Is this the end of Paul Wolfowitz's "Anti-Corruption Drive?"

[cumallday]

I hope so, and I hope she's Karl Rove.

I hear the lovely miss Rove makes a terrific dance partner.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I accept that I approached the line and will be more cautious.

But Stella, there is a difference between using impassioned polemical rhetoric and calling an individual a bad person. Rob Graham posted a piece of the former from a left-perspective a few posts back, and I actually responded by saying that it was a perfectly civil post. Such things add spice to debates and don't hurt any individual, even though they may lead to teeth-grinding from idological adversaries, as I described in my response to that RG post. Plus, we're all writers, and shouldn't have to feel overly constrained.

The line between personal attacks and polemical flights really is not a gray one, once you become aware of the distinction. Actually, that might be the problem - people are not aware of it. Maybe they can become aware, and spread the word. Maybe starting with you?

If I've been a dupe and a sucker, that would make me a bad person. But maybe that's just me.

I have no problem with you saying that many of the liberal leaders of the day are hypocrites, because I know that's true. The left doesn't approach ideology in the same way that the right does, perhaps. we take everything with a grain of salt, and we know that power corrupts. We ain't so duped as all that. That's why there's a grassroots movement once more, and that's why you righties perceive so little support from us for our Fearless Leaders.

You, on the other hand, took the statement that the right wing leadership is full of hypocrisy and made that personal; to me, "Leadership" and "Corruption" are synonyms.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Stella - It wasn't my intention to get into a detailed deconstruction of the particular posts, and I accepted your reprimand for approaching too close to the line, but since you keep referring to them I will.

I made a post that did not quote any other source but only contained my own words. Among them was this phrase: ". . . laugh all the way to the Third World killing fields."

Another person who is known for using the illegitimate rhetorical technigue of associating an individual he disagrees with here with an an unpopular individual, group or institution quoted my post and responded as follows:

"those fields; always a prime item of concern in the WSJ crowd! what hypocrisy!"

It is difficult to read this as anything other than an accusation that I personally am a hypocrite. Remove the irrelevent intermediate phrase containing the illegitimate rhetorical device and this is easier to see: "those fields; what hypocrisy!"

That said, it's not impossible that this was unintentional, and I'm prepared to accept that it was if so informed.

BTW, it doesn't even matter if the poster honestly thinks that I am a hypocrite, it is still a violation of the rules of civility to say it, for all the reasons I have laid out here - the only possible response is flaming or violence, the forum becomes a flame pit like most internet boards.

The other post you keep referring to the one in which I said, "As for what (the World Bank people) must think of grass-roots leftists who are also drinking toasts this week, that's easy: <deleted>."

This is a long way from me calling any individual here the deleted thing. It was not responding to any individual. It was the second post in the thread. Indeed, although polemical, it likely a completely accurate statement - do you doubt that some of those extraordinarily cynical World Bank people think exactly this?

I know it's hard when passions are running high to look past one's own feelings about a particular issue and perform this kind of analysis. Many who share my viewpoint but are less experienced in this activity would have responded to the RG polemic I referred to earlier with an agry post, perhaps even a flame. They would be wrong to do so. RG's post wasn't directed at any individual, and it contained plenty of substantive 'meat' to engage intellectually. In fact, as an example of a sharp-edged but not uncivil polemic, it was identical to my post that you find objectionable.

 

[neonlyte]

Some one remind me of the issue please... life is too short for all of this. What happened to accepting a little banter in your lives? Cantdog had enough, Mab hasn't posted recently having been frustrated over the exchanges, it's enough to drive a grown man to drink. Lighten up, dance with Karl Rove

Or tell me to mind my own fucking business... it's not as if I care

 

[Stella_Omega]

As I said, I think your very first post set the tone of the further discussion. If you engage in polemics on a public board, you can't really pick and choose who will respond and how well they might respond- nor can you make the assumption that everyone will be knowledgeble in the subtle differences between polemic language and insults, and, as you see, they might confuse the two

As for the rest of it, I just want to answer one of your rhetorical questions;

...do you doubt that some of those extraordinarily cynical World Bank people think exactly this?

