April 1, 2026 Ten Convenient Beliefs In The Columbia University Department of English and Comparative Literature Luke Ford No sacred cows.

Ten Convenient Beliefs In The Columbia University Department of English and Comparative Literature

Posted on April 1, 2026 by Luke Ford

Columbia’s Department of English & Comparative Literature department (ENCL) sits where high theory entered the American university and stayed. Lionel Trilling (1905-1975) taught there. Edward Said (1935-2003) wrote Orientalism there. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (b. 1942) still holds the rank of University Professor in the Humanities and helped found the Institute for Comparative Literature and Society, which runs the undergraduate major and the postcolonial cluster that gives the place its public face. Saidiya Hartman (b. 1961) and Farah Jasmine Griffin (b. 1963) carry the line forward, both now University Professors.

A department this old and this exposed to the global job market needs more than talent to hold its standing. It needs shared beliefs that coordinate hiring, tenure, teaching, and reputation. The beliefs below do that work. They hold the coalition together and signal membership to the few hundred people who decide what counts as serious in literary study. As accounts of how literature works across time and languages, most of them explain less than they claim.

Postcolonial theory and decolonization unlock every literature. The belief turns any text, medieval lyric or contemporary novel, into a move within empire and its aftermath. It keeps the Said and Spivak inheritance alive and supplies an unending stock of dissertation topics and hiring lines. It says little about why traditions that owe nothing to the frame, classical Chinese poetry among them, last for centuries.

Widening the canon toward the Global South and the diaspora improves the field on every count. The claim sits inside the research clusters and the comparative major. It fits Columbia’s image as a world city, feeds the hiring pipeline, and answers the charge of Eurocentrism. It also lets deep training in philology and form fall away.

High theory is the most rigorous reading. Poststructuralism, intersectional feminism, and a Marxism routed through postcolonial studies furnish the citations grad seminars and job letters cite. The vocabulary coordinates a reputation for sophistication. It often works as a sign of membership rather than a claim anyone could test and find false.

The comparative method beats narrow national or period study. The department describes itself this way, and the major rests on it. The claim markets interdisciplinarity and planetary scope. Nobody asks whether it yields sharper readings than old close reading or plain historical scholarship.

Every text must be read first through power, race, empire, or identity. The course listings and faculty interests carry this. It keeps seminars charged and publishable. It files aesthetic and moral questions under the naive and the retrograde, and so removes them from view.

Columbia’s place and history oblige it to lead an anti-Eurocentric criticism. The belief reconciles Ivy League prestige with an activist self-image. It directs money and posts toward global and diasporic fields while the department’s power to place its graduates still rides on the institutional capital it attacks.

Dense, opaque prose shows depth, and readers who find it a wall reveal their own limits. The habit thrives in Spivak’s orbit and the senior seminars. It keeps the gate among the insiders who follow it and lets outside complaint pass as philistine.

Literature earns its keep by serving current movements. Recent colloquia on environment and the course clusters carry the assumption. It helps enrollment, grants, and donors in a season of cuts to the humanities. It skips the question of whether the move enlarges literature’s audience or its reach.

Craft and political consciousness grow together, in equal measure. The pairing sells across the undergraduate and graduate listings. It draws students and funding and papers over the strain between making art and passing an ideological test.

The field’s troubles, a punishing job market, graduate precarity, a narrow range of views, call for more diversity work and finer theory, not a different method or curriculum. This is the standard reply in elite humanities departments. It channels energy into coalition repair and shields the core beliefs from review.

The convenient beliefs run in the background and keep hiring, tenure, teaching, and standing in motion. Inside Morningside Heights they work as social technology. As explanations of how literature lives across centuries and languages, they trade prediction for prestige.

Posted in Columbia, English | Comments Off

Ten Convenient Beliefs In The Harvard Department of English / History & Literature

Posted on April 1, 2026 by Luke Ford

Stephen Turner calls some ideas good bad theories. They do little to explain the world and much to hold a group together. A good bad theory coordinates hiring, teaching, grants, and self-image. It tells the members who belongs and what to say. It earns its keep as social technology, not as an account of reality.

