I guess, then, it's up to us uncivil commenters to engage in the ad hominem.

Two words: useful idiots.

Can we please stop this nonsense about Brookings being "liberal"?

Brookings was never regarded as "a liberal think-tank" until the right-wing spin-tanks came along. But AEI et al. are not think tanks - they don't do original research the way a real think-tank does.

Brookings was always thought of as the more conservative of the think-tanks, all of which were within the narrow mainstream range. Just because they aren't funded exclusively by Scaife, Murdoch, or Moon, they seem to have been re-labelled "liberal". But they're not.

Guess one thing this shows is that there is a rising demand for leftie early-on war critics, but because they've spent so many years dismissing, marginalizing or otherwise encapsulating the real ones within an invisibility barrier, they have to drop the mantle more or less at random on other people when the need arises.

So far, it looks like the imperative not to consult the real ones remains stronger than the need to have some around to consult.

Guess one thing this shows is that there is a rising demand for leftie early-on war critics, but because they've spent so many years dismissing, marginalizing or otherwise encapsulating the real ones within an invisibility barrier, they have to drop the mantle more or less at random on other people when the need arises.

So far, it looks like the imperative not to consult the real ones remains stronger than the need to have some around to consult.

Man, where do I sign up to get me some of that "even a former lefty anti war critic now supports the surge/mass deaths/president's policies..." money? I was *seriously * anti this war before the war even began! And I continued my principled and reasoned opposition to the clusterf*ck right up until today! But the money is just *too good* and I need a job now so *move over* Pollack, ohanlon and Daalder! I'm going to make your youstabee support look pale. Just as soon as I defenestrate my principles, hack out my reasoning gland and put out my own eyes.

aimai

Can we please stop this nonsense about Brookings being "liberal"?

Brookings was never regarded as "a liberal think-tank" until the right-wing spin-tanks came along. But AEI et al. are not think tanks - they don't do original research the way a real think-tank does.

Brookings was always thought of as the more conservative of the think-tanks, all of which were within the narrow mainstream range. Just because they aren't funded exclusively by Scaife, Murdoch, or Moon, they seem to have been re-labelled "liberal". But they're not.

Posted by: Avedon | August 6, 2007 01:29 PM

Pure bullshit, almost every line.

Brookings was considered liberal enough in the late Sixties to have been nominated for a firebombing by Nixon aide Chuck Colson.

These days -- being funded by Sabin -- they are certainly not liberal, but back in the day they were considered to be just that.

I don't raise these points to engage in the kind of ad hominem attacks

Why not? Chait is a supercilious twit who SHOULD be subject to ad hominem attacks.

Anonymous wrote, These days -- being funded by Sabin -- they are certainly not liberal, but back in the day they were considered to be just that.

My impression is that they ceased being liberal and were more firmly centrist under the leadership of Shultz [spelling?]. But, come on, that was perhaps three decades ago, and I'm guessing long before Sabin funded them.

Brookings was considered liberal enough in the late Sixties to have been nominated for a firebombing by Nixon aide Chuck Colson.

Chuck Colson probably thought Humphrey was bomb-throwing communist so maybe his judgement as to what is liberal might be taken with a grain of salt?

Chuck Colson also offered to run over his own grandmother, undoubtedly because she was fond of tinting her hair pink.

The WaPo op-ed page was a depressing place this morning. Kagan, Novak, Sebastian Mallaby, Jackson Diehl (a totally unmemorable writer: I'm sure I've read dozens of his columns over the years, but can't remember a thing about them once I'm done), and Arlen Specter.

Nothing to add on the main point.

Yeah, I agree that defining "liberal" by the Colson standard isn't going to be reliable. That Brookings wasn't what we now think of as "conservative," which is simply partisan Republican (where were the conservatives of conscience the last seven years?), didn't make it liberal, or an organ of liberals, or the kind of organ that AEI and its ilk are, only for liberalism or Democratic partisanship. Discussing public policy at all these days, with the exception of "tax incentives" (which is somehow not social engineering), is these days considered liberal.

But if we're supposed to be impressed with somebody's bona fides as anti-war, or as liberal, as a pro hominem argument, then exposing the distortion, whether it's ad hominem or not is valid information.

I just sickens me all over again that this is the basis for the propaganda Surge for Victory at least until the current bozos are out of office. Long past time to pull the plug.

And for our lurking right winger friends, it ain't 'cause I want to see America defeated, it's because there is no victory in Iraq; the "Surge" isn't giving the government of Iraq a stable place to work out their differences, as the president said. The government there is falling apart, with coalitions leaving, not joining to have a say. But somehow the people that said it was a fool's errand before shock and awe aren't sufficiently sexy enough to warrant linking to.

ANON, I'm not sure if that means Brookings was really liberal or just not playing ball with Tricky Dick.

Anyway, I learned that Peter W. rodman, a signed of the 1998 PNAC letter to Clinton and former asst. sec in DOD, is now a Senior Fellow at Brookings, so I'm starting to have doubts about Brookings being at all liberal.