cannot expand to other people. While it is possible to give a speech to millions of people, it is impossible to read more than one book or article at a time. As a result, the relationship model requires that all interactions occur between the higher authority and the lesser authority in order to prevent the information model from destroying the unity between people under the relationship model.

David Brooks argues, for instance, that parents must act under the relationship model, an be an authority figure for their children instead of trying to be buddies with their children. "I mean, don’t today’s much-discussed hipster parents notice that their claims to rebellious individuality are undercut by the fact that they are fascistically turning their children into miniature reproductions of their hipper-than-thou selves?" For Brooks, the authoritarian personality is the only defense against the more violent elements that are part of human nature. The problem, as Frank Rich points out, is that the authoritarian personality, as evidenced by Bush, is simply incapable to responding effectively to changing facts that can be understand properly only with the information model. Thus, while the authoritarian personality tries to promote security through unity at home, the inevitable result is that we become more vulnerable to threats abroad because we simply are not aware of them, or we cannot adapt quickly enough once we do become aware.

Since the authoritarian model has such disastrous consequences, most people turn to the information model because they want to be able to understand and adapt to change. Yet, there will always be anti-democratic minorities that think information is a threat to their relationships. The best way to soothe these minority groups is to make the relationship a natural part of information acquisition and exchange. This means that relationships should be the primary mechanism for communicating information: speeches, town hall meetings, electronic discussion boards, classrooms, campaigns and protests are the best ways to use relationships to exchange information. This means that direct democracy through the referendum process is the best form of government because it relies on personal relationships to work. Signing petitions can work only if a person has enough relationships to get other people to sign.

Using fragmentation to seek truth

In his latest piece, Stanley Fish argues that, in a secular state, cognitive dissonance is inevitable. it is impossible, he says, for every person's belief or idea to apply equally in every situation. "An attorney may believe that a client is guilty as sin, but that belief, while not abandoned, is put to one side in deference to the belief that everyone is entitled to a defense. A professor of literature may believe that a particular book is barely worth reading, but if a departmental syllabus requires it, she will teach it because she also believes that she has a duty to abide by departmental decisions. An administrator may believe that a policy is foolish and counterproductive, but he will nevertheless implement it because he also believes in the chain of command. A mother might preach a lesson (like don’t ever stop to help someone) that she would not defend in a philosophical discussion, not because she was being dishonest, but because she was honoring the difference between being a parent and being a philosopher." In this particular piece, Fish is implicitly arguing for the division of labor in life, not merely as practiced by a capitalist firm or corporation.

The problem with Fish's analysis is that he fails to recognize the mediating role of fragmentation. The claim of nearly every religion is that there is a single truth that can be accessed only through that religion. The claim of the liberal state is that, while there may be a single truth, it is not the duty of the state to help an individual seek that truth. Instead, the liberal state claims to protect the rights of individuals to seek that truth, as long as one individual does not infringe on the rights of another individual to either seek a different truth, or no truth at all. Most people would agree that the liberal state should make this claim, but Mr. Fish is going further, arguing that there may be no single truth to begin with, only different, not competing paradigms. Hence, Mr. Fish switches from a debate between a theocrat and a democrat to a debate between a believer in a single truth and a believer in multiple truths. For the believer in a single truth, the idea of multiple truths is tantamount to nihilism, or the belief in no truth. It’s just like the debate between the theist and the atheist, with the theist claiming that “if there is no God, then anything goes”.

Most people, including me, agree with the theist’s argument, but we don’t want the state to be an enforcer. Few people are willing to accept compartmentalization and fragmentation as the natural condition of human existence. Instead, as pragmatists, we accept compartmentalization as part of an ongoing debate between opposing ideas about the nature of a single truth that we believe in. I do not agree that this compartmentalization is an end in itself. If that were the case, there would be no basis for civilization because we would have no reason to even communicate with each other. Compartmentalization would extend to language, philosophy, politics, religion, and economics. We would create an infinite number of paradigms with little or no incremental progress. Indeed, the very idea of progress would be abandoned.