The Harvard English department and its sister concentration, History and Literature, run on a set of these. The emphases come from the current faculty and from a tutorial-driven, cross-field tradition. Glenda Carpio works on New World slavery and African-American and Caribbean writing. Homi Bhabha (b. 1949) anchors the postcolonial wing. Jesse McCarthy carries Black studies. New Historicist and affinity-group courses fill the catalog. Each belief below does good work for the coalition in a crowded elite humanities market. As an explanation of literature or culture, each does poor work. Here are ten.

Literature’s highest purpose is political subversion and the exposure of power and identity hierarchies.
This turns every seminar into a moral test. It justifies affinity-group courses over chronological surveys, the shape of the 2009 curriculum shift, and it lets faculty signal virtue while setting aside aesthetic judgment. It explains little about why some texts hold readers across centuries and cultures.

Expanding the canon by identity and geography carries no cost.
The post-2009 clusters, “Arrivals,” “Migrations,” and “Poets,” build this into the structure. It feeds hiring pipelines for identity specialists and meets student demand, and it answers the charge of elitism. It skips the question of trade-offs in coverage and depth.

Postcolonial, queer, and intersectional theory are the most rigorous tools available.
Bhabha’s orbit and graduate climate surveys that ask for more queer and anti-racist training make this close to doctrine. It coordinates citations, conference panels, and job letters. It reads modern categories back onto pre-modern texts with no falsifiable standard.

Interdisciplinary work stands above narrow literary study.
History and Literature, the oldest concentration, runs on its tutorial system and thrives on this claim. It flatters the Harvard brand and lets context swallow close reading. Nobody tests whether it explains more than old formalism did.

Cultural-studies contextualization reveals the real, ideological meaning of a text.
This rules both departments. It generates a steady supply of publishable interventions and dissertation topics. It ties every poem to empire, slavery, or sexuality even where the evidence runs thin.

Harvard’s standing obliges it to lead the charge against the Western canon and Eurocentrism.
This reconciles great institutional privilege with an activist self-image. It steers resources toward global and identity fields while the job-market value of its degrees rests on the prestige it attacks.

Workshops and student-centered tutorials serve artistic excellence and social-justice consciousness in equal measure.
The English site promotes this. It draws tuition-paying undergraduates and donors and markets the department as both high art and progressive politics. It rarely asks where the two goals collide.

The humanities crisis yields to greater relevance to current social movements.
Recent events, courses on monsters and on AI read through identity, and graduate surveys all echo this. It keeps enrollments and foundation grants flowing and steps around harder questions about philological skill and public readership.

Difficult prose and narrow specialization mark sophistication rather than a failure to communicate.
Bhabha-style writing and subfield fragmentation, both noted in the 2021 Arts and Humanities climate survey, live here. This guards the gate and the status order among the small number of readers who follow it, and it lets outside criticism be filed as anti-intellectual.

Internal trouble calls for more diversity and equity work rather than changes to method or curriculum.
Graduate alienation, thin community, and a brutal job market all press on the department. The climate survey’s recommendations, mandatory anti-racism training and more identity hiring, channel that discontent into coalition-preserving activity. They let the department avoid asking whether its theories explain anything or only confer status.

The combination is symbolic capital, low empirical accountability, and a post-2009 curriculum built around themes and identities rather than periods and authors. None of this is a conspiracy. These beliefs are the operating system that lets the department hire, tenure, teach, and raise money while holding its name as the place where literature counts for most. As social technology they work. As theories about literature or culture they explain little.

