3 ms·

This reminds me of a quotation from an interview with a George W. Bush administration official (widely understood to be Karl Rove, though I'm not sure that's e

This reminds me of a quotation from an interview with a George W. Bush administration official (widely understood to be Karl Rove, though I'm not sure that's ever been substantiated) that made the rounds raising hackles and inspiring slogans [1] in the left-leaning blogosphere ca. 10 years ago. The emphasis here is more on study versus action here, but I think there's clearly some parallel: > The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." [2] [1] For a time, it was semi-common for left-leaning blogs to advertise themselves as part of "the reality-based community". [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-a...

rntz 11y ago
Taken charitably, it sounds like the official is describing the state-level equivalent of operating inside an enemy's OODA loop (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop, brought to my attention and reasonably well-explained by http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/military-strategist-explains-why-donald-trump-leads-and-how-he-will-fail/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/military-strategist-expl...) - roughly, acting so quickly as to make the enemy's response obsolete by the time they go through with it. Worse-but-Better solutions make it to market dominance before the Right Thing has a chance to get off the ground; and then the Right Thing is no longer the right thing, because the reality has changed. Taken uncharitably, of course, it sounds like puffed-up nonsense, which perhaps it is.
hitekker 11y ago
I just read your NYTimes article and I will consider it one of the most telling and interesting high-level analyses of the Bush Presidency. There are a number of lessons to glean from it that go beyond the topic set by the OP. This one about sleight-of-hand language resonated: > I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism."' > Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy. > "No, Mr. President," Wallis says he told Bush, "We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism." > Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.

rntz 11y ago

Taken charitably, it sounds like the official is describing the state-level equivalent of operating inside an enemy's OODA loop (cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop, brought to my attention and reasonably well-explained by http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/military-strategist-explains-why-donald-trump-leads-and-how-he-will-fail/ http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/16/military-strategist-expl...) - roughly, acting so quickly as to make the enemy's response obsolete by the time they go through with it. Worse-but-Better solutions make it to market dominance before the Right Thing has a chance to get off the ground; and then the Right Thing is no longer the right thing, because the reality has changed. Taken uncharitably, of course, it sounds like puffed-up nonsense, which perhaps it is.

hitekker 11y ago

I just read your NYTimes article and I will consider it one of the most telling and interesting high-level analyses of the Bush Presidency. There are a number of lessons to glean from it that go beyond the topic set by the OP. This one about sleight-of-hand language resonated: > I said, 'Mr. President, if we don't devote our energy, our focus and our time on also overcoming global poverty and desperation, we will lose not only the war on poverty, but we'll lose the war on terrorism."' > Bush replied that that was why America needed the leadership of Wallis and other members of the clergy. > "No, Mr. President," Wallis says he told Bush, "We need your leadership on this question, and all of us will then commit to support you. Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism." > Bush looked quizzically at the minister, Wallis recalls. They never spoke again after that.