One reader, John Webb, argues that Fish is echoing Isaiah Berlin's argument in “The Crooked Timber of Humanity”. "Berlin’s argument is that there can be no ideal form of organization of public or private life. (Humanity, whether as individuals or collectively, cannot build a permanently safe house, only an imperfect house.) All ideas, when taken to their logical conclusion, are destructive of other equally valid ideas. As we live day-by-day and year-by-year, we encounter, we absorb, we reflect on several basic questions about life - personal relationships, knowledge, history, love, work and so on. At any time what conclusions we reach are not compatible with each other, if pursued to their logical ends. 'Liberty and justice for all' is an impossibility, so are industrial organization and human rights, good government and self-government. Our knowledge and commitments exist together in an unstable equilibrium which will collapse if we try to push one idea to its logical end. That is why the journey of life, not the end of it, is what matters."

For me, the fundamental problem posed by Fish and Webb is one of scale, not of belief. On a small scale - in a family, a village, a small town, or a tribe - it is quite possible to be consistent in one's beliefs because one rarely, if ever, finds contradictions. More important, the division of labor that produces all of these inconsistencies can only exist in very large systems: large families require a division of labor, as do large corporations, large governments or bureaucracies. When the scale is kept small, one person is often forced to perform many different tasks, and that one person can use those different tasks to pursue a single goal. After all, an painter will use many different colors and brushes to paint a single portrait. As the scale enlarges there is a natural push toward functional specialization to improve efficiency. Specialization of function leads to specialization of thought, which in turn leads to specialization of ethics. Hence, one ethical system that applies to one specialization will contradict an ethical system in another specialization.

Fish is trying to pay respect to this specialization and the different ethical modes that go with it. I aim to eliminate this specialization and keep systems small. Fragmentation is fine, but only if you can use it to pursue a greater truth. When you lose sight of the greater truth, fragmentation begins to serve its own ends. Fragmentation must always be a means to an end, not an end in itself.

Iraq: Lessons for Human Nature and American Government

As we get closer to the 4 year anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq, it is compelling to note the different liberal and conservative reactions to the invasion and its aftermath. The liberal reaction is based on the lies and fraudulent methods used to get the U.S. to go to war. For Frank Rich, the lesson of Iraq is that Bush has empowered Iran while simultaneously trying to push the U.S. into attacking Iran. The problem is that Bush has lost the ability to control the lies. David Brooks draws a much bigger lesson from Iraq. Brooks writes from the context of movement conservatism, which denigrated the benefits of government, arguing instead that humans did not need government to spontaneously organize. Thus, Brooks concludes that Iraq proves human nature is inherently violent and tribal.

It's almost sad to see Brooks renouncing key parts of conservative doctrine. I also have libertarian tendencies, and I sympathize with conservative economic arguments that that state is inherently oppressive, while individual humans are a constant wellspring of creative innovation as long as the state does not intervene. However, Iraq is a special case because it was never possible for Iraq to be a testing ground for conservative ideals. From the beginning, Bush had a singular vision of Iraq as a vibrant capitalist democracy that simply needed to have Saddam Hussein removed as its dictator. Thus, as Thomas Friedman always says, the central question about Iraq has been whether Iraq fits one of two descriptions. The first description, which can be called "good Iraq", says that Iraq is filled with good, creative, generous people who simply need to be relieved of Saddam Hussein's oppressive rule in order to express their natural goodness. The second description, or "bad Iraq", says that Iraq is filled with greedy, unscrupulous, murderous, tribal, sectarian people who will kill each other without a moment's notice if they aren't separated or oppressed by a dictator.
In short, did Iraq need Saddam Hussein to maintain order, or not? Brooks concludes that Iraq needed Saddam Hussein to maintain order, and he extends this conclusion to all aspects of society: human nature is cruel, and without order we will kill each other. Humans need structure and order in education, parenting, and society in general.

The problem with this perspective is that Brooks makes a conclusion from a false test case. If I were going to test human nature, I would not do it with inmates in a maximum security prison where the inmates have simply learned how to be cruel to each other. Brooks' conceptual flaw is thinking that Iraqi human nature can be separated from the effects of Saddam Hussein's tenure. It's the same flaw as thinking that a person is somehow rehabilitated by serving 30 years for murder. Instead, the person merely learns to become a better killer.

