This happened decades ago, so I don't remember exactly, but didn't Reagan publicly apologize for the guns-for-hostages deal with Iran?
Here's my problem with this analysis of mistakes: it judges outcomes rather than decisions. This is also a mistake.
If the decision maker avails himself of all reasonably available information within the time constraints he has to make the decision, then the decision should be judged in light of that, not the outcome.
A bad decision is not necessarily at the root of a bad outcome and a good outcome doesn't necessarily spring from a good decision. Outcomes based analysis of decisions is exactly why managers in organizations don't like to make decisions. The cost of a bad outcome is too high and the pay-off of a good outcome is not high enough. Since outcomes are unpredictable and are affected by many variables outside of the decision makers control and they are all that matter, nobody wants to make decisions.
Politicians regularly make bad decisions that are bad at the time they are making them and never take responsibility. According to Rep. Conyers, they don't even KNOW what decisions they're making most of the time because they can't read the bills.
Craig
· 2 months ago
I think it would be much more interesting to hear Andrew Sullivan admit that he was wrong.
danielkuehn
· 2 months ago
I think one of the most impressive high-profile apologies has been Alan Greenspan, actually, in his Congressional testimony about the crisis. Some people weren't impressed with it, but I thought it was fairly up front of him. I actually saw him that same day getting dropped off at his Greenspan Associates LLC office (I pass it on my way to work). This was in the midst of some of the worst of the early crisis, and I had this visceral urge to yell something at him (I didn't) - then I saw him admit error in the hearing later in the day and was glad I didn't. Who knows what lessons he's learned from all this - maybe he'll write another book eventually - but he seems to have shown some contrition.
russroberts
· 2 months ago
He admitted his philosophy was flawed. He claimed to have learned something. I think he jumped the gun on that one--obviously I think the jury is still out on that one even if he doesn't. But what he has not admitted is that his actions—on interest rates—for example, were the cause of the crisis. He has vigorously defended himself on that front.
danielkuehn
· 2 months ago
True, but it was something. Wouldn't your stimulus example be jumping the gun a little too, then?
vikingvista
· 2 months ago
Saying that he was wrong about the stability capitalism--a stability his institution continually undermines--is not contrition. Contrition would be admitting his own culpability in undoing that stability. Instead that is something he denies.
danielkuehn
· 2 months ago
Wow - it's very interesting how these acts of contrition are getting dismissed when you disagree with them!
Greenspan said: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
If he said: "I made a mistake in presuming that the government and the federal reserve's abilities were such that they were best capable of protecting banks' shareholders and equity" I bet you'd call that a legitimate apology, wouldn't you?
When the mistake you are apologizing for is that you didn't do something, then admitting your culpability sounds like this - apologizing for making assumptions about how good things are that you shouldn't have.
I should have known better. I thought this was going to be a real, honest, objective look at admission of error by the powerful - and I thought I had a great example to provide because it was so prominent last fall. Sure it would have been better if he apologized for his expansionism too - but I think what he did apologize for was important as well. Apparently this was just another opportunity for ideological spin, and only counting the convenient apologies as relevant.
Methinks
· 2 months ago
"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
Stupid thing to say. Greenspan just embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth these days.
His analysis is wrong. The organizations were acting "in the interest of shareholders" (whatever that means). The shareholders demanded higher returns and didn't give a fig about the risks the entities had to take to get to produce them. Any decision maker at these firms unwilling to deliver the required return to shareholders was FIRED and replaced by someone willing to swing for the fences. Everyone was acting in his own best interest, but ex post finger pointing is so easy - and so cowardly.
Greenspan is apologizing for everything except what he was directly responsible for - stomping on interest rates. That was an action that had direct consequences - it change the incentives for EVERY actor in the economy. And, it's not all that clear that at the time he made the decision, it was a good one. That's what he should be honestly analyzing and possibly apologizing for.
Jake Syma
· 2 months ago
"His analysis is wrong. The organizations were acting "in the interest of shareholders" (whatever that means)."
I completely agree with you here. (there's an audible 'gasp' from the crowd). Then (and this is, IMO, the most important part), there was no check on this unbridled self-interest (you can go ahead and call it 'greed'). They were not allowed to fail. I mean, hell, if you're going to remove the threat of failure, why even have capitalism anymore?
