“Faith-based” or “reality-based” blogging

December 20, 2006 in Bushating, GWOT

Like me, you may have noticed the term “reality-based” being revived in discussions about the Iraq Study Group’s report. Well, I’m a little embarrassed to admit it, but though I had heard the many sniffling, disparaging references from Liberals about “reality-based” policy over the past few years, I was not clear about its source (I plead guilty to being generally indifferent to petty, partisan criticism).

Well, today I read the article where the phrase debuted–thanks to a link from “commient” (sic) regular, elliemay. There it was, in the NYTimes Magazine. As I read the article, this adage, often attributed to Robert F. Kennedy, came to mind:

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

Suskind (the author of the article) seized upon the term “reality-based” as a contrast with what he terms GWB’s “faith-based” presidency. By “faith-based” Suskind means basing policy decisions on “faith,” which he defines as “believ[ing] things for which there is no empirical evidence.” Was RFK a “faith-based” politician?

The article makes much of the now-common accusation that Bush is cock-sure and unwilling to yield, but that argument is ironic because it only arguably “works” if the subject is Bush’s Iraq policy. Sure, Bush has determined that there is no negotiating with or appeasing Islamists, but I’d say there’s plenty of “empirical evidence” for that conclusion.

On the other hand, Bush has been rather willing to compromise with Liberal pols on a host of domestic issues: the Medicare Prescription program; NCLB; BCRA; spendthriftiness, etc. etc. Speaking of “faith-based” policy . . . where, for example, is the empirical evidence that public schools in America are effective at educating our children?