Not at all, I am positive of such. Power corrupts. And power makes stupid, although, unfortunately, stupidity doesn't equal loss of power.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

As I said, I think your very first post set the tone of the further discussion. If you engage in polemics on a public board, you can't really pick and choose who will respond and how well they might respond- nor can you make the assumption that everyone will be knowledgeble in the subtle differences between polemic language and insults, and, as you see, they might confuse the two

You're right, but most of us here are pretty sophisticated, and the differences are not subtle once they are pointed out to a person. So is it hoping to much to think that when they are pointed out enough people will "get it," and we can have lively but civil debates in which we don't have to pull our polemical punches? I mentioned RG's earlier polemic, and shereads often "gets rolling" too - I wouldn't want their lauching such rhetorical flights to be considered beyond the pale, and I don't want mine to be either, or anyone's. I only want to discourage the personal attacks to which there is no possible response other than flaming or (IRL) violence.

 

[rgraham666]

The biggest problem with power is that it most often ends up in the hands of those who want it and are prepared to use it.

As the old Japanese saying goes, "The sharpest swords are the ones that stay in their scabbards."

 

[Pure]

my, my miss manners,

after all the labels you throw around and accusations how we non insightful ones drench the world in blood, etc. mentioned above in my reproof to you about manners.

RA The thing that I'm criticizing is the direct assertion that an individual here is a bad person, which is what calling them a hypocrite, liar, etc. amounts to.

P: i first attached 'hypocrites' to the WSJ folk, and not you, since your endorsement was unclear.

then you endorsed, and i said "what hypocrisy"; in fact, that talk is about *an action* of yours, like, say a larceny, or a misquoting. i did not label you a hypocrite.

i googled a bit to see what your compassionate friends at WSJ had to say about Darfur. the yield is sparse; a bit like researching the pope and bordellos (bad things).

so far as i can make out (I don't have a subscriber's access), their position [on this topic of little interest and few column inches] is that

1) it's a very bad thing.
2) China bears much of the blame
3) the UN should not intervene
4) the US should not intervene, except perhaps with a few well placed bombs, surgically placed of course.

so, based on my limited evidence, i conclude that they have limited interest in the US being active to resolve Darfur, but they want a lot of mileage in blaming China.

this, not surprisingly is roughly the Bush admin policy.

i speculate that this attitude extends to the rest of the poorest areas of Africa.

hence they are hypocrites for raising the starving Africans to save Wolfie from the consequences of his corruption.

i don't know about your personal feelings [i'm sure you'd rather the starving didn't starve], but i'd reiterate that your stand reeks of hypocrisy. of course, prove me wrong and cite your postings about how to help Darfur and starving Africans generally, and i'll withdraw the charge. though i'd keep it against your bedfellows.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i did not label you a hypocrite.

In the interest of hastening the return of civility I will shave away all the excess verbiage and only "see" the quoted portion.

"Hypocrisy" is such an easy charge to make against those of an opposing ideology. What it means in the context of purveyor of opinion and ideas is that the writer doesn’t sincerely believe what he or she is writing, but is only seeking to manipulate readers in the pursuit of an unstated agenda, usually a sinister one. I might level it against NYT in the same way that many here do against the WSJ, for I find the ideas purveyed there as wrongheaded as you do the Journal’s.

The charge is easy, and it’s wrong, whether the target is the WSJ or the NYT. There is no reason to doubt that the individuals in both institutions sincerely believe that the point of view and policies they promote are the ones most likely to generate better outcomes for all people.

The charge of hypocrisy in this context is almost always a form of intellectual laziness. Rather than engage the actual ideas with facts and counter-arguments, one just shoots the messenger. Some people extend that act of execution to any individual who cites anything written in either newspaper, which is even greater laziness, and can be outright uncivil.

I’ve distinguished purveyors of opinions and ideas in so in the preceding paragraphs. In contrast, when it comes to individuals and institutions that have actual political and government power, the charge of hypocrisy is often demonstrably true, and arguably no side is free of blame. It’s probably pointless to even argue about which side is more guilty – in particular circumstances they are all equally likely to act hypocritically. As for why this is so, that might be a worthy subject for a thread of it’s own.

 

[shereads]

n contrast, if I say, "You are a dupe" or "You are a hypocrite," that is a personal attack, and there is no way for you to respond.

There's no way for me to respond?

Are you sure?

Then what the hell am I supposed to do with six quarts of Elmer's Glue and two weasels?