Capitalism without the threat of failure is a very dangerous thing and, at some point in the game, we must ask ourselves "Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"
Methinks
· 2 months ago
BTW. The handbasket of which you speak? Going straight to hell.
I hail from such a hell. Y'all aren't gonna like it. But, I think most people reading this blog already know that.
yetanotherdave
· 2 months ago
Many of us do, but some are too stupid to understand they're helping speed up the hand-cart.
Methinks
· 2 months ago
No question. Scary stuff.
Methinks
· 2 months ago
The same thing happened after the tech bubble collapsed. Every Tom Dick and Harry decided to sink their life savings into anything that ended in "Dot Com". When they found out the hard way the took too much risk, it wasn't their fault. It was the analysts who made them do it.
Even if Wall Street analysts thought the company was a dog, they had to put a strong buy rating on it. If they didn't and the stock took off, they would be at best a laughing stock and at worst ignored and eventually replaced with someone who would. The customers (including portfolio managers - just try downgrading a stock a portfolio manager is long and experience the earsplitting screaming and his pulling of trades from your firm) wants the analyst to help the stock up because they have a positive bias. When the whole thing blows up, it's all the stupid analysts' fault. They sued them for years. Perfect.
Jake Syma
· 2 months ago
I didn't see vikingvista as dismissing Greenspan's apology outright; merely pointing out that Greenspan seemed to be apologizing for the wrong thing. I'd liken it to George Bush (or Alberto Gonzales) apologizing for all the people he green-lighted the enhanced interrogation of not having the information he thought they might*... you and I both would probably (and rightly!) be all over his back-side for that.
* or for going "too far" in a handful of cases; it's early this morning, and I'm not analogizing very well
vikingvista
· 2 months ago
contrite - feeling or expressing pain or sorrow for sins or offenses
What you call Greenspan's contrition was quite literally NOT contrition. Greenspan apologizing for capitalism is like a Democrat apologizing for a Republican or a capitalist apologizing for a socialist.
It is only made more infuriating when this apology is in reality a diversion from his own culpability--when it is him blaming someone else for his own culpability.
It is despicable.
danielkuehn
· 2 months ago
RE: "What you call Greenspan's contrition was quite literally NOT contrition. Greenspan apologizing for capitalism is like a Democrat apologizing for a Republican or a capitalist apologizing for a socialist."
"Capitalism" isn't a person and it doesn't decide anything. Greenspan can't apologize for it. The whole point is Greenspan is apologizing for running the Fed in a manner consistent with an inaccurate understanding of the market. He is culpable for that. I'd have prefered he apologized for the interest rates as well, but I'll take what I can get.
vikingvista
· 2 months ago
"Greenspan is apologizing for running the Fed in a manner consistent with an inaccurate understanding of the market."
That's like Jack-the-Ripper apologizing for an inaccurate understanding of hemodynamics.
Seth
· 2 months ago
Great post. I tend to like scientists, doctors, economists, teachers, etc. who say, "I could be wrong," especially when they're geniune. That tells me a lot. That tells me they're past the ego-feeding necessity to be right about everything and I trust this as a sign that such people have my best interests in mind and in the end are more motivated by finding the right answer than how they look.
vikingvista
· 2 months ago
"I could be wrong,"
That is obvious in everything, so is really a waste of words. It's like when people insist on inserting the phrase "I think" or "I believe" or "it seems to me" into their statements. It is superfluous--it conveys no information.
At least, that's what I think, but I could be wrong.
danielkuehn
· 2 months ago
When you neglect to say it, people who disagree with you have a tendancy to not argue with your points directly and instead just accuse you of thinking you know everything or that you think you're always right. I think it's a "better safe than sorry" instinct, even though it should be obvious. But I could be wrong.
Seth
· 2 months ago
Well put. Agreed.
vikingvista
· 2 months ago
"people who disagree with you have a tendancy to not argue with your points directly and instead just accuse you of thinking you know everything"
So true. Such people frequently tend to launch into ad hominems without adding information, as you say. Those are not people who add value to argument, so it is useful for them to reveal themselves early. All the more reason not stroke their egos with noninformative qualifiers.
Seth
· 2 months ago
"especially when they're genuine."
Methinks
· 2 months ago
Nothing makes you look better than finding the right answer, though, does it?