Conservatives have a strong tendency to ignore the effects of one's environment, assuming instead that all human behavior is determined by human nature, or some sort of fixed internal mechanism. They blame liberals for going to the other extreme in thinking that the environment is responsible for all human behavior and that there is no such thing as personal responsibility. In reality, human behavior is the product of the interaction between individual intentions and environmental context. The general term for this view is "situation ethics", but the reality is that one must know the details of the environment in order to understand the effects of human intentions on that environment. One cannot be separated from the other.

On Creating

One of the reasons I enjoy academia is because I am able to use the classroom as a forum for discussion and debate about issues that affect the world and my students. There are many professors, such as Stanley Fish, who disagree with my reason. Fish thinks a university is supposed to do two things: uphold standards and show students a diversity of resources. When it comes to anything else, such as helping the world or affecting people, Fish argues that only those people who are trained in the profession of helping the world or affecting others should be doing that. In contrast, the university should become a sphere of analysis that is isolated from the concerns of the world. In his latest piece, Fish argues that even the act of creating itself must be divorced from the concerns of the outside world. Whether it is painting a picture, taking a photograph, writing a story, composing music, or any other act of creation, Fish argues that the act must be considered on its own terms, no matter what other people think of the final product. Thus, whether the audience likes the product or hates it is no concern of the artist. The artist's sole concern is the art. The affect the art has on other people is incidental.

The best way to understand Fish's stance is to accept two principles: the idea of Platonic Forms and the idea of a division of labor. The idea of Platonic Forms entails a specific conception of truth: According to Plato, truth exists apart from human considerations. In this way Truth is very much like math. It never changes. More important, truth still exists even if humans don't. In order to perceive truth, the effort must be divided into separate tasks. That's where the division of labor comes in. If, for instance, we want to pursue the truth provided by math, we turn to a mathematician. If we want to pursue the truth of literature, we turn to a novelist. Each task has its own standards such that it is a craft that can be perfected. Outside of the academy or the artistic process, this would be like saying Tom Brady, the quarterback for the New England Patriots, is interested only in winning football games and improving the process of winning games. The affect on the crowd is incidental. If a person wants to see a great football game, that person should turn to someone who is specifically trained to play football.

I reject these principles. Truth is highly dependent on human perception. It cannot exist apart from human existence. This is because the only reason we seek truth is to improve human existence. We care about truth because we care about ourselves. In order to pursue truth, we need an improved understanding of the various elements of human existence. This improved understanding can only come through the study of the systems that affect humans. Every system affects every other system, and so we require interdisciplinary study to understand all of them.

In short, we cannot separate all issues from the contexts that produce them. Now, there are some cases in which we do want to separate an issue from the context that produced it. Wise words may be uttered by a person who is clinically insane, just as a sane person may produce falsehoods. It is important to consider the words with the context. They must never be considered in isolation. It follows that art, or any creative work, must be considered both on its own terms and in terms of how it affects the audience. One cannot be separated from the other.

What is a Democrat? What is a Republican?

Most political thinkers and analysts do not bother with party affiliations. Instead, they discuss political orientations. They talk about liberalism and conservatism, and how these ideologies or political philosophies are reflected in government. However, over the past 2 years the party label has become much more important and significant. Part of this is because of the influence of the Iraq War on American politics, and part of it is because of the influence or globalization. The rest is the emergence of political candidates that are either repulsive or appealing, but seldom in between.

The Iraq War is a major force because it is the most pressing issue driving today's political environment. Many Democrats have created a litmus test for democratic presidential candidates: if a candidate was against the war all along, or was initially for the war and has since turned against it, that candidate is viable. As a result of thie new litmus test. the previous standards for being a democrat have been tossed away. It used to be, for instance, that a Democratic candidate for any office was judged on two related criteria: (1) how long the candidate had served in a previous office and (2) how many innovative proposals the candidate could produce. These previous standards existed for a simple reason. Most democrats identified government as a source of positive, constructive change in society, and so a candidate for political office had to prove that he or she had the experience working with government, and the ingenuity to apply government solutions to difficult problems. However, before the Iraq War many Democratic Politicians voted to authorize it for various political reasons, including a desire to get the subject back to liberal issues (health care, education, social security, the economy) and the belief that war would happen only as a last resort. Thus, many democratic politicians were fooled by Bush, and are now suffering as a result. To be a Democrat to means that you cannot be fooled by political calculations to do something that is wrong.

