The Cocoon

The relaunched page for the Victory Caucus is intended to be "a one-stop-shop for anyone interested in learning about what's really going on in the war." To this end, it boasts two columns of links: One is headlined "Official US Sources," and includes releases from Centcom and DoD touting progress in Iraq; the other is headlined "Blogs and New Media," and includes links to military bloggers and freelancers like Michael Totten. There are exactly zero links to any of the media organizations that do the vast majority of on-the-ground reporting from the Middle East.

When the next generation of conservatives sits down to analyze where this generation of conservatives went wrong, they would do well to start with efforts like the Victory Caucus page, and the mentality it represents - not the traditional (and justified) right-wing belief that many establishment institutions aren't to be trusted, but the naive and ridiculous theory that they can be ignored entirely. As those noted pacifists and appeasers Rich Lowry and Max Boot have suggested, this delusion hasn't just cost conservatives their credibility and their majority; it's contributed mightily to America's struggles in Iraq.

Comments

Amen, Ross. It's terrible for America for one of the major parties to be so militantly opposed to engaging with truths it doesn't like.

The administration reflects that mentality, eschewing policy for politics, and actually dismissing inconvenient facts as being "reality-based," and not deferential enough to the administration's ability to create its own reality.

I don't know what to call that philosophy, but it certainly doesn't seem to have much to do with Burke.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 24, 2007 6:16 PM

Um, Ross, the site is a work in progress. NZ Bear said it was closer to being a one stop shop, not that it was. My guess is, they'll add something related to mainstream media coverage later, but it will probably be rightly critical of a lot of it.

Posted by Joe Marier | July 24, 2007 6:38 PM

Some of us haven't waited for the next generation to tell us what is going wrong with the present conservative movement.

Posted by Michael Brendan Dougherty | July 24, 2007 6:43 PM

I'm not exactly sure when the conservative movement's (often justifiable) ire at the liberal establishment and major media outlets boiled over into complete and utter disregard for expertise, intellectual rigor, objective reporting, and news that hasn't been pre-chewed by their own ideological gatekeepers. But this happened well before the so-called Victory Caucus came into being. The mindset was firmly in place by 1980.

I guess the one good thing to be said about outlets like Underpants Media is that they cast this phenomenon into such stark relief.

The only change in this trend that I've seen recently is the greater willingness of thoughtful conservatives, yourself included, to stop making excuses for this behavior.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 24, 2007 6:54 PM

Shorter Ross: Conservatives should be listening to the liars, because the liars are telling the truth; conservatives shouldn't be listening to the truth-tellers, because the truth-tellers are lying.

Good one, Ross!

Posted by Al | July 24, 2007 7:06 PM

Shorter Al: Let me prove Ross's point for him in two short sentences. Good one, Ross!

Posted by Algernon | July 24, 2007 7:14 PM

Ross: Ouch. And here I was enjoying your BHTV appearances; that'll teach me.

First: TVC isn't a "conservative" effort. I'm more a libertarian myself, albeit a hawkish one, and I'm sure that plenty of conservatives who didn't / don't support the Iraq war would object to a pro-victory-in-Iraq effort being assumed to be conservative by definition.

Second, Joe is correct (thx Joe) that the site is a work in progress. I'm considering adding MSM sources , but frankly am on the fence not because I think they are Evil Liars, but simply because I'm pretty sure than everyone knows exactly where to find CNN and MSNBC and Fox, whereas I don't think folks knew where to find all the content from official sources / new media we're aggregating. As we ramp up more, the automated feeds will be supplemented more by human-identified highlighted stories, and we certainly will point to quality MSM work when we see it.

Considering that I am not much of a conservative (although I did get that nice Blogger of the Year award from CPAC, so mea culpa on that) I feel a bit like I walked into a family argument I have nothing to do with when you say "When the next generation of conservatives sits down to analyze where this generation of conservatives went wrong, they would do well to start with efforts like the Victory Caucus page, and the mentality it represents - not the traditional (and justified) right-wing belief that many establishment institutions aren't to be trusted, but the naive and ridiculous theory that they can be ignored entirely." In sum: a) we're not a conservative effort, and b) we're not attempting to our suggesting that others ignore establishment institutions --- but we're certainly suggesting that they should be viewed with skepticism and shouldn't be blindly trusted.

Other than that, agree with your points 100% ! Carry on...

Posted by NZ Bear | July 24, 2007 8:01 PM

How does any of that further your purpose, NZ Bear?

If it's victory in Iraq you want, being libertarian and not suggesting that others ignore the news out of Iraq (whilst ignoring it yourself) isn't going to get you very far.

