You lie down with dogs....

The article makes sense if you read it and completely accept the right-wing frames which are its context. One glaring instance: The "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not two sides of the same debate. Not even close. One is an honest position, whatever you think of it. The other is not.
The same goes for almost every dichotomy of position in the post.

when he said that all Democratic politicians should be castrated

Aren't they already?

How can such a fine political analyst as Norm Ornstein take so long to be bothered by his allegiance with an organization run by and for warmongering lunatics?

Could the neocons be the sinking ship and Norm the proverbial rat? (No offense, of course. Observation offered in pure bipartisan spirit...)

Basically I totally agree with the post. However, I want to point out its serving to accentuate the racist tone of the view of Neocons by the Netroots. Neocons started as mainly Jewish and it appears to a reason for blaming Neocons for almost everything. It appears that this racism encourages to gather into the racist umbrella Neocons and Israel ,another target of the Guardian reading mob.

I think it's a shame because there is plenty we don't like about some Neocons and about the Likud; we don't have to bind them together to get a bigger racist bang for the cheap buck.

He's their token liberal.

I spent 13 years teaching full-time in university settings. Since then, I have regularly visited campuses. I can say flatly that the intellectual openness and lack of orthodoxy at AEI exceeds what I have seen on any college campus --

Let's take a look at that intellectual openness and lack of orthodoxy...

One of the American Enterprise Institute's little star players is a fellow named John Lott. Why is John Lott interesting...

Well, Mr. Lott's field of expertise is social science, and in particular, gunfaggery. Gunfaggery, as we all know, is the philosophical position that guns are a valued and intrinsic part of American life and lifestyle, and that it's good for you.

Mr. Lott was so dedicated to proving this proposition, that firearms are good for you, he went out and did persuasive sociological studies proving that firearms, and particular, concealed firearms made people safer and reduced crime. Good for Mr. Lott!

Except that as it turned out, no one could replicate the results of Mr. Lott's studies. Poor Mr. Lott!

So, academics went to Mr. Lott and said "Hey, we can't replicate or reproduce these results you're finding. Can we have a look at your data, maybe we're missing something?" Smart academics!

But as it turned out, Mr. Lott didn't have that data. His hard drive crashed. And the original survey results and papers were all lost somehow. And he didn't keep any receipts or paperwork or documentation of the work. And no one could even find the grad students who did his surveys. Mysterious indeed, Mr. Lott!

Of course, when you're eight years old, 'the dog ate my homework' doesn't fly very far as an excuse. Some people have interpreted these facts to conclude that Mr. Lott in fact did not actually do a study, but invented his research, fudged his findings, and carried on a big sham. I don't interpret these facts myself, I let the facts speak for themselves, and Mr. Lott's failure to explain himself speaks for itself.

The kindest thing one could possibly conclude of this history of Mr. Lott is that his slipshod methodology and lack of documentation of his methodology suggests that he is the worst kind of incompetent researcher, negligent, inept and sub-par. That the failure to decisively replicate his results on any scale suggests that his incompetence extended to his analysis. And one might conclude that his work was utterly worthless, except to those with a political agenda, and no particular regard for standards. But I won't myself say that about Mr. Lott.

Instead, gentle readers, I'll let the facts speak for themselves and encourage you all to google Mr. Lott to your heart's content. If I have been too harsh, I'm sure I'll be set straight and make appropriate apologies.

Of course, Mr. Lott is an edgy, controversial thinker, he's like those television cops who don't always play by the rules but get the job done. In Mr. Lott's case, he doesn't play by the rules, but somehow, his research ends up saying what he wants it to say. Hell of a coincidence, don't you think?

But then, Mr. Lott is frequently doing things like that. When his work began to be criticized, Mr. Lott invented an internet persona "Mary Rosh" who claimed to be a former student of his, a big fan, and defended her mentor who she repeatedly described as brilliant and chock full of integrity. Mary Rosh became known for her stirring defenses of Mr. Lott, and for her scathing personal attacks on his critics.

Of course, a lot of the oomph went out of Mary Rosh when people discovered she was really John Lott in drag.

One wonders if this gender switch extended to other activities in his personal life. Ah, but I suppose that's unfair of me. Forget I said that. No business of ours if John Lott kneels in front of glory holes or masturbates in drag. We'll just move on past the whole Mary Rosh matter and say no more about it. Those of you who are fascinated by cyber-drag can google 'Mary Rosh' and 'John Lott.'