 

[shereads]

The charge of hypocrisy in this context is almost always a form of intellectual laziness.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and claims that as the head of World Bank it will wage a war on ducks, it's a hypocrite.

Lazy and simple are not always the same thing. The Bush presidency not withstanding.

 

[shereads]

(Dropping the rest of the post to hit this particular piece):

It is a CRIME to lie under oath.
It is your RIGHT to refuse to testify.

I'm perfectly happy to revoke the Fifth Amendmennt, since I do believe torture can get to the truth if you drop all controls.

But until we actually do that... this one isn't even close.

I was illustrating hypocrisy, and the example stands. Thank you for providing a second illustration.

One president violated the letter of the law in order to avoid being held publicly accountable for a private act. For his crime, he faced impeachment.

His predesssor, who swore to bring moral "accountability" back to Washington, used a legal dodge to avoid being held accountable for the truth of his testimony, regardiing an event as significant to the presidency as any in our history. By using the law to short-circuit the law (assuring that if he lied in his testimony, there can be no legal repercussions) he protected himself at the expense of the country.

To condemn the actions of President "A" and defend those of President "B," on the basis that "B's" actions were not illegal, is such a perfect example of hypocrisy, a Museum of Hypocrisy would need only the one exhibit.

There would be a special viewing, by invitation only, for conservatives who support President "B" but complain when criminals "get off on a legal technicality."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There's no way for me to respond?

Are you sure?

Then what the hell am I supposed to do with six quarts of Elmer's Glue and two weasels?

Well, I did leave the door open for violence in one of those posts, but that only works IRL.

 

[Pure]

dear rox,

you haven't enlightened us on the WSJ's stand on Darfur or the starving in Africa generally.

all you have is the facile assurance that

RA There is no reason to doubt that the individuals in both institutions sincerely believe that the point of view and policies they promote are the ones most likely to generate better outcomes for all people.

P the reason to doubt them [WSJ] is that they have [as far as i can find] no concrete proposals for helping. i conclude indifference. i see NO reason to ASSUME that some wealthy guy in NYC [or mr bush, from texas] cares a fig for the poor of the Bronx, not to say Central Africa. [I'm not saying he actively wishes them evil, entertains evil thoughts, more like the absence of thoughts about such matters of little immediate concern.] i'm sure there are exceptions, i.e., genuine humanitarians; there have always been such among the wealthy and the middle class.

so i stick with my hypothesis that they're hypocrites: proof--they drag in harms to the starving or dying in Africa ONLY in the context of a justification for keeping their boy Wolfie.

i will agree that, when one sees certain lives, one has evidence of a broad concern for humanity, e.g. in the life of Jimmy Carter; even Bush Sr. and Clinton show some of such concerns. but my default assumption is that of indifference.

perhaps it's self gratifying to think of oneself as "actively promoting better outcomes" for poor folks in distant lands, and maybe the WSJ boys have vague, generalized "good feelings" in hoping people stop dying so piteously, so often. maybe that's you too. i distinguish this from what i call real and active concern.

having seen now about 7 years of Bush and his crowd, i think it's patently obvious that they lack such concern for the dying in Africa, since they've done so little (though they'll spend a billion a day in Iraq). as far as i know--lacking evidence to the contrary-- based on my brief Google search, the WSJ's official thoughts on Darfur or the dying in Africa reflect those of the Bushies.

===


PS. as to civilized debate, you've thoroughly muddied the waters. certainly a degree of civility is called for, but it doesn't rule out 'balderdash.' in general you're getting what you give out, there. indeed youre characterized LESS often than you characterize others (e.g. blind).

{For example, you recently said,

[[you=those on the other side of the debate]]
RA It's a warm and fuzzy illusion that you find comforting, but it's not an accurate description of human beings and life. Therefore, when you make public policies or ethical systems based on it they don't quite work out. There are inevitably countless unintended consequences, because your premise is wrong.

Now and over the ages those unintended consequences have soaked the earth with the blood and tears of their victims.