Posted in English, Harvard | Comments Off

Voter Fraud

Posted on April 1, 2026 by Luke Ford

Advocates of wide-scale voter fraud in American elections ask how can you even identify voter fraud, let alone prosecute it?
It seems to me you would pursue and prosecute voter fraud the same way you would other kinds of fraud. I find Lorraine Minnite’s 2010 book The Myth of Voter Fraud dispositive. This book is about as rigorous as this topic gets. Minnite did what serious empirical work requires: she went looking for the fraud rather than starting from a conclusion, traced the specific claims, checked the underlying cases, and found that the gap between the rhetoric and the documented reality is enormous. The book is persuasive precisely because it takes the allegation seriously enough to investigate it rather than dismiss it on priors.
The persuasiveness of the messenger matters in David Pinsof Alliance Theory terms, but it also matters in ordinary epistemic terms. When you look at the people who have most aggressively pushed widespread fraud claims, the pattern is consistent. The claims emerge after losses, not before or during. The evidence offered repeatedly fails under scrutiny, including scrutiny by allies. The legal strategy of filing dozens of cases and losing almost all of them on evidentiary grounds is not the behavior of people who believe they have solid evidence. It is the behavior of people doing political work under legal cover.
This connects to something Turner would recognize. The fraud claim is not primarily an empirical claim seeking verification. It is a coalition signal performing a specific function, keeping a base mobilized, delegitimizing future losses in advance, and justifying procedural interventions that benefit one side. The claim does not need to be true to do that work. It needs to be believed by enough people to serve the coalition’s purposes, and the buffered self of the true believer does the rest, filtering contrary evidence as corrupt and treating the absence of proof as proof of how deep the conspiracy runs.
Minnite’s book is the empirical ground. The dubious voter fraud messengers is the Alliance Theory layer on top of it.
Fraud prosecution in general does not require proving the full scale of a scheme before investigating. You follow specific credible allegations, gather evidence, bring cases where the evidence supports them, and the pattern of prosecutions over time gives you a reasonable picture of the scope of the problem. This is how the justice system handles insurance fraud, securities fraud, tax fraud, and every other category where the full universe of violations is never directly observable.
Applied to voter fraud, the question becomes: are credible specific allegations being investigated and prosecuted when evidence supports them? The answer is largely yes. Election officials, state attorneys general, and the Justice Department do pursue documented cases. The Heritage Foundation database, whatever its limitations as a comprehensive count, represents prosecutions and convictions. The system is working roughly as it works for other fraud categories.
What the 2020 fraud claims required was something different and much harder to establish. Not a pattern of individual violations but a coordinated scheme operating across multiple states simultaneously, involving thousands of election workers from both parties, producing no whistleblowers and no documentary evidence, and leaving no statistical trace detectable by the losing side’s own monitors. That is not an ordinary fraud allegation that prosecutors failed to pursue. It is an extraordinary conspiracy claim that failed every evidentiary test applied to it, including by judges appointed by the president making the claim.
The normal fraud framework resolves the dispute more cleanly than the political framing does. Individual violations exist and get prosecuted. The conspiracy claim is a different category of assertion entirely and was treated accordingly by the courts.
The evidence against widespread voter fraud in the US is about as solid as evidence gets in political science. Extensive studies, Republican-led investigations after 2020, court cases that failed for lack of evidence, secretaries of state from both parties confirming the same finding. The Heritage Foundation’s own database of documented fraud cases, assembled by people motivated to find it, covers a few thousand instances over decades of hundreds of millions of votes cast. The numbers do not support a story of systematic fraud.