In any case, it seems that Mary Rosh is not the only fake identity that John Lott parades around in. Several other internet identities claiming to be real people have been traced back to Lott. Mostly they are out there as neutral objective observers defending his work, attacking his enemies, giving glowing reviews to his work.

After all, why let other reviewers critique your work, when you can fake your own reviews and give yourself a gold star!

Fake reviews, Fake identities, possibly fake research. See a pattern here?

Of course, things like plagiarism, falsifying or fabricating research, and sundry other games don't go over well in the stiff confines of Academia.

They tend to put a lot of emphasis on little details like proof, verification, documentation, integrity, etc. So I presume that Mr. Lott, in academic terms, is quite a bad boy.

Academia has evolved quite a stringent set of rules, including peer review, discipline and very careful restrictions on behaviour.
Things like ethics, little things like truth, loom large for them.

These little things are not necessarily part of think tanks, and not necessarily part of American Enterprise Institute. There, there's no peer review, internal verification, there's no fact checking, you don't need any special qualifications.

Now, here's the thing about John Lott and his relationship to the American Enterprise Institute.

Apparently, it was after all these embarrassing scandals broke out that Mr. Lott joined the AEI.

Think about that.

This is the sort of person that AEI lets in through the door. The sort of person that they invite, lionize and fete. Mr. Lott's research, his approach to academics and politics are a standard that the AEI seems entirely comfortable with.

This implies that AEI makes no distinction at all between utter shit and pure gold. It all comes through the door.

I have yet to see gold, but I'm being generous. Certainly Mr. Lott's history and work must give us pause. Whatever that is, it certainly is not gold, and quite possibly is the other stuff.

The point is that what we have here is a certain lack of discrimination. Perhaps an aggressive lack of regard or interest in discrimination.

So in that sense, I certainly agree that AEI is far more open intellectually open and heterodox than academia... in about the same sense that two dollar whores are far more open to syphilis and gonorhea.

My own view of the AEI is perhaps a trifle cynical. It strikes me that the AEI operates as an alternative to academia, that it operates in freedom from academic restrictions. It's freedom from academic restrictions like truth and integrity, I might cynically wonder, are perhaps the real reason for its existence?

Certainly the AEI is well funded. I find myself wondering if the AEI's apparent lack of academic distinction and rigor might be balanced somewhere else. Perhaps the real gatekeeper of their work, the real test is ideological purity? Truth subordinate to faith? The party line deciding what gets published and what doesn't? What get's promoted and what doesn't?

As I said, the AEI is well funded. I'd invite the gentle readers to look at those funders, feel free to google, and then to look at the sort of material they promote. Connections?

Ah well. I've enjoyed Norman Ornstein's condescending and flippant observations and remarks as reported here by Steve Clemons. I think that Mr. Ornstein has the right attitude. Clearly, he's not taking things very seriously, and good on him. I feel no need to take him seriously either.

I suppose this is the moment where someone might say, "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." But really, that's a cliche, and unworthy of Mr. Ornstein.

I suppose I could say that I respect Mr. Ornstein's expression of his views and his choices for career and expression. But I don't think I could say that...

You see, whores don't need respect, they get money instead. And being whores, that's quite satisfactory to them at the end of the day. If they wanted respect more than money, they wouldn't be whores in the first place.

So instead, I'll just give Mr. Ornstein a friendly nod, and walk on by. The most courteous thing I can say for him is that I hope he is well paid for his services.

Whores deserve at least that much.

This is the kind of post that makes me want to cry, and I sure hope that radical right-wing Web sites are sympathetically airing differences on the left, but I'm not holding my breath. The AIE was founded, like other right-wing think tanks, so that partisan opinion would not have to maintain academic rigor in order to influence the political debate and it has.

Sure, there are differences within the extreme right, between those like Norquist who would drown government in the bathtub and those who would use it to conquer the world, although I saw little evidence during the Bush administration that the right wasn't happy to thrive on the contradiction.  And sure, they can have friendships with those like Steve, whose only morality is who invites him to dinner. 

But taking that shallow internal debate for a spectrum of vital opinion is beneath contempt.

