Above pix: Mr. Ross Douthat, who is 30 years old this year.
Ross Douthat on “The Pro-Cheney Case For A Torture Commission” (1/21/09)
For many anti-torture voices, of course, it’s taken as a given that Cheney doesn’t really believe what he says he believes – or at the very least, that on some level he knows that a full and fair airing of the intelligence the Bush Administration gathered from “enhanced interrogation” would not end up vindicating the policy. All of the principled talk about executive power and presidential privilege, in this view of things, is ultimately just a defense mechanism that allows Cheney – and by extension, the country – to avoid coming to grips with the depths of his wrongdoing. Maybe that’s so. But I know at least some people in Washington for whom this isn’t the case: People who argue, with a reasonable degree of knowledge and no self-justifying incentives, that whatever one thinks about the morality of waterboarding, the Bush Administration’s interrogation policies up made a substantial difference in our ability to disrupt al Qaeda in the aftermath of 9/11.
Nothing that’s been made public to date has left me convinced that they’re right. (And even if they are right, it probably wouldn’t change my judgment that the Bush Administration’s broader record on detainee policy looks like a moral fiasco.) But I’m entirely convinced that they’re sincere – and I think that any sincere proponent of what the United States did to its high-value detainees should be willing to see those policies defended more fully and publicly than they’ve been to date. Put another way, anyone who thinks that Dick Cheney will be at least somewhat vindicated by history ought to want him vindicated now, when the vindication would actually make a difference in the policy of the United States government. And an independent commission, charged with assessment, rather than indictment, seems like as reasonable a place as any to start.
(read the rest at Mr. Douthat’s blog, at his former employer, Atlantic.)
You might be interested too, to read Mr. D’s takes on Catholics, voting blocks of evangelical people, and other issues of ethos, theocracy, and theology at his blog at the Atlantic as well. Mr. Douthat’s style, often enough begins with his introductory comment, then an extensive block quote from another writer, then Mr. Douthat’s analyses of the other writer’s opinion… often against outright, or sometimes finding a shared mean on occasion.
UPDATE: 3/11/09 10;56 MST: Originally there were two additional quotes from Mr. Douthat’s writings here. The website containing those gives me the message: “This site is temporarily down for maintenance.” When I can verify them with links, I will put them back up. My apologies.
CODA
I note Mr. Douthat’s blog style only because I’m researching a paper on bloggers’ evolving writing styles, vs those of book authors (Mr. D is also co-author of Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream with Reihan Salam) vs those of print on paper journalists. Thus far, there seem far more extensive block quotes inserted in articles by many bloggers, including Mr. D…
than there are in the average book or in print journalism. It may be a factor of style, or in some cases a straw man device, but may also be a primary factor in a blogger’s requirement to write quickly and with substance. Block quoting extensively can be a kind of symbiosis which works for both — or parasitic relation with others… perhaps all of the above are germane in some way. Certainly there are bound to be eccentric factors to style. As they say… differences: makes the world go round. But, I’d say too: A certain amount of sameness in the sense of lack of constant warring, makes the world not fall apart.