But the belief in widespread fraud is a perfect case study in the convenient beliefs framework. It is not primarily about evidence. It is a coalition coordination device. It explains away losses without requiring the coalition to update its self-image. It justifies procedural interventions that benefit one side. It generates the emotional energy of grievance and persecution that holds a coalition together between elections. The belief does work that has nothing to do with its truth value.
What makes it interesting from a Stephen Turner angle is the mirror problem on the other side. The belief that voter fraud concerns are entirely bad faith, that there is nothing worth examining, is also doing coalition work. It signals membership, it avoids the awkward concession that any complex system has irregularities worth monitoring, and it lets the believer feel epistemically superior without doing the harder work of distinguishing legitimate procedural concerns from cynical ones.
Both sides have convenient beliefs about fraud. They just serve different coalitions.
If fraud is sophisticated it leaves no easily recoverable trace. A fraudulent vote looks identical to a legitimate one once cast. Chain of custody problems in mail balloting are real in the sense that verification at the receiving end cannot fully reconstruct what happened at the sending end. Non-citizen registration, which does occur in small numbers due to administrative errors at DMV offices, is genuinely hard to detect because the databases that would reveal it are not consistently cross-referenced. The argument that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence has logical standing in any domain where detection is imperfect.
The harder question is whether the detection mechanisms we have are sensitive enough that large-scale fraud would show up anyway. Most election security researchers think yes. Coordinating fraud across thousands of precincts, involving hundreds of poll workers and election officials from both parties, without producing whistleblowers, documentary evidence, or statistical anomalies detectable by the losing side’s own monitors, is an organizational problem of enormous difficulty. The 2020 post-election period was the most scrutinized election in American history, with highly motivated searchers on one side. What they found was vanishingly small.
So the epistemically honest position is something like: the claim that fraud is hard to detect is structurally valid as a methodological point, but the scale of fraud required to change outcomes in multiple states simultaneously would not be hard to detect, and was not detected. The argument works as a reason for reasonable vigilance. It does not work as a reason to believe the specific claims made about 2020.
Turner would note that both the fraud believers and the fraud dismissers have stopped their inquiry at the point most convenient for their coalition.
The case for concern is structural rather than evidentiary. In any system where identity is not verified at the point of transaction, the theoretical vulnerability exists. You cannot know what you did not check. Most fraud detection in voter rolls is after the fact, cross-referencing databases for anomalies, which means some categories of fraud might not surface until long after an election if at all. The honest version of this concern is not that fraud is rampant but that the absence of ID requirements creates an unaudited channel whose integrity rests entirely on the honesty of voters and the accuracy of registration rolls.
The case against the concern is also structural. Impersonating a registered voter in person requires knowing who is registered, showing up before they do, and risking a felony charge for one vote. The cost-benefit calculation is extraordinarily unfavorable for any rational actor. Coordinating enough such fraud to matter in a competitive race would require an organizational apparatus that would be far easier to detect than the fraud itself. Minnite’s research found that documented in-person impersonation fraud is vanishingly rare precisely because the incentive structure makes it an implausible strategy.
The more legitimate fraud concern in a no-ID system is probably not in-person impersonation but registration fraud, votes cast in the names of dead or moved voters, or systematic harvesting operations. Those vulnerabilities exist somewhat independently of ID requirements and are better addressed through roll maintenance and chain of custody procedures than through ID checks at the polling place.
The honest bottom line is that no-ID systems have theoretical vulnerabilities whose exploitation rate appears to be very low based on available evidence, but whose true rate is partly unobservable by design. That is a real epistemic limitation worth acknowledging even if the fraud hypothesis remains unproven.