So along comes someone like me who sees the connection between the flawed premises and their unintended consequences, and is appalled by all the unnecessary suffering and death they have generated. I share the same core humanistic values that you do. I care and feel just as deeply as you about the well being of all humans.
---

P: In seven sentences:
the other guy--

is under warm and fuzzy illusions,
seeks 'comfort' rather than truth.
unintentionally causes huges bloodbaths.
is unseeing, compared to you "me who sees the conections..." }

======

in debate, we generally assume the person believes what he says, that he's not actively out to mislead us as to his thoughts (so we don't label him a 'liar'). accordingly, i can (and do) assume that you *believe* Wolfie to have greatly benefitted Africa's poor.

this is NOT at all what you propose above, i.e. assume the WSJ folks' concern for the good lives of some very distant folks, a kind of universal compassion or beneficence.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

dear rox,

you haven't enlightened us on the WSJ's stand on Darfur or the starving in Africa generally.

all you have is the facile assurance that

There is no reason to doubt that the individuals in both institutions sincerely believe that the point of view and policies they promote are the ones most likely to generate better outcomes for all people.

the reason to so doubt them is that they have no concrete proposals for helping. i conclude indifference. i see NO reason to ASSUME that some wealthy guy in NYC [or mr bush, from texas] cares a fig for the poor of the Bronx, not to say Central Africa. [I'm not saying he actively wishes them evil, entertains evil thoughts, more like the absence of thoughts about such matters of little immediate concern.] i'm sure there are exceptions, i.e., genuine humanitarians; there have always been such among the wealthy and the middle class.

so i stick with my hypothesis that they're hypocrites: proof--they drag in harms to the starving or dying in Africa ONLY in the context of a justification for keeping their boy Wolfie.

i will agree that, when one sees certain lives, one has evidence of a broad concern for humanity, e.g. in the life of Jimmy Carter; even Bush Sr. and Clinton show some of such concerns. but my default assumption is that of indifference.

perhaps it's self gratifying to think of oneself as "actively promoting better outcomes" for poor folks in distant lands, and maybe the WSJ boys have vague, generalized "good feelings" in hoping people stop dying so piteously, so often. maybe that's you too. i distinguish this from what i call real and active concern.

having seen now about 7 years of Bush and his crowd, i think it's patently obvious that they lack such concern for the dying in Africa, since they've done so little (though they'll spend a billion a day in Iraq). as far as i know--lacking evidence to the contrary-- based on my brief Google search, the WSJ's official thoughts on Darfur or the dying in Africa reflect those of the Bushies.

Y'see, that's the mental laziness I was talking about: refusing to accept that not everyone sees the world through the same lens as oneself, and that therefore other people can have different ideas but just as much goodwill.

In your worldview, what happens in the effort to show "real and active concern" to a tragedy like Africa today is that money is poured into corrupt governments, corrupt institutions like the world bank and other wrongheaded NGOs, wrong-headed capital projects, and other things that are part of the problem, not the solution. Basically to fund things whose only effect is to sustain the current dysfunctions. In my worldview, and the WSJ's on this issue, the way to end the tragedy is to remove the barriers to economic growth in those countries, including corruption, governments that have no regard for the rule of law, socialist central planning, and corrupt NGOs that subsidize the status quo.

Now it would be very easy for me to look at the consequences of your approach - the status quo in Africa right now, because that approach is what we've been doing for 40 years - and conclude that its proponents, like the NYT editorial board, for example, obviously don't care about the poor in Africa, because if they did they would pull their heads out of the sand (or other dark place) and look for a different approach. Instead, their (and your) solution is to "redouble our efforts," reinforcing failure by pouring more money into it. Reminds me of the apologists for inner city schools that spend $15,000 per kid destroying one generation after another - "send more money" is their only response to calls for reform.

But I'm not going to conclude that. I think you and the Times are wrongheaded, but I don't doubt that you are sincere in wanting to promote genuine improvement. I begin with that view, and imagine the premises and logic that would bring you to the positions you hold. I think they are flawed, but because I started where I did and made the effort I can at least understand how you could be led astray.

For you to say what you just did shows that you are not willing to expend the energy and the embrace the goodwill to do the same. It's a kind of hubris that refuses to contemplate the notion that those who disagree with me are motivated by the same values, and therefore must have mistaken premises or logic rather than black hearts. You divide the world up into the good - those who agree with you, and the evil - those who disagree with you.