The "I could be wrong" statement is just a face-saving technique. Protecting one's ego is still ego feeding. I prefer people just state what they think and when someone presents information that invalidates their opinion, they change their mind. To me, that's a sign of a healthy ego and of a person who is more interested in coming to the right conclusion rather than nurturing hubris.
Sometimes I will present opinions prefaced with "I could be wrong" or "I think", but only because I tend to state everything strongly and opinions come out as written-in-blood-facts. I'm pretty aggressive. Sometimes prefacing my statements with "I think" softens them and makes them less off-putting.
Seth
· 2 months ago
I agree to a certain extent. It can be a manipulator. But, I find it helpful in several respects. First, it's a nice reminder to myself that, in fact, I could be wrong and that my main goal should be to learn if I am or not. That opens the door for others to present evidence or arguments that will either convince me that I'm wrong or not. Second, I find that if I'm genuine, it takes the powder keg out of the discussion and leads to a much more productive discussion.
Based on what I know about people being wrong (it's possible and probable, even for 'experts'), I want to hear from my doctor, "I could be wrong, you should get a second opinion". I want to hear from people who influence my kid, "I could be wrong, you should think through this yourself." I want to hear from scientists claiming that AGW is a serious threat, "I could be wrong. That's based on my interpretation of these specific facts. Take a look for yourself and draw your own conclusions or, perhaps you'll see something I don't." I want to hear from my President,....
Methinks
· 2 months ago
The only thing I want to hear from my president is "I promise I will step back and let you make your own decisions for your life."
vikingvista
· 2 months ago
"I prefer people just state what they think and when someone presents information that invalidates their opinion, they change their mind. To me, that's a sign of a healthy ego and of a person who is more interested in coming to the right conclusion rather than nurturing hubris."
Perfect. If people want their egos stroked they should visit their mothers. If they want to think and learn, they should strip that nonsense from discussion.
Bret
· 2 months ago
People don't admit they're wrong because they don't think they are.
People don't think they're wrong, even when substantial new information becomes available, because that new information is still a tiny fraction of what they had when they started.
You have tens of billions of associations (factoids) encoded in your brain by the time you're Bush's age. There's a hundred and fifty words in Sullivan's paragraph.
It takes years and years to accumulate enough counter evidence to outweigh the knowledge vector on which the original decision was based. Very rare for it to happen in a short time period.
vidyohs
· 2 months ago
Years and years have not passed therefore we can rest assured that articles and opinions like Sullivans are definitely agenda driven.
Btw, I agree with your comment.
Mark T
· 2 months ago
Gene Epstein has a very similar column in the current Barron's.
MnM
· 2 months ago
Interesting. I say "I was wrong" all the time. The other three words on the other hand...
paulroscelli
· 2 months ago
Apologies do seem to flow fairly liberally when they are on behalf of the party that's out of office and the "unintended" consequences of what is always characterized as "misguided" policy. Absent those qualifiers, I would have to agree
oldwhig
· 2 months ago
Intellectual honesty and humility are generally to be admired. I would greatly appreciate a President saying, "boy, I blew it with the stimulus bill," or "we didn't get X reform right." But I think that confessing error in a war is tougher than this, and is not necessarily wise. It can conceivably demoralize our soldiers and give comfort to the enemy, undermining our efforts to win. So I can appreciate the president's reluctance to confess error in matters of war. In other areas, I think I tend to agree w/ you...
juandos
· 2 months ago
I'm 58 and I can remember LBJ admitting to being wrong (after a fashion) by not wanting to make another run for the Oval Office...
Maybe just maybe the same can be said of Richard Nixon and his voluntary (ha! ha!) resignation...
Now I know neither one of them literally said the words, "I was wrong" but then again don't actions speak louder than words?
JohnK
· 2 months ago
If a given policy does not accomplish the intended goals, or has unintended consequences, the door is opened to the creation of more policy. If the solution ignores the cause, and rather focuses on the symptom, policy makers can get away with never admitting failure. Criticism of the results of policy can be deflected by characterizing the attacks as criticism of the intentions.
And we all know what they say about the road to Hell...
vidyohs
· 2 months ago
I would say from reading the Andrew Sullivan article that Mr. Sullivan is an extremely dishonest man, and in no position to question another's morality or character because of that dishonesty.
