Back when "Reality-Based" was sweeping the left blogosphere I made an extremely obvious point - the phrase in question did not come from a conversation about reality-based versus faith-based; it come from a conversation about spectators and players, about talking about a problem versus taking action to change a problem.
A vivid example is the troop surge in Iraq. Think back to last fall - would we stay the course, or could a newly Democratic Congress pressure Bush to begin troop withdrawals? Would Rumsfeld's departure signal new flexibility by the Administration and pave the way for the adoption of the proposals of the Iraq Study Group?
And out of right field (OK, Kagan, The Weekly Standard, Dec 4 2006) came the idea of increasing the troop levels in Iraq, changing the Rules of Engagement and changing our tactics. That was not on anyone's menu in November.
Yet today, it is what we are talking about - it is the new reality.
Oh, so what - fun's fun, and I have no doubt the "Reality Based Community" will toodle along, happy to pretend that their slogan is not based on a willful misreading of a simple idea.
Yet today, it [the surge] is what we are talking about - it is the new reality.
In which I quibble with the first part of that sentence (from the earmarks thread):
Maybe it's me, but I see little dem conversation about the surge itself. Iraq bad, yes. But that the surge itself should be discussed? Not so much.
Posted by: hit and run | March 22, 2007 at 09:49 AM
I agree, as any reduction in violence associated with the surge just means that the insurgents have withdrawn until the surge is over.
The Dems should take this reality based position to counter unreal WH suggestions that the Surge is a success.
Posted by: jerry | March 22, 2007 at 09:53 AM
I thought Senator Pryor(D-AR) had a good way of phrasing the position the American people favor.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | March 22, 2007 at 09:55 AM
speaking of the surge....
Shiite militia may be disintegrating
By HAMZA HENDAWI and QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writers Wed Mar 21, 7:21 PM ET
BAGHDAD - The violent Shiite militia known as the Mahdi Army is breaking into splinter groups, with up to 3,000 gunmen now financed directly by Iran and no longer loyal to the firebrand cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, adding a potentially even more deadly element to
Iraq's violent mix.
Posted by: ErnestAbe | March 22, 2007 at 09:58 AM
Regarding the whole "Reality Based" thing. Many folks have had a good laugh about Tom Delay's appearance last night on Chris Matthews, where he refused to accept facts, even when the evidence was put in front of his face, literally.
You can watch Delay's inability to deal with reality here.
Posted by: ErnestAbe | March 22, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Great op-ed in the LA Times today by Ron Brownstein:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brownstein21mar21-2,0,1330641,print.column?coll=la-opinion-underdog
Posted by: jerry | March 22, 2007 at 10:07 AM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3258.html>Hoyer Won't Rule Out Extending War Vote
Is this another example of 'reality based'?
Posted by: Sue | March 22, 2007 at 10:24 AM
news on the surge...
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was unharmed as he ducked behind a podium after a rocket or mortar round landed near the prime minister’s office Thursday while the two men were holding a news conference.” Iraqi Prime Minister remained claim through the attack. CNN’s Kyra Phillips reported:
"For [Maliki] obviously, this is just another day in Baghdad, something that happens in Iraq every day. You feel and the mortar attacks, they happen all around this country. But obviously, in this situation, it startled the new Secretary- General, his first trip to Iraq, quite a reality check for him."
Posted by: ErnestAbe | March 22, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Yup, some people talk and some people do.
Posted by: sylvia | March 22, 2007 at 11:56 AM
news on the surge...
how does it feel to be a stooge for terrorists Abe?
Posted by: windansea | March 22, 2007 at 01:52 PM
Here's another bit of willful unreality via TalkingPointsMemo:
"This morning (WH spokesman) Snow told ABC News: 'The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn't have oversight ability.'"
Now that flies in the face of a Everest sized heap of evidence.
Posted by: jerry | March 22, 2007 at 02:26 PM
He's probably referring to this particular fishing expedition so therefore, Congress doesn't have oversight ability over the firings of US Attorneys.
And he's probably right.
Posted by: lurker | March 22, 2007 at 02:32 PM
any reduction in violence associated with the surge just means that the insurgents have withdrawn until the surge is over.
Yeah, that's why we're still in Germany, because the US military has never won a war, we just get the enemy to withdraw until we leave. Sure, Gerry's been quiet the past 60 years - too quiet.
Jerry, you want to throw in any Minuteman references in your paean to the terrorists?
Posted by: bgates | March 22, 2007 at 02:39 PM
Trying to parse Jerry's suggested Dem position:
If violence is lower during the surge, it is because the insurgents are less active when our troops are present;
therefore, we must withdraw immediately.
?
Posted by: bgates | March 22, 2007 at 02:43 PM
Ernest, I've heard that Iraq requires a political solution. Your Madhi army story is saying that the most important anti-American in the Iraqi political process is being deserted by the goons who are the source of his power. If those goons are now going to be more violent and under foreign control, it's going to be easier for the Iraqis to brand them as illegitimate and destroy them. Sounds like Sadr and the Madhis are going to be much less of an obstacle than they were.
Posted by: bgates | March 22, 2007 at 02:52 PM
jerry
I agree, as any reduction in violence associated with the surge just means that the insurgents have withdrawn until the surge is over.
And by the time the 'surge is over' the Iraqi army should be able to deal with it. If they're not ready, the surge won't be ended.
The Dems should take this reality based position to counter unreal WH suggestions that the Surge is a success.
Yeah like demand the refugees be brought back home then abandon them. Many are already coming back to Baghdad and the Iraqi govt is helping them do so.
The Dems have to be very very very careful to pay attention to the REALITY in Iraq, not just to their own rhetoric.
Posted by: Syl | March 22, 2007 at 05:16 PM
jerry
Now that flies in the face of a Everest sized heap of evidence.
Congress has no rights to do oversight on the Executive internal political conversations and decision making process.
Posted by: Syl | March 22, 2007 at 05:22 PM
My second cousin Bill is now in Baghdad, a first lieutenant in the 82nd. Should I be confident that he is being put at hazard as a result of a thoughtful and intelligent weighing of strategic goals and options?
Posted by: J. Bradford DeLong | March 22, 2007 at 07:52 PM
My second cousin Bill is now in Baghdad, a first lieutenant in the 82nd. Should I be confident that he is being put at hazard as a result of a thoughtful and intelligent weighing of strategic goals and options
Did your cousin volunteer or was he drafted?
Posted by: BarbaraS | March 23, 2007 at 02:14 AM
I have three nephews in Iraq. I thank each one of them daily. They, like Mr. Delong's cousin went in with their eyes open and the realization that terrible things could happen to them. They have established a level of bravery that I can only marvel at.
Posted by: donald | March 23, 2007 at 07:52 AM
Indeed...
Posted by: Brad DeLong | March 23, 2007 at 08:59 PM
"Yet today, it is what we are talking about - it is the new reality."
That's true, I did admire the "surge" idea because it did come out of the blue. Bush had a way of making his own "reality", rather than just reacting to the perceived reality.
Posted by: sylvia | March 25, 2007 at 10:20 AM