That's an unhealthy thing because it weakens democratic "institutions" (broadly defined) and the basis of a civil, pluralistic society. When it becomes the norm and is taken to extremes it leads to violence. It's retrograde. Unfortunately it is not uncommon on the right either, but it seems to be endemic on the left. It's hardly a new thing, but I think it's growing. I’m sure the amount of it does not exceed that of previous eras, but I’m troubled by the prospect of it growing unchecked.

 

[Pure]

speaking of mental laziness,

what you describe as "my world view" and "my approach" has no basis in fact, and indeed you cite no evidence [quotes]. it's just boilerplate blathering about big spending liberals and socialist central planning.

you are not willing to expend the energy and the embrace the goodwill to do the same.[as you, RA]

i ascribe 'good will,' where there's evidence of it, i.e., occasionally. i assume efforts to tell the truth-as-perceived in my debate opponents, a totally different issue.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

what you describe as "my world view" and "my approach" has no basis in fact, and indeed you cite no evidence [quotes]. it's just boilerplate blathering about big spending liberals and socialist central planning.

you are not willing to expend the energy and the embrace the goodwill to do the same.[as you, RA]

i ascribe 'good will,' where there's evidence of it, i.e., occasionally. i assume efforts to tell the truth-as-perceived in my debate opponents, a totally different issue.

Well look, I hereby retract my characterization of the policies favored under "your world view," and will let you describe those policies yourself. Because I know the ideological premises upon which they are based, it's virtually certain that I will find most of them wrongheaded and counterproductive. The point is, I will not take that as "evidence of no goodwill." It will be evidence of wrongheadedness to me, and I will continue trying to correct that, or at least persuade others that it is wrongheaded. But I will not consider its proponents to be lacking in goodwill - that is, full of badwill: evil. I will not presume that. Generally, I do not expect the same regard from those on the left, but it's not totally absent, especially here I think, because of the kind of community we've built.

 

[elsol]

Why it got to be wrongheaded?

Why can't it just be what I think of some of the stuff you and Amicus spout... against that which my life experience has taught me or even not thought through to the endpoint concequences.

It's like all these collegiate anarchists I find so cute... they spout their stuff and I pat them on their head... I don't do so because I think they're 'wrongheaded'... I do so because I know they don't understand that I would gut every single one of them given the opportunity and here they are hoping for just such an opportunity to arise.

They're so cute!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Why it got to be wrongheaded?

Why can't it just be what I think of some of the stuff you and Amicus spout... against that which my life experience has taught me or even not thought through to the endpoint concequences.

It's like all these collegiate anarchists I find so cute... they spout their stuff and I pat them on their head... I don't do so because I think they're 'wrongheaded'... I do so because I know they don't understand that I would gut every single one of them given the opportunity and here they are hoping for just such an opportunity to arise.

They're so cute!

I just described a much less ambiguous form of wrongheaded on the Chavez thread. That should illustrate what I mean by the term. To avoid misunderstanding, I'm not saying that particular wrongheadedness is the same as what I've been talking about here - it's much more profound, but the premises are in the same direction.

That's not really the point of my last couple posts, but at some point I guess we have to get down to cases. There's a case to get down on, or to.

 

[Stella_Omega]

this may or may not be a side track, but it's interesting, and quite saddening to me;

You divide the world up into the good - those who agree with you, and the evil - those who disagree with you.

That's an unhealthy thing because it weakens democratic "institutions" (broadly defined) and the basis of a civil, pluralistic society. When it becomes the norm and is taken to extremes it leads to violence. It's retrograde. Unfortunately it is not uncommon on the right either, but it seems to be endemic on the left. It's hardly a new thing, but I think it's growing. I’m sure the amount of it does not exceed that of previous eras, but I’m troubled by the prospect of it growing unchecked.

I could say the excat same thing, and in fact, I often have-- about the right.

The rightwinger divides up the world into those who agree, and those who disagree and are evil lefties.

And just like you, I say;
Unfortunately it is not uncommon on the left either, but it seems to be endemic on the right. It's hardly a new thing, but I think it's growing. I’m sure the amount of it does not exceed that of previous eras, but I’m troubled by the prospect of it growing unchecked.


Why is it, Roxanne, that you so fervently believe that all lefties are dupes and have swallowed anti-conservative propaganda whole-- while I feel that the right has been simpletons and has swallowed anti-liberal propaganda whole?

