Rod Dreher

Talking Past Each Other On Race

More GOP Epistemic Closure

By Rod Dreher • November 27, 2012, 4:39 PM

Scott McConnell observes with appropriate dismay an intelligence hearing scheduled for the House:

On Thursday the committee has scheduled hearings on “Israel’s Right to Defend Itself: Implications for Regional Security and U.S. Interests.” The invited witnesses are Elliott Abrams, Danielle Pletka, and Robert Satloff — all neoconservatives, all staunch backers of Netanyahu, the Iraq war, etc. The committee doesn’t even pretend that there might be other worthwhile perspectives, surprising since U.S. interests are meant to be the subject matter. I asked a congressional aide whether there was anything to be done about this, and was told, “No, witnesses are decided by committee chairman and ranking members” and that “the system is irreparably broken.”

Yeah, I’ll say. I’m a lot more pro-Israel than many, probably most, voices at TAC, and my view of the recent Gaza conflict is far more sympathetic to Israel. That said, unless this key GOP-controlled committee intends to host another hearing featuring a full roster of expert witnesses offering a more foreign-policy realist, or even pro-Palestinian, point of view — and there is no such hearing scheduled — then this planned hearing is a farce. Where is the balance? How are Congressmen supposed to make informed policy decisions when they only care to hear a single perspective — even if, in this case, it’s a perspective with which I largely sympathize?

Have the Democratic members of the committee complained about this? If not, why not?

Posted in MIddle East, Presidential politics. Tagged Congress, foreign policy, Gaza, Israel.

25 Responses to More GOP Epistemic Closure

M_Young says:

November 27, 2012 at 4:51 pm

” Typically, the minority works informally with the majority to invite witnesses representing its views. House rules allow the minority party members of a committee to call witnesses of their choice on at least one day of a hearing. A majority of the minority members must make this request to the committee chair before completion of the hearings (Rule XI, clause 2(j)(1)).”

http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archives/98-304.pdf

The Democrats are probably slightly less in the tank for Israel, and as McConnell keeps pushing, the parties Demographics might make them even less so (over aeons). But right now this is basically bipartisan ‘epistemic closure’.
Hayduke says:

November 27, 2012 at 4:55 pm

The Democrat members of the committee are led by Howard Berman, a self-described “stalwart protector of the U.S. – Israeli relationship.” He is perfectly content with the witness list. See if you can detect any particular sympathies in his statement on the recent violence:

“Israel’s pinpoint attack today against Ahmed Jabari, the head of Hamas’ military wing in the Gaza Strip, was an act of necessary self defense. Jabari was a senior Hamas operative who was directly responsible for executing terror attacks against Israel. In recent days the Hamas terrorist organization, and their terrorist allies in Gaza, have launched hundreds of missiles and mortars against Israeli population centers. No nation on this earth would tolerate such a terrorist onslaught. I continue to stand with the State of Israel as she protects her people.”
Rod Dreher says:

November 27, 2012 at 5:14 pm

Hayduke, I actually agree with Berman here — but I would still want to see an actual diversity of viewpoints come before the committee, to challenge me in my thinking, and provoke me to change my mind if I’m wrong, or, by putting my convictions to the test, to reassure me if I’m right.
Noah172 says:

November 27, 2012 at 5:22 pm

Have the Democratic members of the committee complained about this? If not, why not?

You mean the Democrats whose senior member is Howard Berman, D-Tel Aviv?

The eighteen Democrats on the committee are in complete, utter agreement with this farcical hearing for the following reasons:

— seven are Jewish

— several of the gentiles represent districts with nontrivial Jewish populations

— likely all or nearly all of them, being Democrats, are dependent on Jewish donors for their campaigns (the Republicans get a lot of money from Jewish donors as well)

— anybody who dares to cross the Zionist faction in our polity sees his reputation ruined as an alleged anti-semite
Teddy says:

November 27, 2012 at 5:24 pm

I’m not sure what this epistemic closure really is, Rod? In many ways it seems that epistemic closure is nothing more than a rhetorical device used by many at TAC and a few other places in order to disagree with those on a different quadrant of the “right spectrum,” if you will. Whenever I read a comment by someone who questions or denies epistemic closure, they’re more often than not accused of being epistemically closed to the epistemic closure…due to their epistemic closure. The thing is, if this is the case, then can’t epistemic closure be used against yourself, etc.? I mean, you have a particular narrative that you filter through all incoming data. I don’t see the difference between yourself and some of your colleagues at TAC, and, say, the mainstream GOP media.
Rod Dreher says:

November 27, 2012 at 5:51 pm

I’m not sure what this epistemic closure really is, Rod? In many ways it seems that epistemic closure is nothing more than a rhetorical device used by many at TAC and a few other places in order to disagree with those on a different quadrant of the “right spectrum,” if you will.

“Epistemic closure” means to shield yourself from any knowledge, or way of knowing, that challenges what you already believe. I don’t understand why the members of the committee don’t feel a desire, or even a basic responsibility, to gather a variety of viewpoints on the matter. They’re running the gamut from A to B here.
J says:

November 27, 2012 at 6:04 pm

It’s a House committee. The bad news: the House is run by a variety of Jacobins. The good news: institutionally long term foreign policy is primarily the business of the Senate and Senators view House machinations on foreign policy largely as bad behavior, be that propagandistic or electioneering, and intrusions on their kuleana.

As for “informed decisions”, I/P is a very old issue now and old hat to everybody. A two/three state form is unstable and unenduring. The populations are not aged/matured far enough past 1948 and 1967 to live in civil peace in one state de facto. Civil war and legalized atrocity will be pressed until that happens.
Scott S says:

November 27, 2012 at 6:22 pm

In this case, no one (R or D) wants to hear alternate viewpoints because alternate viewpoints are politically dangerous. Anyone advocating anything less than the maximalist position regarding Israel and its military actions is loudly and repeatedly branded an anti-Semite. Or, if Jewish, a self-hating Jew.

It is a fine example of epistemic closure, but it’s Washington and its associated media organs that are closed off, not just the GOP.
Noah172 says:

November 27, 2012 at 6:28 pm

I actually agree with Berman here

Not as much as you may think. You criticize Israeli policy at times, and the actions of individual Jews, and American hawkishness in the Middle East. You do not smear critics of the American-Israeli relationship with shrieks of “Hitler” and the like. The Bermans of the world would not count you as a reliable ally, and maybe even an enemy (I say this as a compliment).
Coldstream says:

November 27, 2012 at 6:30 pm

Curious if we expect Congressional hearings to actually be about “gathering viewpoints on the matter” or more about generating headlines or good press for the side you already support?

When it comes to “epistemic closure”, a phrase that is rapidly reaching its saturation point, it seems more a way to attack people that you don’t agree with than any actual desire to hear all sides.

Looking at past committee hearings, for example, there was one for “Organ Harvesting of Religious and Political Dissidents by the Chinese Communist Party”. I didn’t see any representatives from the CCP there to provide a variety of viewpoints and I doubt we’d hear any complaints that there weren’t.
Clint says:

November 27, 2012 at 6:48 pm

“In fact, an examination of the sequence of events over the last month shows that Israel played the decisive role in the military escalation: from its attack on a Khartoum arms factory reportedly supplying arms to Hamas and the killing of 15 Palestinian fighters in late October, to the shooting of a mentally disabled Palestinian in early November, the killing of a 13 year-old in an Israeli incursion and, crucially, the assassination of the Hamas commander Ahmed Jabari last Wednesday during negotiations over a temporary truce.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/20/palestinians-have-right-defend-themselves
EngineerScotty says:

November 27, 2012 at 7:06 pm

Is there a point to this committee meeting, or is it all a propaganda exercise?
Matt says:

November 27, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Looking at past committee hearings, for example, there was one for “Organ Harvesting of Religious and Political Dissidents by the Chinese Communist Party”. I didn’t see any representatives from the CCP there to provide a variety of viewpoints and I doubt we’d hear any complaints that there weren’t.