Andrew Sullivan should admit that he has absolutely no idea of the information and intelligence Bush had to work with in making his decisions, nor does Sullivan have any idea of how the trusted advisers advised. For someone who is on the sidelines to sit and snipe at the people in action is a cheap shot at best and plain malicious agenda at worst.
FDR and Truman both while in office presided over genocide and mass killings of innocent civilians, and I hear nothing of besmirching of their character. LBJ presided over a massive fraud that led to the deaths of 58,000 plus American men and I hear of no moves to besmirch their names or second guess their decisions.
Bush made mistakes for sure, but more from lack of use of power than from over use, more from concern of opinion than from lack of concern, and last going to war not intending to prosecute that war to the maximum was a mistake.
Gil
· 2 months ago
Oh gee, what genocide could you talking about, soulja boy? For some reason German and Japanese think they have a right to live freely whist attacking the U.S. and her allies. Strange how the Japanese won't apologise for any actions before and during World War 2.
danielkuehn
· 2 months ago
A libertarian saying that Bush didn't go far enough in using his power? This is intriguing.
FDR, Truman, and LBJ have gotten a great deal of scrutiny - particularly LBJ.
vidyohs
· 2 months ago
I scrutinize you DK, but so far I haven't tried to impeach you post presidentally, nor have I written volumes denigrating everything you do, have done, and your personal character.
Once again for the DKs and Gils of the world, for a leader to commit his people to a war and not intend to prosecute that war to victory with all means available and with utmost minimal risk to his own troops, that leader is criminal.
At least I can not claim Truman did not see the light and use the means available to minimize the risk, nor was FDR reluctant to agree to bombing raids over German and Italian industrial cities.
Yes Gil, there was plenty of genocide to go around in WWI and WWII, and it was shared by all combatants. That you don't recognize that is typical of your shortcomings.
Gil
· 2 months ago
i find it hard to believe you've been in the army for at least 20 years. Maybe you were out back in the storerooms or something.
Genocide refers to the desired extinction of a particular group or race of people. Merely shooting the enemy soldiers or unfortunate collateral damage isn't 'genocide'.
StanFrancisco
· 2 months ago
I've long said that the three most beautiful words to hear in the English language are "You were right," and the three ugliest are "No host cocktails."
Joe Calhoun
· 2 months ago
Russ, while its nice to say "I was wrong" when you are wrong, I'm not sure your example is a very good one. Did sub prime cause the financial crisis? Maybe this is heresy or something, but I actually think you were right. Sub prime did not cause this crisis for all of the reasons you state. The crisis portion of this recession or whatever you want to call it, was in my opinion, avoidable.
I think the crisis portion was caused by the response to the sub prime problems. A different response may well have avoided the meltdown of last fall and while we would have still had a recession, it wouldn't have become the mess that it has. In my opinion, the original sin was the initiation of the TAF by Bernanke in late 2007. That was the point where a decision was made to obscure the health of individual financial institutions that eventually morphed into the freezing of the interbank lending market. From there the mistakes snowballed, but all of them were attempts to conceal information that was vital to the functioning of the market - and they were successful. The uncertainty was created by the Fed and the Treasury and it was a fatal error.
Now, it could be that I'm just trying to avoid saying I was wrong too since I said much the same thing you did about sub prime, but the feedback on my "mistake" was more immediate. I am an investment advisor and while I had prepared my clients (and their portfolios) for a recession, I did not prepare for them for what eventually happened. I had to adjust in real time and didn't have the luxury of waiting this long to admit I was "wrong". While I was able to limit losses and my clients have fully recovered now, it still bothers me that I didn't see the extent of the crisis. Maybe I've constructed this scenario to protect myself from admitting that I was in fact wrong. Since we can't prove the counter factual, I guess we'll never know, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Gary Arndt
· 2 months ago
Politics is defensive. The goal is to gain and hold political power. If you admit you are wrong, you are also implicitly admitting that your opponents were right. As you never want to cede an advantage to your opponent, you never want to admit you are wrong.
As a consequence, it doesn't matter what a policy actually does or if it is successful. In the health care debate, it doesn't matter what is passed or what the actual language of the legislation is. The side which promoted it will support it no matter what. They will declare it a success no matter what actually happens. That is why legislatures do not read bills. They don't have to. It doesn't matter what bill actually contains, they will support it and declare it a success because to do otherwise would be ceding political advantage to their opponents. Likewise, opponents of the bill don't have to read it because they will oppose it because it is in their political interest to do so.