How is it that we can each see so clearly the mote in the other's eye?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

this may or may not be a side track, but it's interesting, and quite saddening to me;
I could say the excat same thing, and in fact, I often have-- about the right.

The rightwinger divides up the world into those who agree, and those who disagree and are evil lefties.

And just like you, I say;
Unfortunately it is not uncommon on the left either, but it seems to be endemic on the right. It's hardly a new thing, but I think it's growing. I’m sure the amount of it does not exceed that of previous eras, but I’m troubled by the prospect of it growing unchecked.


Why is it, Roxanne, that you so fervently believe that all lefties are dupes and have swallowed anti-conservative propaganda whole-- while I feel that the right has been simpletons and has swallowed anti-liberal propaganda whole?

How is it that we can each see so clearly the mote in the other's eye?

My view of the right may be skewed by the fact that I have less exposure to the religious wing and more to the libertarian/economic wings. Clearly if one focuses on the religious part then what you say is exactly correct - this harmful way of viewing the political landscape is endemic.

On the left, tell me why I'm incorrect that this way of looking at things is not endemic? I'm willing to be educated because I may be missing something. From what I can see it appears endemic. It's quite common here on AH, a far more enlightened place than most places where the left is predominant.

I try not to have a mote in my eye, Stella. Being a libertarian with a deep-seated humanist streak and some political science training I easily see the folly and dysfunctions that exist on the right as well as the left. The imortant thing as you note is not a quibble over which side is worse, but the underlying fact that something which is damaging for democracy is increasing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My view of the right may be skewed by the fact that I have less exposure to the religious wing (*A) and more to the libertarian/economic wings. Clearly if one focuses on the religious part then what you say is exactly correct - this harmful way of viewing the political landscape is endemic.

On the left, tell me why I'm incorrect that this way of looking at things is not endemic? I'm willing to be educated because I may be missing something. From what I can see it appears endemic. It's quite common here on AH, a far more enlightened place than most places where the left is predominant.(*b)

I try not to have a mote in my eye, Stella. Being a libertarian with a deep-seated humanist streak and some political science training I easily see the folly and dysfunctions that exist on the right as well as the left. The imortant thing as you note is not a quibble over which side is worse, but the underlying fact that something which is damaging for democracy is increasing.(*c)

*A: GET some exposure to the religious wing. Find out, at first hand, what harm they've done to your ideology, and to our country. And then get busy with a mop. Clean your own house.

*B: Perfect illustration of my point, once more. Oh, those stupid libs! If I need to spell it out for you, you have just said that liberals are unenlightened. AH is excepted, I assume, because many of us care enough about you as a person to continue talking with you even after you've spouted the party line for the umpteenth time.

*C: Yes indeed, it is very damaging, and you might try taking the marbles out of your mouth if you want to begin to change it. If you really do see the "Follies and dysfunctions of the right as well as the left," and if you want to persuade the left of your views, then you might think about acknowledging those follies &etc. whilst you you insult the intelligence of those lefties you are shaking your finger at. Otherwise, you're just another venom-spouting right-winger to me.

Speaking personally, if I only knew you in a political context, I wouldn't know much about you at all. And I have to say, I've put you on ignore once in a while-- in order to remain friends with you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

*A: GET some exposure to the religious wing. Find out, at first hand, what harm they've done to your ideology, and to our country. And then get busy with a mop. Clean your own house.

*B: Perfect illustration of my point, once more. Oh, those stupid libs! If I need to spell it out for you, you have just said that liberals are unenlightened. AH is excepted, I assume, because many of us care enough about you as a person to continue talking with you even after you've spouted the party line for the umpteenth time.

*C: Yes indeed, it is very damaging, and you might try taking the marbles out of your mouth if you want to begin to change it. If you really do see the "Follies and dysfunctions of the right as well as the left," and if you want to persuade the left of your views, then you might think about acknowledging those follies &etc. whilst you you insult the intelligence of those lefties you are shaking your finger at. Otherwise, you're just another venom-spouting right-winger to me.

Speaking personally, if I only knew you in a political context, I wouldn't know much about you at all. And I have to say, I've put you on ignore once in a while-- in order to remain friends with you.

