Today's NY Times op ed confirms it: David Brooks' is beyond dull-witted.
Once again, Brooksie has proven his unique ability to take an observation and apply it completely inappropriately and illogically to a specific situation.
Davey's failure of logic (not to mention creative thought) is truly astounding. He "reasons" that if cultures cannot be changed successfully from outside forces, and if people value "the coherence their culture provides" beyond everything else, then, (try not to laugh) "... it is no wonder that young Muslim men in Britain might decide to renounce freedom and prosperity for midair martyrdom. They are driven by a deep cultural need for meaning. But it is also foolish to think we can address the root causes of their toxic desires. We’ll just have to fight the symptoms of a disease we can neither cure nor understand."
Where did the last two sentences come from? Am I missing something? Is there not a logic leap of Middle East proportions between the premise and the conclusion that "it is foolish to think we can address the root causes of their toxic desires"? Are we to suppose that the the "culture" valued by the young Muslims in Britain is nothing more than martyrdom? I think not, Davey.
And are we then to take another giant leap to conclude, "We’ll just have to fight the symptoms of a disease we can neither cure nor understand." Maybe you can't understand, Brooksie, but kindly speak for your and Bushie's simpleton selves. While most of us do not completely understand what motivates suicide bombers to want to kill us, we've got a pretty good idea that our foreign policy has a wee bit to do with it. What is truly astounding is that Davey hasn't even the journalistic curiosity to want to find out. Instead, he is content to stay the Bush course...declare war on an amorphous idea--"terrorism"--and just kill the buggers--whoever the f--k they are.
I have a suggestion. Please don't apply your amateur sociology to people you refuse to meet and know nothing about. Rest assured, they are not the one-dimensional morons with a death-wish culture you portray them to be.
This is not journalism, Davey-boy. It is irresponsible nonsense disguised as intellectual thought.
The Culture of Nations
By David Brooks
The New York Times
Diplomats in New York rack up a lot of unpaid parking tickets, but not all rack them up at the same rates. According to the economists Raymond Fisman and Edward Miguel, diplomats from countries that rank high on the Transparency International corruption index pile up huge numbers of unpaid tickets, whereas diplomats from countries that rank low on the index barely get any at all.
Between 1997 and 2002, the U.N. Mission of Kuwait picked up 246 parking violations per diplomat. Diplomats from Egypt, Chad, Sudan, Mozambique, Pakistan, Ethiopia and Syria also committed huge numbers of violations. Meanwhile, not a single parking violation by a Swedish diplomat was recorded. Nor were there any by diplomats from Denmark, Japan, Israel, Norway or Canada.
The reason there are such wide variations in ticket rates is that human beings are not merely products of economics. The diplomats paid no cost for parking illegally, thanks to diplomatic immunity. But human beings are also shaped by cultural and moral norms. If you’re Swedish and you have a chance to pull up in front of a fire hydrant, you still don’t do it. You’re Swedish. That’s who you are.
Walter Lippmann got to the crux of the matter in a speech 65 years ago. People don’t become happy by satisfying their desires, he said. They become happy by living within a belief system that restrains and gives coherence to their desires:
“Above all the other necessities of human nature, above the satisfaction of any other need, above hunger, love, pleasure, fame — even life itself — what a man most needs is the conviction that he is contained within the discipline of an ordered existence.”
People need the coherence their culture provides and value it even more than easy parking.
For several decades a veteran foreign aid worker, Lawrence E. Harrison, has contemplated the power of culture in shaping behavior. He’s concluded that cultural differences mostly explain why some nations develop quickly while others do not.
All cultures have value because they provide coherence, but some cultures foster development while others retard it. Some cultures check corruption, while others permit it. Some cultures focus on the future, while others focus on the past. Some cultures encourage the belief that individuals can control their own destinies, while others encourage fatalism.
In a new book, “The Central Liberal Truth,” Harrison takes up the question that is at the center of politics today: Can we self-consciously change cultures so they encourage development and modernization? Harrison is writing about poverty, but this is incidentally a book about the war on terror, and whether it is possible to change culture in the Middle East and the ghettos of Muslim Europe.
On the one hand, Harrison is an optimist. He has taken his title from one of Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s greatest observations: “The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself.”
But when Harrison turns to how politics can change culture, you find he is a man who has been made aware of the limitations on what we can know and achieve. Harrison and a team of global academics studied cultural transformations in Ireland, China, Latin America and elsewhere. They concluded that cultural change can’t be imposed from the outside, except in rare circumstances. It has to be led by people who recognize and accept responsibility for their own culture’s problems and selectively reinterpret their own traditions to encourage modernization.
Harrison observes that gigantic investments in education, and especially in improving female literacy, usually precede transformations. Chile was highly literate in the 19th century, and in 1905, 90 percent of Japanese children were in school. These investments laid the groundwork for takeoffs that were decades away.
Harrison points to many other factors — leaders who encourage economic liberalization, movements that restrict the power of the clerics — but the main impressions he leaves are that cultural change is measured in centuries, not decades, and that cultures are separated from one another by veils of complexity and difference.
If Harrison is right, it is no wonder that young Muslim men in Britain might decide to renounce freedom and prosperity for midair martyrdom. They are driven by a deep cultural need for meaning. But it is also foolish to think we can address the root causes of their toxic desires. We’ll just have to fight the symptoms of a disease we can neither cure nor understand.
Photo credit: David Brooks. (The New York Times)
Art credit: NATO Image Gallery
Technorati tags: David Brooks, The New York Times, Culture, Middle East, Raymond Fisman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, news, commentary, op ed
No comments:
Post a Comment