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Could you envision the AIPAC logo over those flag-draped coffins? I'm just saying, an essay on influence behind AEI and Norm Ornstein's objectivity but not one mention of AIPAC. Hmmm. The fact that it is so surprising that AIPAC and AEI are fighting over the sanctions emphasizes their (usually) shared outlook. Ornstein's politics is beside the point. Witness "liberal" Brookings scholars like O'Hanlon and Pollack (funded by Saban) carrying water for the neocons.

Norm Ornstein is a bloviating centrist who wants to be admired by anyone and everyone in power. If the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of moral crisis maintain their neutrality, Norm has his hot spot reserved.
King of conventional wisdom, he makes David Broder look like Thorstein Veblen.

Valdron is in fine form tonight. Nothing like that Canadian spirit to keep the heart warm and the soul ready for battle.

Well, here's something that really made me roll my eyes Steve:

Around the room were the blue chip firms of industrial America as well as the new high flyers then, like AOL, Cisco, Intel, and many others. All of these multinationals are light years ahead of AEI's Novak on issues of abortion and tolerant workplaces that include benefits for same sex partners and all that. And yet they continue to give to AEI (I've asked them) because they respect what Norm Ornstein calls "an intellectual openness and lack of orthodoxy at AEI exceeds what I have seen on any college campus." [My emphasis.]

Excuse my cynicism, but I was always under the impression that corporations generally don't support any organization simply because the respect their lack of orthodoxy, independence, etc., etc. etc. They support organizations that they believe advance their interests in the world, and withhold support from organizations that they believe are hostile to their interests.

Anyway, later in your post you let on that actual motives driving think tanks and their corporate sponsors are somewhat less disinterested than you initially suggest:

Did some donors get self-interested and indicate to AEI -- even informally -- that pushing on sanctions damaging to their interests was over the line? I have no idea but some speculate that's the case. If this did occur, it's too bad these firms had to wait for a clear financial hit before communicating their concerns and didn't make that call either when moral calls were being made from AEI that were at serious odds with their liberal political culture -- or when they saw the bodies of soldiers coming home and thought through AEI's unique role with the Bush administration and the set of wars we are engaged in.

You first ask whether Intel used its donor status to push on AEI scholars to produce results and associate themselves with public positions compatible with Intel goals. But rather than decrying this sort of bought intellectual product, you only express regret that they didn't exert this kind of influence ... er, I mean "communicate their concerns" ... earlier in the process.

So Steve, it seems to me that you understand perfectly well what kind of game this is, and know that AEI, and other think tanks, are not genuine scholarly institutions, but are glorified lobbying or advocacy groups devoted to a core agenda, but ornamented here and with a few scholars who are allowed to deviate from the main line as a way of purchasing some credibility. Corporations and other "high flyers" support these organizations and attend the seemingly interminable round of Washington shmoozefests, because they are networking to maximize their influence in Washington, and to seek out willing intellectual whores; and the think tank scholars and administrators attend these soirees to chase the cash that underwrites their sinecures.

Ornstein continues the tradition of think tank-driven slanders against academic institutions as rigid dens of orthodoxy and intellectual oppression. That is just a canard. I'd like to know if Ornstein moved form Catholic U to AEI to chase his dreams of independence and unorthodoxy, or if he was mainly after more money, and more media exposure of the kind that could be parlayed into lucrative invites and public appearances. If Ornstein is not a hack, and I'll accept your word that he isn't, then he shouldn't work for a hack lobbying institution. If he does choose choose to work for one, then he has no business whining about how unfair it is that critics can't distinguish him from all the other hacks.

And don't forget that Norquist famously said, "Bipartisanship is another word for date rape."

We should take him at his word and act accordingly.

Others have made the point as well, but Ornstein benefits BIG TIME from his employment at AEI. He is as BevD noted the person AEI points to so they can be called "a conservative-leaning think tank with a diversity of opinion ranging from Ornstein..." As a fairly moderate liberal/centrist he plays in a sense an Alan Colmes - like role for the real busines of AEI and validates the organization as well.

For Ornstein the benefits are enormous. Not only does he get his salary and indeed the organization not only does not mind his marginalized yakking, it encourages it for it helps AEI as above. But more than giving Ornstein free rein, the organization helps Ornstein sell himself as the AEI's resident liberal he gets much greater entry into the paying corporate media and their adjunct, NPR and public television.

Norm Ornstein whether personally likable or not should not get a pass: in his Political Almanac politicians were elected BECAUSE they were conservative and DESPITE the fact they were liberal. The political leaning of the district was not a factor in these descriptions. This says more than enough about his bias and intellectual dishonesty.