This litmus test thus excludes Sen. Hillary Clinton as a viable presidential candidate, despite her years of experience and her detailed policy proposals, because she is deemed by many democrats to be the quintessential calculating politician, whose calculations obscure her judgment concerning right and wrong. In contrast, Sen. Barack Obama is a viable presidential candidate because, despite his lack of experience and detailed policy proposals, he is deemed by many democrats to have shown good judgment all along about right and wrong. As Frank Rich writes, the prevalence of judgment as a criterion over experience and policy expertise implies that, for many democrats, Obama should run for president now, before the Senate turns him into just another calculating politician who lacks sound judgment about right and wrong.

Globalization is the other force that is shaping our politics. The central challenge posed by globalization is this: Can the United States turn its citizens into educated, hard-working employees and entrepreneurs who can compete with educated, hard-working employees from China, India and Eastern Europe? Even if the U.S. can do this, do American citizens want this? The answer, for now, seems to be that the U.S. can train its citizens for a globalized world, but American citizens don't want to be trained yet because globalization only benefits the very rich, not the poor or the middle class. Many democrats are highlighting what they call the "middle class squeeze", which entails middle class Americans losing good jobs and replacing them with worse jobs. "Good" jobs have the middle class troika: high income, pension, and benefits (education, health, dental, eye care, etc.) "Bad" jobs, in contrast, lack these things. Instead, they are likely to have minimum wage, no pension, and no benefits. The Democrats point out that many hard-working Americans have lost the good jobs and now have 2 or three bad jobs to replace them. Thus, with globalization, the income levels for poor and middle class Americans have dropped while expenses for a middle class lifestyle, like real estate, education and health care, have risen. The debate is over how much income levels have dropped and how much expenses have risen.

For Democrats, the income levels have dropped dramatically while the expenses have risen dramatically. For example, a typical democratic argument may be that, because of globalization, a married father of 4 has gone from a 100k/year job as a software engineer to three $20k/year jobs working at Wal-Mart, Home Depot and Arby's on a contract basis. This story is simple: American workers are suffering under globalization because all the high-skilled knowledge-based jobs are being sent to India, China, or Eastern Europe, and American workers have to choose from a small pool of poorly paid service jobs. However, David Brooks writes that globalization isn't as bad as most Democrats think it is. He argues that income levels have not dropped much and expenses have not risen much.

For Republicans, the requirements are different. Part of the problem for Republicans is that there is no real definition for being a Republican anymore. In the past, a Republican supported low taxes, small government, and limited foreign military activity. However, under Bush most of these principles have been violated. The federal government has grown enormous, and there is perpetual war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only part that has remained the same is low taxes. Thus, many Republicans are trying to define themselves.

The presence of repulsive or appealing candidates is also a big factor. Most voters consider the personality of the candidates in addition to the policy proposals. The Democratic party has the unusual benefit of being represented by three popular presidential candidates: Clinton, Obama and Edwards. In contrast, the Republicans are fielding some very unpopular candidates, or even unknown candidates. Bush is slipping below 30% approval ratings, while McCain is becoming unpopular for supporting the Iraq war. That leaves Mitt Romney and Rudolf Giuliani. Romney has switched has political beliefs to become palatable to different voters, first running as a liberal Republican in Massachusetts and then running as a conservative Republican in the primaries. Thus, many voters don't know if he has any principles at all. Giuliani gained fame as a mayor who responded to a terrorist attack, but otherwise most Americans have moved on from the terrorist attack.

Hence, Bush is repelling citizens from the Republican party while Clinton, Obama and Edwards are attracting voters to the Democratic Party.

The Great Mismatch

It is a general truism about American politics that two forces shape the country: market forces and the heritage bequethed by the founders. The founders play a significant role because they gave us the Constitution, and their words, specifically Hamilton's and Jefferson's, gave us the tools to interpret the Constitution. Thus, the history of the country has largely been a contest between Hamilton's emphasis on the need for a strong central government and Jefferson's emphasis on the need for states to have strong rights against the central government, and the need for limited government. Thus, the market should provide for citizens' needs first, and government last.