While all humans have a hard time admitting they are wrong, it is far less likely to happen in politics where there are no clear metrics to success. In business it is pretty clear if something was a success.
Brian T. Schwartz
· 2 months ago
On why people rarely admit that they were/are wrong, I recommend this book by two accomplished psychologists:
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.
The book's website is caroltavris-dot-com. (Carol Tavris is one of the authors.)
vikingvista
· 2 months ago
"If you ask people the three hardest words in the English language to say all in a row, “I love you,” would probably win the survey. But I think the three are “I was wrong.”"
I know the difference. "I was wrong" is something that I say to my wife.
Leon du Toit
· 2 months ago
Thanks for a very thoughtful piece. The nasty consequences of "too big to fail" makes its appearance in corporate, political and personal life.
jorod
· 2 months ago
Did Jimmy Carter ever ask foregiveness for inflating the economy and destroyingg the value of the dollar? No. Voters forgive and punish. Politicians look for scapegoats.
Would you admit mistake with Holder as AG?
Seekingexports
· 2 months ago
There is also Barak Obama going around the world apologizing. He is apologizing for others and not himself. This is harmful because it puts himself and the others in a discredited position. This is passive/agressive apologizing and I doubt he will apologize for his own actions and policies becausen he has weakend his status from the outset.
vikingvista
· 2 months ago
"He is apologizing for others and not himself."
Which is in fact criticism of others, masked in apology.
Best CEO apology came recently, from Jeff Bezos of Amazon, regarding Kindle deletion of "1984," published on the Amazon website, where it was initially boldly highlighted:
This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our "solution" to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we've received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.
Wow, that's actually a good one. Not wanting to stray too far along on a tangent, but I didn't recall them as being "illegally sold" at the time of sale, although I'll be the first to admit I didn't follow this issue as closely as others may have done.
Ray
· 2 months ago
GHW Bush said he was wrong when he raised taxes.
Jake Syma
· 2 months ago
Only after the American people told him he was wrong first.
Zing! Thank you, I'll be here all week....
Ambuj Saxena
· 2 months ago
I think it is far fetched to expect top politicians (like President) to feel guilty. Politicians are narcissists, and narcissists don't feel guilt. They only feel shame.
Stephen Dawson
· 2 months ago
P.J. O'Rourke says in 'Eat the Rich' that Julius Nyerere, after stepping down from leadership in Tanzania, said 'I was wrong' about his entire socialist program for the country.
All Comments
Here's my problem with this analysis of mistakes: it judges outcomes rather than decisions. This is also a mistake.
If the decision maker avails himself of all reasonably available information within the time constraints he has to make the decision, then the decision should be judged in light of that, not the outcome.
A bad decision is not necessarily at the root of a bad outcome and a good outcome doesn't necessarily spring from a good decision. Outcomes based analysis of decisions is exactly why managers in organizations don't like to make decisions. The cost of a bad outcome is too high and the pay-off of a good outcome is not high enough. Since outcomes are unpredictable and are affected by many variables outside of the decision makers control and they are all that matter, nobody wants to make decisions.
Politicians regularly make bad decisions that are bad at the time they are making them and never take responsibility. According to Rep. Conyers, they don't even KNOW what decisions they're making most of the time because they can't read the bills.
Greenspan said: "I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interest of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms."
If he said: "I made a mistake in presuming that the government and the federal reserve's abilities were such that they were best capable of protecting banks' shareholders and equity" I bet you'd call that a legitimate apology, wouldn't you?
When the mistake you are apologizing for is that you didn't do something, then admitting your culpability sounds like this - apologizing for making assumptions about how good things are that you shouldn't have.
I should have known better. I thought this was going to be a real, honest, objective look at admission of error by the powerful - and I thought I had a great example to provide because it was so prominent last fall. Sure it would have been better if he apologized for his expansionism too - but I think what he did apologize for was important as well. Apparently this was just another opportunity for ideological spin, and only counting the convenient apologies as relevant.
Stupid thing to say. Greenspan just embarrasses himself every time he opens his mouth these days.
