By Jonah Goldberg
Saturday, May 20, 2017
I’m pretty burned out on politics. But my NR contract
states very clearly that I must “put words together that leave the impression
you said something about politics stuff.” I wouldn’t want to violate that. So,
I’ll start with that stuff.
I think the appointment of former FBI director Robert
Mueller as special counsel to investigate the Russia–Trump connections is a
gift for the Trump administration in the short and medium term. And, if there’s
nothing to find, the long term as well.
Yes, yes, all the hand-wringing cautionary tales about
how special counsels once in power get seduced by blood magic, eat the hearts
of young children, invade Poland, and make Steve Gutenberg a star are true, if
by that you mean they sometimes get a bit out of control (hey, I’m talking
seriously, not literally — it’s all the rage). And that certainly might happen
here, even given Mueller’s sterling reputation. Maybe the blood magic will get
to him the way it did to Lawrence Walsh and Patrick Fitzgerald. He might even
stumble on something juicy and get enticed, like Homer Simpson finding a box on
the street. “Wire hangers? Expired medicine? Old newspapers?! Okay, Homer, stay
calm and quietly get this stuff inside your house!”
But I think Hugh Hewitt is right about Mueller being a
grown-up and an exemplary public servant, though I understand that some people
are concerned that Mueller is too chummy with Comey for comfort.
But these are all long-term problems. And so is the
concern that Donald Trump may actually be guilty of collusion in some
meaningful, criminal sense. So far, however, that concern has no hard evidence
to back it up, and, if such evidence exists, it will take a good long time for
Mueller & Co. to find it, confirm it, and present it to the public.
Meanwhile, for the next weeks and months, Democrats have
nowhere to go. I understand that Maxine Waters wants to get moving on
impeachment right away, but Maxine Waters is an embarrassing buffoon and has
been for my entire adult lifetime. She was probably a buffoon in my adolescence,
too, I just didn’t know who she was until my early twenties, when Kerosene
Maxine started referring to the LA Riots as the “LA Rebellion” and accused the
CIA of running drugs in South Central.
The point is that the Republicans can now say, “We need
to let the Mueller investigation take its course” whenever the subject of
Russia comes up. Even the congressional investigations have to throttle back
now because, as Lindsay Graham noted yesterday, it’s going to be very hard to
subpoena anyone who might be the subject of a criminal investigation. The mere
process of “de-conflicting” the congressional and Mueller investigations could
take months.
That means Donald Trump has a reprieve, politically. He
can talk about his agenda. He can talk about infrastructure and job creation
and all of the stuff he claims is his central focus.
Now, of course that begs the question. (It also raises a
question, which means something different from “begs the question,” even if a
billion people don’t know that: To beg the question is to assume a conclusion
that has not yet been proven. In Latin, the fallacy is called petitio principii or “assuming the
initial point.”)
The conclusion being assumed here is that Donald Trump is
capable of sticking to a disciplined message and agenda. To say the evidence
for this is lacking is an understatement on par with saying that there’s
anecdotal evidence dogs lick their nether regions.
This gets to a point I tried to make last night on Special Report. My friend Mollie
Hemingway is absolutely right when she says there are double standards at work
here. The Obama administration got away with things — inappropriately sharing
intelligence, influencing investigations, attacking the media — without a
fraction of the gnashing of teeth and rending of cloth we’ve seen from the
mainstream media, and without inviting a special counsel.
But the essential reason we got a special counsel and a
media feeding frenzy is that Trump seems determined to do everything he can to
invite chaos and hysteria to his administration.
The idea that the media or some shadowy cabal of “Never
Trumpers” forced the president to fire James Comey in a comically incompetent
manner is ludicrous. No one was holding Ivanka Trump hostage in a Motel 6 when
Donald Trump confessed to Lester Holt
that his administration’s explanation for why Comey was fired was a lie or
forced Trump to admit that he fired Comey for his handling of the Russia
investigation. (Though I like the image of David French clicking off the TV
after the Holt interview, untying Ivanka, and telling her: “You’re free to go
now, but if he stops tweeting stupid stuff, remember, we know where to find
you.”)
I keep hearing that the media frenzy is solely the
product of a conspiracy theory about Russian meddling run amok. What about the
conspiracy theory that all of Trump’s problems are of other people’s making?
Puttin’ on the
Ritz
I made this basic point at great length in my
“news”letter last week — the most widely read G-File of 2017, I believe, which
gets me an extra can of Spam from the suits. It now seems to be conventional
wisdom across much of the Right. Even Matthew Continetti, who has been among
the best at trying to find the Christmas pony amidst the manure piles, seems to
be convinced that Trump is his own worst enemy.
Now, as someone who’s been writing for two years that
Trump was lying when he said he could be presidential — to himself and to
everyone else — I’m tempted to ask, “What took you so long?”
But that’s a fruitless question. The question now is,
“Can Trump be contained?” Can Mike Pence, the Trump princelings, congressional
leadership, and the rest of the imperial court grasp that their own
self-interest depends entirely on getting Young Frankenstein’s monster to sing
“Puttin’ on the Ritz”?