More important, the philosophy guiding the market is one of supply and demand. If there is a demand for a good, a supplier will arise to provide that good. Thus, the important historical areas of the country have been characterized by politicians who come to the rescue exactly when the country needs them. This starts with the first president, George Washington, the "Father of our nation"; continues with the 16th president, Abraham Lincoln, who saved the union; then with Franklin Roosevelt (32nd president), who helped the country through both the Great Depression and World War II. In the post-World War II era, America has seen a number of so-called greats: President Johnson gave us the Great Society; President Reagan, the Great Communicator, gave us the end of the Cold War. Now, we come to the present time, which I call the Great Mismatch.

If every past era has produced nearly perfect leaders who responded to the needs of their time, our era has produced small leaders who are completely out of touch with the needs of our time. Our leaders are so small that they end up getting into colossal fights over irrelevant issues. We try to tell them which issues are important to us, yet they insist on looking the other way.

Take two examples: (1) the use of contractors to provide services that used to be provided by the federal government, and (2) Sen. Joe Biden's dismissive attitude of Sen. Barack Obama as a presidential candidate. In the first example, we see a mismatch between the requirements of waging 2 simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the use of contractors to do everything. The result is predictable: poor quality work, rampant waste, and lack of oversight by Congress or normal citizens through the Freedom of Information Act. In nearly every war that the United States has been involved, the size of the federal government has grown, taxes have risen, and there was a general sacrifice by the citizens to win the war. In contrast, during what the federal government calls the "war on terror", taxes have been lowered, the size of the volunteer army has remained the same, and federal government has allocated even essential services like intelligence and defense to contractors.

In the second example, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is probably one of the most articulate, if not the most articulate politician in the United States today. Obama is offering a remedy to our political culture that nearly everyone wants: unity instead of polarization, a willingness to work with the other side instead of demonize the other side, and, most important, a willingness to consider facts instead of ideology as a motivating factor in policy. Yet, Sen. Biden argues that Obama is just another flashy politician who lacks substance.

The United States does not need more expert politicians or policy wonks in government. We already have a very educated government that still can't seem to end what everyone considers to be a disaster, the Iraq war.
What the United States need more than anything else right now is vision: a vision of the nation that everyone can work toward, and a vision of the world that our allies can help us implement. Over the past decade, we have either had fear and paranoia, or a complete absence of vision. When politicians like Barack Obama or John Edwards start to offer vision, it's time for us to listen.

Should the U.S. withdraw from Iraq?

As a New Age Democrat, I have a very different perspective on the Iraq War compared to most other people. I recognize the fundamental roots of the conflict. I call it The Ancient World vs. The Modern World. Even though the war in Iraq is separate from the conflict with Al Qeada, the roots are the same. The New Age, after all, is the importance of technology in providing information to individuals via the Internet, cell phones, email, online video, and personal digital assistants. These tools give individuals the same powers that the state used to have exclusively to gather information about other citizens. As a result, in the Modern World, the individual is the most important component. A democrat recognizes this, arguing that the best political systems are those that take advantage of this individual empowerment and use these tools to enhance collective welfare. Hence, democracy is better suited to the Modern World than kingdoms, dictatorships, or socialist systems. Yet, communism is becoming more viable as individuals use technology to realize Marx's Maxim: "To each according to need, from each according to ability." That fits craiglist and Ebay perfectly. Governments recognize this and provide the tools as well as the training to use the tools.

In contrast, the Ancient World is based on the collective, whether the unit is as small as a family, as large as a religion, or something in between, such as a tribe or a religious sect. The Ancient World sees the individual, and the empowerment facilitated by technology, as a threat to this collective social units because it undermines the glue that holds the collective together. Collective units exist on the basis of love, loyalty, and trust within the group, but not outside the group. The individual emphasis eliminates loyalty to the group and makes it voluntary, based on reason.