Posted in Alliance Theory, Voter Fraud | Comments Off

Alexander Technique & The Problem Of The Tacit

Posted on April 1, 2026 by Luke Ford

F.M. Alexander was not a clear easy writer. He spent decades trying to put into explicit propositional form something that is by nature resistant to that treatment. His core discovery was that habitual patterns of use, particularly the relationship between head, neck, and spine, operate below the threshold of conscious awareness and cannot be corrected by direct intention. The pupil who tries to “do” good use reproduces the very pattern they are trying to escape, because the trying is itself generated by the faulty habit. The whole point is that what needs to change cannot be accessed through the normal channels of explicit instruction and deliberate execution.
This creates an immediate writing problem. The moment Alexander tries to describe what he means, he is forced into language that implies the very voluntarism his technique is designed to undercut. He uses terms like “direction” and “inhibition” that sound like conscious acts, because English has no good vocabulary for the intermediate territory between full conscious control and pure reflex. His prose becomes contorted because he is fighting the language at every turn. The sentences are long and qualified and recursive because every straightforward statement misrepresents the thing he is pointing at.
Stephen Turner would recognize this immediately as a version of the Polanyi problem. The knowledge Alexander had, and that a skilled teacher transmits through hands-on work, is tacit. It lives in the teacher’s hands and in the student’s gradually reorganizing sensory experience. It cannot be adequately captured in a text because reading a text and then trying to apply it is precisely the wrong approach to the material. Alexander himself knew this, which is why he was deeply skeptical that his books could do what his teaching did.
The secondary literature compounds the problem rather than solving it. Writers on the Technique face a choice between two bad options. They can stay close to Alexander’s own language, inheriting all its awkwardness and the quasi-mystical air that comes from words being used at the edge of their meaning. Or they can translate into more accessible vocabulary, at which point they tend to slide toward either biomechanical description, which misses the psychophysical unity Alexander was after, or mindfulness language, which imports a different set of assumptions about consciousness and control that distort the original insight.
The few writers who handle it best tend to work by analogy and narrative rather than direct description. They tell stories about what changed in a pupil’s experience, or they borrow from phenomenology, or they lean on the reader’s own bodily memory. That is the closest written language can get to pointing at something tacit. It is not instruction. It is more like an invitation to notice something the reader already half-knows but has not attended to.
The best writers on the Technique tend to be best in different registers.
Frank Pierce Jones wrote the most scientifically grounded account. His book Body Awareness in Action by Frank Pierce Jones is the most intellectually rigorous treatment. Jones was a classicist who became a researcher, and he brought a scholar’s discipline to the problem. He tried to describe what could be observed and measured without overclaiming about the rest. He is careful in a way Alexander never was.
Patrick Macdonald’s The Alexander Technique as I See It is raw and sometimes cranky but captures something the more polished accounts miss. Macdonald trained directly under Alexander for years and writes with the authority of someone who absorbed the work through long personal contact. His prose is uneven but occasionally precise in ways that academic treatments are not.
Michael Gelb’s Body Learning is the most accessible introduction and probably the most widely read. It sacrifices some precision for clarity but does so honestly, and Gelb is aware of the tradeoffs he is making.
Walter Carrington, who trained under Alexander and ran the training school in London for decades, left behind transcripts of his teaching seminars collected in books like Thinking Aloud by Walter Carrington. These are not polished prose but they catch something of the oral transmission that the Technique depends on. The conversational format is better suited to the material than formal exposition.
Pedro de Alcantara has written well for musicians, particularly in Indirect Procedures by Pedro de Alcantara. He understands the Polanyi problem and works around it by staying close to concrete experience rather than trying to theorize the thing directly.
The honest answer is that nobody has fully solved the writing problem because the writing problem is the tacit knowledge problem and that cannot be solved on the page. The best accounts point rather than explain.
Since 2010, some college students have reacted against Body Learning as racist and colonialist. The book was published in 1981 and reflects the intellectual culture of that moment. Any text from that period that draws on cross-cultural examples, references non-Western traditions, or uses language that has since been recoded by the diversity apparatus is vulnerable to this kind of retrospective prosecution.
The Alexander Technique itself has some exposure here. Alexander was an Australian of British colonial stock. The Technique draws on his observations of Aboriginal movers and other non-Western physical cultures as evidence of more natural use. Depending on how that framing is presented, it could attract the colonialist label under current reading protocols.
The deeper irony is that the Technique is about as anti-imperialist as a practice can be in the sense that its entire logic is the undoing of culturally imposed habits, the recovery of something more primary that civilization has suppressed. But that argument requires engaging with the content, which is precisely what the coalition-signaling response avoids.
The students attacking Body Learning are not engaging with the content of the book, which is about somatic re-education and the undoing of habitual patterns. They are pattern-matching surface features against a coalition checklist and producing the expected output. The signal sent is not “I have read this carefully and found specific passages that distort or harm.” It is “I belong to a coalition that flags this category of thing.”
The particular irony cuts deep. The Alexander Technique is precisely about noticing how habitual responses substitute for perception. The student who reaches for “colonialist” before reading the argument is demonstrating, in real time, the very problem Alexander spent his life trying to address. End-gaining, in Alexander’s vocabulary, the rushing toward a predetermined result without attending to the process, is exactly what is happening. They are end-gaining toward the correct political conclusion without going through the intermediate step of reading.
The tacit knowledge problem adds another layer. What the students most need from the Technique is precisely the capacity to pause the automatic response and attend freshly to what is present. The Technique is the cure for the disease they are displaying. But that observation cannot be made in a classroom without considerable coalition risk.

Posted in Alexander Technique | Comments Off

Ten Convenient Beliefs For Christopher Caldwell

Posted on March 31, 2026 by Luke Ford

Stephen Turner (b. 1951) argues that some beliefs last because they help a group hold together, not because they describe the world well. They lower the cost of staying inside a coalition. They cut friction. They let a man keep working without stopping to test his premises against evidence or against his critics. I call these convenient beliefs. Convenient and true are not opposites. A belief can do all this coordinating work and still be sound. The frame brackets the truth question and asks a different one. What does holding this belief do for the man who holds it?