If Trump could simply hold a tune — about jobs, tax
reform, etc. — for a few months, his poll numbers would creep up, some good
policy might get enacted, and, crucially for Trump, he would earn some
political capital that might take the bite out of whatever Mueller finds, if he
finds anything at all. Alternatively, keeping his fan base loyal but alienating
everyone else is a recipe for staying in the mid 30s for the rest of his term
and taking down the GOP majority in the House.
Needless to say, I’m skeptical Trump’s team can get him
into the tux and teach him to tap dance. But what other choice do they have but
to try?
Math, Horrible
Math
Via Reason’s
Robby Soave, I learned this morning about the effort to bring social-justice
principles into grade schools (Campus Reform has the full write-up, and I missed
Kat Timpf’s article about this for some reason). Well, that’s an old story, you
might say. And you’d be right. But this effort is focused on math.
Teach for America and something called “Edx” want
teachers to attack math as the vile product of the Pale Penis People of Western
Civilization:
In Western mathematics, our ways of
knowing include formalized reasoning or proof, decontextualization, and
algorithmic thinking, leaving little room for those having non-Western
mathematical skills and thinking processes.
Also:
Mathematical ethics recognizes
that, for centuries, mathematics has been used as a dehumanizing tool. Does
one’s IQ fall on the lower half of the bell curve? Mathematics tells us that
individual is intellectually lacking. Mathematics formulae also differentiate
between the classification of a war or a genocide and have been used to trick
indigenous peoples out of land and property.
Where on Earth does one begin? I’ve spent the last couple
years working on a book that dives deep into the Romantic rejection of the
Enlightenment. It was Rousseau who first, or at least most famously, leveled
the indictment against the tyranny of science in his First Discourse. But these ideas were already in the water and they
spread like contagion. For instance, Ernst Troeltsch, a German theologian and
philosopher, proclaimed:
Romanticism too is a revolution . .
. a revolution, above all, against the whole of the mathematico-mechanical
spirit of science in western Europe, against a conception of Natural Law which
sought to blend utility with morality, against the bare abstraction of a
universal and equal Humanity.
All of this prattle about “algorithmic thinking” is just
Romanticism with a fresh coat of paint. Now, I don’t want to get too deep in
these weeds, since the book won’t be out until early next year, and you’ll hear
plenty about it later.
Nor do I want to dismiss Romanticism as, well, romantic
nonsense. I’m actually sympathetic to some of it. But here’s the thing:
Romanticism — or if you prefer post-modernism, relativism, etc. — has no place in math itself. To say that
the poetry of the self has a place in the world of math is like saying that the
boiling point of water depends on your feelings.
Take that bit about the bell curve of IQ. It’s an
unpleasant fact that half of all people are of below average IQ. It’s also true
that half of all people are below average height, weight, and everything else. And the other half are
above average. You know why? Because
that’s what “average” means.
“Mathematics” doesn’t tell us that “that individual is
intellectually lacking.” It just tells us that, by one measure of aptitude or
intelligence, people who score on the lower end scored on the lower end. Any
other interpretation comes from outside the realm of math. There are
accomplished people of low IQ and there are high-IQ losers sitting in beanbag
chairs in their parents’ basements. There are evil smart people and righteous
dumb people, too. Your soul cannot be measured mathematically.
The bit about how math distinguishes between genocide and
war is equally preposterous. Let us first stipulate that there is a difference
between “genocide” and “war” and that knowing the difference has some utility.
I’m open to different perspectives on where the line is drawn or how the
definitions are reached. I for one consider it an enduring crime that the
Soviets successfully defined away their own mass murder so that it didn’t fit
the definition of genocide.
But surely marching millions into gas chambers is not the
same thing as war. It’s true that one tool — among many — for making this
distinction is called “math.” The model we came up with for distinguishing
between war and genocide involves this mysterious craft called “counting.” But
it also involves other things such as motives, means, and other aspects of what
serious people call historical context. These criteria do not come from math,
they come from politics, morality, and reason. All math does is count the dead.
It takes human intelligence to place the dead in context. The Spanish Flu
killed millions. It wasn’t genocide. You could look it up.
Blaming math for what people do with it should disqualify
you from teaching math.
It’s also immoral, self-indulgent, and dangerous
nonsense. We use math to make vaccines and model how to get them to indigenous
peoples. We use math to feed the hungry. Teaching children that Western math is
pernicious is the very essence of perniciousness. It is also incandescently
stupid. Do Chinese computers use Confucian math?
This is Orwellianism in plain sight. In 1984, Winston Smith wonders whether the
State will say “2 + 2 = 5.”
“You are a slow learner, Winston.”
“How can I help it? How can I help
but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”
“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they
are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You
must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”
The hypocrisy here is really quite breathtaking. How much
pabulum have we been force-fed about the moral imperative of teaching STEM
classes so that we can be “competitive” in what Barack Obama called the
“education arms race” with China and India? How much head-popping hysteria have
we had to put up with about the evils of teaching “creationism”?
Yet here we have a federally
funded organization teaching poor and underprivileged children to look upon
“formalized reasoning” and “algorithmic thinking” as tools of oppression.
China and India must be laughing their asses off. “Yeah,
please go with that!”
No comments:
Post a Comment