It's clear to see that a social system based on the individual is incompatible with a social system based on collective units of various sizes. This is why the Iraq war could never have been successful. The idea of spreading democracy (a Modern World idea based on the individual) to a region based on the Ancient World social modes is inherently flawed, no matter how many troops, money, and effective planning went into the invasion. To put it bluntly, the bigger the invasion and occupying army, the bigger the eventual failure.

Yet, this is not how most people view this conflict. Instead, most people adopt a liberal, conservative, or centrist position.

The liberal perspective focuses on means instead of ends. It argues that the U.S. is in Iraq because of lies told by Bush, and so there is no reason for the U.S. to be in Iraq in the first place. Hence, the U.S. should leave as soon as possible. The conservative perspective focuses on goals instead of methods. It argues that the general threat of Iraq to the Middle East, and the specific threat of what neo-conservatives call Islamic Fascism (as represented by Al Qeada), requires an open-ended presence in the whole Middle East, with Iraq as the first stop, followed by Iran, Syria, and possibly even Saudi Arabia. These arguments are generally reflective of the arguments offered by liberals and conservatives regarding Vietnam: liberals claimed that it was impossible for the U.S. to succeed in Vietnam, while conservatives argued that the threat of Communism required a U.S. military presence in South Vietnam. It isn’t surprising that the arguments are nearly identical. The most prominent liberals today got their start protesting the Vietnam War, and today’s conservatives are largely seeking an ideological enemy to replace Communism. Neo-conservatives have found radical Islam.

However, these arguments have quickly run out of steam for most Americans because the Iraq War is so fundamentally different in its consequences and its inception that the Vietnam War. One fundamental difference is that the Iraq War followed the worst terrorist attack on American soil, Sept. 11, 2001, and so most Americans generally recognize the threat of radical Islam. The other fundamental difference is that, while Americans understand the consequences of radical Islam, they do not know whether Iraq is an element in those consequences. Thus, the middle, or centrist position on the Iraq War has been consistent: even if the U.S. made a mistake by invading Iraq, and even if Iraq is peripheral to the specific threat of Al Qeada, Iraq now represents a possible focal point for Al Qeada recruitment of terrorists. As a result, the centrist position devolves into a discussion of the significance of chaos. Liberal centrists argue that the level of chaos in Iraq is increasing, and therefore it is best to move American soldiers out of harm’s way, but not necessarily bring them home. Since liberal centrists recognize the possible threat posed by Iran and Syria in the region, they advocate using American soldiers as a buffer to separate Iraqis from each other and Iraq from neighboring states. On the other hand, conservative centrists argue that the level of chaos will increase whether American soldiers leave or not, and so the proper role of American soldiers shouldn’t be merely maintaining the status quo by getting out of the way. Instead, they advocate more actively confronting Iran and Syria, either through diplomatic efforts, or, at the extreme, military strikes.

The liberal position is represented by Frank Rich , who continues to highlight the unscrupulous methods use by Bush and his administration to push the U.S. into invading Iraq. Rich explains that Cheney has been very testy lately because he knows the unethical and illegal methods used to push the U.S. into war are coming into light with the Libby Trial. "The White House was terrified about being found guilty of a far greater crime than outing a C.I.A. officer: lying to the nation to hype its case for war." So, the basic problem posed by Iraq is that it is now a death trap created by the Bush Administration. The Libby Trial is taking on greater meaning because it is exposing why the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first place: to help the Republicans with the 2002 election, and put an end to the unresolved conflict of Bush’s father and Saddam Hussein.

The conservative position is represented by David Brooks . He notes that today’s students are much more likely to take the centrist position in American politics. He defines the centrist position as aware of the failures in Iraq and the of government at home. With this awareness, they have a "visceral distaste for people who are overly certain or unable to see some truth in the other side." Consequently, they like policies that are "practical, anti-ideological, modest." However, Brooks also notes that the centrist position does not want to "grapple with the Middle East or Islamic extremism." In previous columns, such as The Era of What's Next, Brooks has argued that Radical Islam is one of the defining problems of this era. "The people who will be most important are those who can most precisely identify the new era's defining problems. The first is the continuing rise of Islamic fundamentalism. It's clear the categories of the nation-state era -- rollback and containment -- are not working to reverse extremism, but what will?"