I gather that Ross is suggesting that you analyze and grapple with the (apparently real) bad news, not simply take notice of it or pass it on. That might be a way to begin to learn from our mistakes, to craft a better plan, and thereby chart a course to victory.

Wars are not won by news filters alone.

Posted by southpaw | July 24, 2007 8:41 PM

You're welcome, NZ. I agree with you that things are being imputed based on little data here. Sorry, Ross.

Posted by Joe Marier | July 24, 2007 9:43 PM

Okay, let's frame it this way ...

One of two things is true:

(1) The media, whatever its faults generally and with regard to Iraq in particular, has generally gotten the story right: things in Iraq are very bad, and, on the whole, not getting better.

(2) The media has gotten it wrong and things are going swimmingly (or, at least, much, much better than one would believe from the media).

Now one of those two scenarios is true. If the first is true, as Ross obviously believes, then Ross' post is well taken, NZ Bear's status as a self described libertarian is irrelevant, and Ross' arguable (and I can see the counterargument) unfairness regarding the lack of main stream media links on the site is a minor point which doesn't take away from his larger argument.

Of course, if one believes the second scenario, then one is going to conclude that Ross is being unfair. At this point in time, though, IMO, believing the second scenario is basically a form of mental illness.

Posted by LarryM | July 24, 2007 11:44 PM

There are exactly zero links to any of the media organizations that do the vast majority of on-the-ground reporting from the Middle East.

And your point is? Do you think there are people out there who know about the Victory Caucus website but not the New York Times/Washington Post/etc ? I would be will to gamble that people who are web-savvy enough to find the VC website already know how to access MSM websites.

this delusion hasn't just cost conservatives their credibility and their majority; it's contributed mightily to America's struggles in Iraq.

So wait, the Democrats won a slim majority in Congress because conservative don't trust the mainstream media? And counterinsurgency is hard because conservative don't trust the mainstream media?

Talk about a cocoon...

Posted by Steven | July 25, 2007 3:02 AM

qbwjrpyo jvhmpatb thrfqgknv hnxjwule koci zaxop vymxc

Posted by byearxld kfzjsv | July 25, 2007 3:53 AM

[quote]So wait, the Democrats won a slim majority in Congress because conservative don't trust the mainstream media? And counterinsurgency is hard because conservative don't trust the mainstream media?[/quote]

Democrats won because conservatives are unable to acknowledge reality when it came to Iraq and this became obvious to all. Counterinsurgency is also harder when you refuse to acknowledge reality, BTW.

But keep on with that, please. It's been working for you all so far.

Posted by tequila | July 25, 2007 5:35 AM

Steven, NZ Bear, do you guys know what "one-stop shop" means? It means you don't exclude stuff on the grounds that "everyone already knows where that is." That would be requiring them to make another stop.

Posted by William Burns | July 25, 2007 8:57 AM

William, do you know what "closer to" means? It means that the site as it stands is not a one-stop shop at this point. Also, there's that phrase, "will point to quality MSM work when we see it". I think that a site that includes an aggregator for freelance work and primary sources, plus quality MSM work, would certainly qualify as a "one stop shop for what's really going on in the war."

The only argument here is about what's really going on in the war. If you want to have that argument, then fine. Just don't argue that NZ Bear or the Victory Caucus advocates ignoring all MSM sources entirely. That's a misrepresentation.

Posted by Joe Marier | July 25, 2007 10:07 AM

Of late, John Burns and Michael Gordon of the NYT and some WAPO reporters and pundits, including Ignatius, have written cautiously favorable articles on the "surge."

Rich Lowry, himself, who came close to throwing in the towel on the Iraq War, has become rather optimistic about events on the Iraq ground. See his recent interview with General Keane Here.

While much mainstream media commentary is ideological and affected by Bush Derangement Syndrome, some of it is fair and hardheaded. This was Lowry's and Boot's point. Just now the nightmare of the Democrats- x Lieberman- and the majority of the liberal is that the war and possibly even the politics has turned, in favor of vital American interests, thus proving Bush right despite serious earlier strategic and tactical mistakes.

Posted by Peter Leavitt | July 25, 2007 12:29 PM

Elvis (if you haven't left the building) -

It's even worse when/that each of the major parties is so militantly opposed to engaging with truths it doesn't like. Different truths, of course, and I might concur with your implication that the Republican opposition has been on net more damaging at least over the few years.

(n.b. I say the above as an Yglesias manqué upper middle class Dem; au revoir - my limo is here to take me to the Gulfstream.)

