December 19, 2005

failure has not altered Democratic thinking an iota...

I'm congenitally skeptical of the idea of planning. Tony Snow puts the problem in a nutshell...(Thanks to Rand)

....They believe human events unfold in a neat and predictable manner. Call it the Theory of Human Orderliness. The idea is that one can harness the insights of science and the methods of engineering to perfect societies. Theorists believe sound plans can impel people to behave in an ordered manner -- like asteroids tracing their paths through the void....

.....The only flaw in the Orderliness Hypothesis is that it doesn't work if people are present. The war on poverty looked great on paper. It failed miserably in real life. Air-cleansing regulatory schemes looked great in computer models, but failed abysmally in reality. Centralized health care boasted of chalkboard elegance, but is breaking the bank right here, right now. The myth of managed affluence collapsed with the Berlin Wall.

And yet, failure has not altered Democratic thinking an iota. John Kerry boasted dozens of times in his debates with George W. Bush that he had a plan -- for everything: dental care, tree planting, street paving, book binding, teen rutting, mass transit, air circulation, steel production ... you name it. He announced these schemes with a sense of triumph, as if having a plan were superior to having a clue.

In resisting President Bush's infinitely variable approach to the ever-shifting situation in Iraq, Democrats have reverted to form. The cries for benchmarks and deadlines merely embody their weird faith in plans. Howard Dean unwittingly captured the absurdity of it all when he announced this week the precise number of National Guard units required to subdue Al-Qaida.....

You know, we never did hear the details of Kerry's plans. Pretty selfish of him not to share his wisdom.

It's tempting to gloat over a Democrat "meltdown," but that's not quite the word for it. Too liquid and flexible. We need a metaphor of rigidity, a term that might be used to describe a granite statue being transported in an old wagon without springs over a bumpy road, banging and slamming up and down, and gradually turning into a rounded blob churned in a soup of chips and dust...

Posted by John Weidner at December 19, 2005 08:00 PM
Comments

When I was in the Merchant Navy during the last Century ,our Masers told us we had now had to present a plan for each voyage that was presented .It was going to be Law ,to have a plan you could use as proof in a court(should you run aground.for example)that you had your best plan laid out and ready to go .
It drove us crackers that this had to be done before each voyage ,the work in it was just overwhelming (we thought).

In the end our bosses said we could use a template for each voyage and just add the dates ,tides ,etc as each voyage unfolded . But the thing that struck me that was useful (that I really hadnt thought of much before ,was how I could get out trouble ,eg ,going to deeper water in case of being forced out of the channel . We had to constantly change this as we progressed up the English Channel ,as we had to constantly monitor our original plan of what to do in moderate heavy traffic or just fucking fog .Always had to be able to change the plan and execute it on the run .

We could never tell you before that happened when it was going to happen .Anyone who has done the English Channel run would laugh if it was thought you could tell exactly where you were going to be and doing what in exact terms .Our Masters knew this ,they just wanted us to know they were watching (from afar)
The point I wanted identify with the war is that it drove me batty that there were some boofheads who really didnt know which way was up interfering with we navigators .It makes you want to strangle politicans at this point in the war when this happens .

Posted by: frank Quinlan at December 19, 2005 10:52 PM

Very nice essay by Mr. Snow. He pretty much nails it. As I read it I kept experiencing deja vu and finaly realized I was remembering this essay by F.A. Hayek titled "The Use of Knowledge in Society". It is a classic that appeared long ago in the American Economic Review.

WARNING: it is written in a highly academic style and is pretty long. But if you have readers who are interested in such things (like me) it is wonderful.

Posted by: Mike Plaiss at December 20, 2005 07:53 AM

your metaphor is so completely correct, I don't see anything to add.

Posted by: maureen at December 21, 2005 10:13 PM
Weblog by John Weidner