His analysis is wrong. The organizations were acting "in the interest of shareholders" (whatever that means). The shareholders demanded higher returns and didn't give a fig about the risks the entities had to take to get to produce them. Any decision maker at these firms unwilling to deliver the required return to shareholders was FIRED and replaced by someone willing to swing for the fences. Everyone was acting in his own best interest, but ex post finger pointing is so easy - and so cowardly.
Greenspan is apologizing for everything except what he was directly responsible for - stomping on interest rates. That was an action that had direct consequences - it change the incentives for EVERY actor in the economy. And, it's not all that clear that at the time he made the decision, it was a good one. That's what he should be honestly analyzing and possibly apologizing for.
I completely agree with you here. (there's an audible 'gasp' from the crowd). Then (and this is, IMO, the most important part), there was no check on this unbridled self-interest (you can go ahead and call it 'greed'). They were not allowed to fail. I mean, hell, if you're going to remove the threat of failure, why even have capitalism anymore?
Capitalism without the threat of failure is a very dangerous thing and, at some point in the game, we must ask ourselves "Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?"
I hail from such a hell. Y'all aren't gonna like it. But, I think most people reading this blog already know that.
Even if Wall Street analysts thought the company was a dog, they had to put a strong buy rating on it. If they didn't and the stock took off, they would be at best a laughing stock and at worst ignored and eventually replaced with someone who would. The customers (including portfolio managers - just try downgrading a stock a portfolio manager is long and experience the earsplitting screaming and his pulling of trades from your firm) wants the analyst to help the stock up because they have a positive bias. When the whole thing blows up, it's all the stupid analysts' fault. They sued them for years. Perfect.
* or for going "too far" in a handful of cases; it's early this morning, and I'm not analogizing very well
What you call Greenspan's contrition was quite literally NOT contrition. Greenspan apologizing for capitalism is like a Democrat apologizing for a Republican or a capitalist apologizing for a socialist.
It is only made more infuriating when this apology is in reality a diversion from his own culpability--when it is him blaming someone else for his own culpability.
It is despicable.
"Capitalism" isn't a person and it doesn't decide anything. Greenspan can't apologize for it. The whole point is Greenspan is apologizing for running the Fed in a manner consistent with an inaccurate understanding of the market. He is culpable for that. I'd have prefered he apologized for the interest rates as well, but I'll take what I can get.
That's like Jack-the-Ripper apologizing for an inaccurate understanding of hemodynamics.
I tend to like scientists, doctors, economists, teachers, etc. who say, "I could be wrong," especially when they're geniune. That tells me a lot. That tells me they're past the ego-feeding necessity to be right about everything and I trust this as a sign that such people have my best interests in mind and in the end are more motivated by finding the right answer than how they look.
That is obvious in everything, so is really a waste of words. It's like when people insist on inserting the phrase "I think" or "I believe" or "it seems to me" into their statements. It is superfluous--it conveys no information.
At least, that's what I think, but I could be wrong.
So true. Such people frequently tend to launch into ad hominems without adding information, as you say. Those are not people who add value to argument, so it is useful for them to reveal themselves early. All the more reason not stroke their egos with noninformative qualifiers.
The "I could be wrong" statement is just a face-saving technique. Protecting one's ego is still ego feeding. I prefer people just state what they think and when someone presents information that invalidates their opinion, they change their mind. To me, that's a sign of a healthy ego and of a person who is more interested in coming to the right conclusion rather than nurturing hubris.
Sometimes I will present opinions prefaced with "I could be wrong" or "I think", but only because I tend to state everything strongly and opinions come out as written-in-blood-facts. I'm pretty aggressive. Sometimes prefacing my statements with "I think" softens them and makes them less off-putting.
Based on what I know about people being wrong (it's possible and probable, even for 'experts'), I want to hear from my doctor, "I could be wrong, you should get a second opinion". I want to hear from people who influence my kid, "I could be wrong, you should think through this yourself." I want to hear from scientists claiming that AGW is a serious threat, "I could be wrong. That's based on my interpretation of these specific facts. Take a look for yourself and draw your own conclusions or, perhaps you'll see something I don't." I want to hear from my President,....
Perfect. If people want their egos stroked they should visit their mothers. If they want to think and learn, they should strip that nonsense from discussion.
People don't think they're wrong, even when substantial new information becomes available, because that new information is still a tiny fraction of what they had when they started.
You have tens of billions of associations (factoids) encoded in your brain by the time you're Bush's age. There's a hundred and fifty words in Sullivan's paragraph.