I think what you’d want in that case though is various viewpoints on what the implications and policy options are, rather than an ideological or partisan defense of both sides. What the House should be hearing are not necessarily pro-Palestinians–it’s ok for the House to assume that Israel is an ally and generally in the right and behaving sensibly–but people who will provide a variety of viewpoints on how the operation in Gaza affects the US and the range of possible policy responses.

At least, that’s how I see it.
Rod Dreher says:

November 27, 2012 at 8:09 pm

Let me clarify: I don’t care to see any apologist for Hamas testify before Congress. I only want to see a range of informed opinion represented at the hearing.
Charles Cosimano says:

November 27, 2012 at 8:29 pm

It reminds me of a tee shirt I saw a while ago that said, “I don’t like Israel. I just really HATE Palestinians.”
Richard Johnson says:

November 27, 2012 at 8:44 pm

It’s difficult to satisfy both parts of your request, Rod. If there is someone there who attempts to make some sense of the Palestinian side they risk being labeled an apologist for a terrorist group, don’t they?
Franklin says:

November 27, 2012 at 8:51 pm

Seriously, are there actually committee hearings where “a range of informed opionions” are represented? I honestly want to know.
Good Fences says:

November 27, 2012 at 8:58 pm

“it’s ok for the House to assume that Israel is an ally and generally in the right and behaving sensibly”

Based on what, exactly? It’s safe for the House to assume that Israel wants something from us, and it’s safe to assume Israel wants us to pay for it. It’s also safe to assume that – as usual – Israel will spit in our face as soon as the check clears. That’s the only thing that it’s safe for the House to assume.
BradleyP says:

November 27, 2012 at 9:11 pm

It’s not about policy. It’s only about politics, and that applies to both the White House and Congress. The republic is lost.
Simon says:

November 27, 2012 at 10:06 pm

Congressional hearings — especially by something as irrelevant as the HOUSE Foreign Relations Committee –have always been about political grandstanding. No one is trying to learn.

Why do both parties behave like cartoonish hawks when it comes to Israel? Because Republicans can not anger their base, which includes large numbers of ferociously pro-Israel evangelicals and many listeners of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. And because Democrats can not anger their major donors and campaign activists, a huge proportion of whom are Jewish. It really is that simple.
Gus says:

November 27, 2012 at 10:09 pm

“How are Congressmen supposed to make informed policy decisions when they only care to hear a single perspective — even if, in this case, it’s a perspective with which I largely sympathize?” Ideologues already know everything. They just like to hear their ideas parroted back at them by someone else.
Ted Lawrence says:

November 28, 2012 at 5:47 am

The late Robert Kennedy once said that elected officials were not in office to educate the public in any way, only to make decisions about how to allocate resources. No one listens to witnesses at a hearing to learn about a subject, they do that on their own time. The witnesses are to let the American people know what is going on in areas of major concern.
Al-Dhariyat says:

November 28, 2012 at 8:08 am

Yeah, I hafta agree with the other commenters that both parties compete hard to be incredibly Pro-Israel, not just the Grand Ol’ ones. I recall President Obama trying to be a little more stern with Israel early in his first term and it’s been biting him in the back politically ever since. Both the President and Mitt Romneytron tripped all over themselves in the 3rd “debate” to declare their love of Israel.

In addition to Clint’s UK Guardian link, I think the Economist’s Democracy in America blog also published a post questioning the received wisdom in the West that Israel’s move was purely defensive.

I don’t particularly care who started this latest round of ridiculousness. I’m so, so tired of this d*mn sh*t sliver of land no bigger than New frickin’ Jersey dominating the entire globe. (But of course I had to comment on it).
Judith says:

November 28, 2012 at 10:18 am

Hey, Al-Dhariyat,
That piece of land that you are calling a d**n s**t sliver? And you’re tired of an “entire globe” uproar around it”? Try leaving it alone. That’ll work.
j
Clamdigger says:

November 28, 2012 at 4:50 pm

“They’re running the gamut from A to B here.”

more likely they’re running the gamut from A+ to A-…good golly if someone like maj. whip Cole coughs and suggests an idea that most American’s believe in (middle income tax cut extensions, but not on the upper end)…..and gets destroyed by his fellow members and the wing-nut right wing blogs, etc. etc.

God forbid a soprano sings in the bass choir!!