One huge correction: I have never "spouted a party line" in my life. My dispositional inability to do such a thing should be obvious. (The fact that just in the past week you and I formed a "tag team" in an atheism thread is evidence of that.) That I use resources that you may associate with some particular "party line," including the WSJ, doesn't signify: We all rely on sources that reinforce our arguments, and in general the economic-orientation of that journal is similar to my own. That is not the same as a "party line."

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The usual formulation in internet debates would have me introduce this by saying, "not that you care," but I know you do care, per my most recent posts here. So, now that everyone's had fun dancing on the grave of a political enemy, perhaps some might want to turn their gaze to the underlying issue, which is the corruption of the World Bank, and its dysfunctional role in helping the world's poor get a leg up. In this regard, please at least scan the article in post No. 4 on this thread, and the following from today's edition of a source that will remain unnamed:


Mr. Zoellick's first test will come early. As we go to press, sources inside and outside the bank tell us that a follow-up to the putsch against Mr. Wolfowitz is being engineered by Managing Director Graeme Wheeler and Staff Association Chair Alison Cave against Suzanne Rich Folsom, who runs the bank's Department of Institutional Integrity, or INT. Ms. Folsom, an ethics lawyer brought in by former president Jim Wolfensohn and promoted to her current job by Mr. Wolfowitz, has been aggressively pursuing corruption investigations, much to the alarm of some at the bank.

Prominent among those investigations is one concerning an Indian health project. Irregularities in the project, including indications of bid-rigging and bribery, led Mr. Wolfowitz to veto further loans to India in 2005 while the investigation unfolded, despite fierce protests from the project's managers. Now that the INT is about to issue a report about the project, Mr. Wheeler has been lobbying the bank's executive directors to place Ms. Folsom on administrative leave, and for the INT's oversight responsibilities to be radically diminished. Among Mr. Wheeler's responsibilities at the bank is oversight of its works in South Asia. Mr. Wheeler and Ms. Cave were among the most outspoken bank employees calling on Mr. Wolfowitz to resign.

Mr. Zoellick can hardly allow this putsch to go forward if he means to safeguard the bank's integrity. Ms. Folsom was bound to make plenty of enemies by the very nature of her work; allowing her to be pushed out sends the signal that the job is a poisoned chalice to anyone who takes its work seriously. Mr. Zoellick must also insist that the INT get the funding that Mr. Wolfowitz requested last year from the bank's board of directors (he was turned down), and that the recommendations from a forthcoming report on the INT by former Fed chief Paul Volcker be heeded.

Beyond the INT, Mr. Zoellick would also do the bank -- and the English language -- a favor by abolishing the Independent Evaluation Group. Despite its name, the group, which is supposed to provide independent assessments of the effectiveness of bank projects, is staffed by bank employees who have every incentive to kiss the hand that feeds them. If the bank truly wants "independent evaluation," it would be better served asking Transparency International to set up a field office in the atrium of the bank's D.C. headquarters.

Then there's the bank's annual $23 billion loan portfolio. Why does the bank continue to lend to China, a country that has foreign-currency reserves in excess of $1 trillion? Why lend to Mexico or Brazil, two countries that can easily obtain credit in the private market? A "bank" that justifies its existence as an agent of the poor should make Africa its main focus.

The system by which the bank's executive directors approve loans is also geared to handing out money regardless of the intrinsic merits of the projects it funds. Between 1996 and 2003, fewer than half of the bank's 598 projects in Africa were judged to be "sustainable" -- and that's according to the bank's generous self-assessment. Fewer projects, with better oversight and follow-up, could help turn that depressing record around.

The Wolfowitz putsch has also revealed a great deal about the bank's dysfunctional institutional culture -- the way it winks at corruption, punishes dissent, and applies rules selectively to protect its hefty salaries and perquisites. Restoring whistleblowers who have been unfairly dismissed to their previous jobs would be a powerful way for Mr. Zoellick to signal his determination to reform that culture. If that makes him the victim of off-the-record sniping and media leaks, we'll know he's doing his job right.

 

[Stella_Omega]

a Sysyphian task, indeed. i can't imagine how there can be an "Independent Evaluation Group" made up of bank employees.

I can't imagine that anyone there can trust Wolfowitz, what with his own personal record re Abu Ghraib and his relationship with Riza. The bank staff aren't all Americans, you see.