It takes years and years to accumulate enough counter evidence to outweigh the knowledge vector on which the original decision was based. Very rare for it to happen in a short time period.
Btw, I agree with your comment.
Maybe just maybe the same can be said of Richard Nixon and his voluntary (ha! ha!) resignation...
Now I know neither one of them literally said the words, "I was wrong" but then again don't actions speak louder than words?
If the solution ignores the cause, and rather focuses on the symptom, policy makers can get away with never admitting failure.
Criticism of the results of policy can be deflected by characterizing the attacks as criticism of the intentions.
And we all know what they say about the road to Hell...
Andrew Sullivan should admit that he has absolutely no idea of the information and intelligence Bush had to work with in making his decisions, nor does Sullivan have any idea of how the trusted advisers advised. For someone who is on the sidelines to sit and snipe at the people in action is a cheap shot at best and plain malicious agenda at worst.
FDR and Truman both while in office presided over genocide and mass killings of innocent civilians, and I hear nothing of besmirching of their character. LBJ presided over a massive fraud that led to the deaths of 58,000 plus American men and I hear of no moves to besmirch their names or second guess their decisions.
Bush made mistakes for sure, but more from lack of use of power than from over use, more from concern of opinion than from lack of concern, and last going to war not intending to prosecute that war to the maximum was a mistake.
FDR, Truman, and LBJ have gotten a great deal of scrutiny - particularly LBJ.
Once again for the DKs and Gils of the world, for a leader to commit his people to a war and not intend to prosecute that war to victory with all means available and with utmost minimal risk to his own troops, that leader is criminal.
At least I can not claim Truman did not see the light and use the means available to minimize the risk, nor was FDR reluctant to agree to bombing raids over German and Italian industrial cities.
Yes Gil, there was plenty of genocide to go around in WWI and WWII, and it was shared by all combatants. That you don't recognize that is typical of your shortcomings.
Genocide refers to the desired extinction of a particular group or race of people. Merely shooting the enemy soldiers or unfortunate collateral damage isn't 'genocide'.
I think the crisis portion was caused by the response to the sub prime problems. A different response may well have avoided the meltdown of last fall and while we would have still had a recession, it wouldn't have become the mess that it has. In my opinion, the original sin was the initiation of the TAF by Bernanke in late 2007. That was the point where a decision was made to obscure the health of individual financial institutions that eventually morphed into the freezing of the interbank lending market. From there the mistakes snowballed, but all of them were attempts to conceal information that was vital to the functioning of the market - and they were successful. The uncertainty was created by the Fed and the Treasury and it was a fatal error.
Now, it could be that I'm just trying to avoid saying I was wrong too since I said much the same thing you did about sub prime, but the feedback on my "mistake" was more immediate. I am an investment advisor and while I had prepared my clients (and their portfolios) for a recession, I did not prepare for them for what eventually happened. I had to adjust in real time and didn't have the luxury of waiting this long to admit I was "wrong". While I was able to limit losses and my clients have fully recovered now, it still bothers me that I didn't see the extent of the crisis. Maybe I've constructed this scenario to protect myself from admitting that I was in fact wrong. Since we can't prove the counter factual, I guess we'll never know, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
As a consequence, it doesn't matter what a policy actually does or if it is successful. In the health care debate, it doesn't matter what is passed or what the actual language of the legislation is. The side which promoted it will support it no matter what. They will declare it a success no matter what actually happens. That is why legislatures do not read bills. They don't have to. It doesn't matter what bill actually contains, they will support it and declare it a success because to do otherwise would be ceding political advantage to their opponents. Likewise, opponents of the bill don't have to read it because they will oppose it because it is in their political interest to do so.
While all humans have a hard time admitting they are wrong, it is far less likely to happen in politics where there are no clear metrics to success. In business it is pretty clear if something was a success.
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts.
The book's website is caroltavris-dot-com. (Carol Tavris is one of the authors.)
I know the difference. "I was wrong" is something that I say to my wife.
Would you admit mistake with Holder as AG?
Which is in fact criticism of others, masked in apology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyCERZBxv5Y
This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our "solution" to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we've received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.
With deep apology to our customers,
Jeff Bezos
Founder & CEO
Amazon.com
Zing! Thank you, I'll be here all week....