Posted by empiricus | July 25, 2007 12:31 PM

America as a whole is going to have to face at some point that "conservatism" in America means as much "nationalism" as it does anything. Conservative philosophies like small government, self-reliance, and non-interventionism have been co-opted by a nationalist agenda and used for propaganda purposes. The "Victory Caucus" is yet one more example. Just the name itself rings the bells of Goebbels and Stalin and Mao. If you think Hugh Hewitt is going to give you any sort of objective viewpoint on the war you are, indeed, mentally ill.

Posted by bakum | July 25, 2007 1:58 PM

The cocoon effect leads to party identity becoming the most important principle. This is a very interesting point about the GOP 25 years ago vs. the GOP of today.

empiricus-- I don't think it's fair to assert moral equivalence between the Democrats and the GOP as far as reality-aversion goes. On balancing the budget, health care, foreign policy, new energy sources, global warming, and Iraq, Democratic candidates are at least putting proposals out there that you can accept or reject. Meanwhile the GOP field is talking about the importance of a tough-guy pose vis-a-vis Iran, how we need to be ready to torture people, and avoiding saying anything specific about Iraq unless directly asked. Your thoughts?

I think I'd be a Republican-- a 1970s-era Republican, for balanced budgets, relatively smaller government, humble about the use of force-- but that party just doesn't exist anymore. I voted Perot in 1996, and have worked at conservative places, but today's GOP is just way out there. It won't last much longer; losing elections has a way of concentrating the mind.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | July 25, 2007 2:43 PM

NZ Bear's defense: I'm considering adding MSM sources , but frankly am on the fence not because I think they are Evil Liars, but simply because I'm pretty sure than everyone knows exactly where to find CNN and MSNBC and Fox

Victory caucus page: "our goal of being a one-stop-shop for anyone interested in learning about what's really going on in the war."

Done and done.

Posted by nolaboyd | July 25, 2007 4:52 PM

Nolaboyd,

He also said, "As we ramp up more, the automated feeds will be supplemented more by human-identified highlighted stories, and we certainly will point to quality MSM work when we see it."

Plus the full quote is,

"...we hope to come closer to our goal of being a one-stop-shop for anyone interested in learning about what's really going on in the war."

Remember, Ross said that The Victory Caucus represents a mentality that the MSM can be ignored entirely. That mentality is not reflected on the site, or by NZ Bear's clarifications.

Posted by Joe Marier | July 25, 2007 5:22 PM

Where conservatives when wrong in foreign policy was when they abandoned conservativism for neoconservatism. Conservatism is anti-utopian because of its realistic view of human nature and the various practical difficulties of social life. Neoconservatism, in contrast, has the wildly optimistic belief that all we have to do is fight a few wars and the whole world will quickly become democratic and capitalistic. It is really more of a religion than a carefully thought-out philosophy.

The problem was that, with the end of the Cold War conservatives were desperately searching for a crusade to replace it, and so they bought the neocon snake-oil without really checking out if it made any sense. In the last year or so, however, with the disaster in Iraq, a lot of conservatives have been returning to their senses.

By the way, check out this article by Robert Kagan. I don't think you could really call him a neocon anymore:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/8552512.html

Posted by bob0 the chimp | July 26, 2007 4:13 PM

Elvis -

I wasn't trying to imply moral equivalence as such.

At the presidential (or national) politics level I agree that there is precious little sign of reality-basedness on the Repub side (except intermittently from Dr. Paul) and hasn't been since 1996 (I didn't vote for Bob Dole but I had a lot of respect for him), whereas there is frequent if still sadly sporadic reality-awareness on the Dem side (e.g. Obama stating that he's brave enough to talk to the Scary Bad People). But I submit to you that of your list of topics, none of Dee Big Three are about to offer anything actually serious about e.g. fossil fuel consumption (like commit to raising end user fossil prices say 25% per year for the next 8 years), or, frankly, Iraq. The Ds' wishful thinking is likely to be on net less destructive than the Rs' wishful thinking, but I find it no less wishful thinking all the same.

I suspect you and I aren't so far apart - I too am closer to a 70s liberal republican (I'm old enough that my first presidential vote was for Ford) than any present US alignment. I miss Paul Tsongas, who had the stones to challenge GHWB when he was riding high, and the pride (if also wishful thinking) to talk to the voters as if they were adults.

Posted by empiricus | July 27, 2007 1:26 AM

oeaihv cleqi yecvtdwu tebgrxf stboyfepm fxarnqjws frzjwnu

Posted by wfhgz uidszwh | July 28, 2007 1:56 PM