Also,he is lending whatever prestige he has to AEI .... which is clearly a source of a great deal of propaganda landing the US in Iraq. Ornstein's position is that the impact of those 'studies' is not his department a la Werner von Braun -- of once the rockets go up who cares where they come down that's not my department says Werner von Braun -- fame.

duplicate

Although I share Steve Clemons' sentiments about Norm Ornstein and Ornstein's own sentiments about the benefits of bipartisan moderation in a civic-republican spirit, I can't defend AEI just because it gives a few good people like Ornstein a home. As I was reminded recently (and as I reminded Boston Globe readers two weeks ago,) AEI gives a home and a big public spin machine to far, far too many thinkers like this:

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/08/19/the_sacred_states_of_america/

More than some house-cleaning is called for, and I'd like to have seen Ornstein and Clemons say so.

John.

"And sure, they can have friendships with those like Steve, whose only morality is who invites him to dinner. "

As a reader of Clemon's blog since it's inception, I share your frustration with him. My impression is that his rising profile in the world of thinktankery is in lockstop with his acceptance and parroting of unthruthful memes that knowingly or not, support an interventionist foreign policy agenda.

A quote from his post speculating about president Petraeus illustrates my point;

"A regional conflagration could begin to heat up. A high-level assassination of a moderate Sunni Arab leader in Jordan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia could start a raging new regional, if not global, war."

Since when does anyone who knows a damn thing about the ME consider the Sunni Arab leaders of Egypt, Jordan and the KSA to be moderates? The bushie-driven meme designating these particular 3 Arab states as moderate doesn't even approach the level of truthiness when applied to how their citizens are treated.

In DC policy circles, all that matters is how willing these Arabs are to go along with the current US agenda in the ME; reality and facts on the ground be damned.

Valdron,

excellent post.

I like Ornstein (I can't help myself) but I can't say the same about AEI and some of the more well known gang over there, like; Lyn Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Michael Barone, James Glassman, Irving Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Gregory Mankiw, Charles Murray, Richard Perle, Ben Wattenberg, Paul Wolfowitz, and last, but not least, JOHN YOO.

"An intellectual openness and lack of orthodoxy at AEI exceeds what I have seen on any college campus." -- It is a sad and almost shocking commentary that anyone can utter (or even repeat) these words with a straight face -- since the "orthodoxy" seen on college campuses is nothing else than the belief that the people of a nation might have responsibility to rein in and impose regulatory laws and taxes on large corporations in the name of the public good.

He [Bundy] and others had achieved success; they had won awards, climbed in business and academe, each position had brought them higher. They had of course paid a price along the way. Pragmatism had again and again confronted morality, and morality had from time to time been sliced;, but it had always been for the greater good of the career. It was the American way, ever upward; success justified the price, longer and longer hours invested, the long day became a badge of honor ... Success was worth it, and after all, success in the American way was to do well. But the price was ultimately quite terrible. Washington was a the company town in the company country, where success mattered, and in the end, they could not give up those positions and those titles for anything. They were the only things they had left that had set them apart; they had no other values, no other identity than their success and their titles. The new American modern man was no longer a whole man; it was John McNaughton able to argue against his interior beliefs in order to hold power. McNamara able to escalate in Vietnam knowing that he was holding the Joint Chiefs of Staff back on nuclear weapons; men able to excise Vietnam from their moral framework. So they could not resign.; no one decision, not even a war, could make them give up their positions. --David Halberstam, Best and Brightest (p. 527).

If Ornstein is happy at AEI, the best of luck to him. AEI is a right wing think tank so Ornstein will be painted the same color by association. The same as a conservative working for a liberal think tank. Few people have the time or probably the interest in examining the shade of color.

As for John Lott, he's supposedly doing research at the University of Maryland and writing opinion for Fox/Faux News. Lott is an economist but apparently made himself into a sociologist/criminologist etc. If you have a PhD I guess no one looks closely at your degree field. Dr Laura Schlessinger sells herself as a radio shrink but her PhD is in physiology.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293844,00.html

A very good point, and one incessantly made by whores. ;)

HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA TOUCHE! :-)

And Marx was Jewish, no? So it's racist to be against Marxism -- oh, wait.

"my only morality is who invites me to dinner?"

someone remember that the next time I'm roasted somewhere.

best, Steve Clemons