Here is a set of ten such beliefs for Christopher Caldwell (b. 1962), conservative American journalist, author of The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties and Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, contributing editor of the Claremont Review of Books, and a contributor to The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. They align his sweeping diagnoses of post-Sixties liberal overreach, his earlier warnings on European immigration and Islam, his contrarian journalism, and his perch inside sophisticated conservatism into one coherent view that keeps his role as a diagnostician of decline sustainable.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act and the court rulings that followed built a second constitution. A regime of racial preference, anti-discrimination bureaucracy, and group entitlement that displaced the original order without democratic consent. This belief makes The Age of Entitlement the one book that explains modern American politics rather than a single conservative reading of it.

America has lived under two incompatible systems since the Sixties. Once a reader grasps the hidden constitutional revolution, affirmative action, #MeToo, campus speech codes, and corporate DEI fall into place as the logic of a single cause. This turns his long essays and books into guides to the present.

His earlier work in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe saw that mass non-Western immigration would clash with liberal democratic norms, and later events bore him out. This converts a charge of alarmism into a record of foresight.

Elite institutions defend the post-1964 entitlement regime and will smear or ignore a critic before they answer him. This casts his continued access to the NYT and WSJ as brave reporting from inside the establishment press.

His Harvard schooling, his years at The Weekly Standard, and his Claremont post give him the right credentials. Enough polish for liberals to take him seriously, enough independence to tell them what they do not want to hear. This explains how he publishes heterodox work and keeps his standing.

A critic who calls him racist or reactionary or nostalgic does the predictable work of a threatened ruling class. This turns pushback into proof.

The Claremont Institute and the Claremont Review of Books give him the right home. Serious conservatism that prizes historical depth and clean prose over cable shouting. This holds his role as the refined voice of the New Right.

Sober conservative analysis of the entitlement state and the failures of European immigration serves the West better than liberal denial or libertarian abstraction. This converts unpopular positions into patriotic duty.

His work on both continents shows one pattern. Liberal universalism, applied without regard for human nature, culture, or history, brings backlash, division, and decline. This binds his whole body of work into a single transatlantic project.

History will treat his books well because he named the costs of the civil-rights and immigration revolutions before those costs grew plain to everyone else. This insulates him against the fear of marginalization and recasts present friction as a sign the work will last.

These beliefs work as one system. They coordinate his output, his alliances, and his public face. They hold his solidarity with Claremont conservatives. They turn the dissonance of selective history or pessimism or elitism into a sense of enlightened duty. Turner might say their goodness lies in how well they let a man and his coalition persist. Whether they map the full record of civil-rights gains, immigrant integration, or post-1965 America and Europe is a separate question, and the cluster holds whether the answer comes out for him or against him.

Posted in Christopher Caldwell | Comments Off

Ten Convenient Beliefs For IR Scholar John J. Mearsheimer

Posted on March 31, 2026 by Luke Ford

Stephen P. Turner (b. 1951) studies how groups hold beliefs that do a job whether or not the beliefs hold up as descriptions of the world. A belief can coordinate a group, lower internal friction, keep a coalition together, and license continued action without the cost of self-examination or outside check. I read this strain in his work as convenient beliefs. They earn their place by what they do for the believer and his allies, not by how well they track reality.

John J. Mearsheimer (b. 1947) holds the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professorship in Political Science at the University of Chicago. He built offensive realism. He wrote The Tragedy of Great Power Politics and, with Stephen Walt (b. 1955), The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. His military schooling, his realist commitments, his interventions on Ukraine, China, and the liberal order, and his picture of himself as the lonely truth-teller in a field run by liberal idealists all need to hold together. The ten beliefs below do that work. They let his role as the field’s gadfly and the public’s realist last.

Offensive realism gives the one scientific account of international politics. Liberal internationalism, democratic peace theory, and institutionalism count as dangerous delusions that miss the iron logic of anarchy and power. This raises his own theory from one lens among several to plain truth.

His military service as a West Point graduate and an Air Force captain, plus his early work on conventional deterrence, gives him a practitioner’s grasp of great-power competition that armchair academics and policymakers lack. This turns his biography into a credential he can raise against elite consensus.

American foreign policy disasters in Iraq, Libya, and Ukraine flow from the liberal hegemonic project he warned against. Events keep bearing him out even when the foreign-policy establishment will not say so. This belief turns each failure into one more vindication.

The Israel lobby, a wide interest group that takes in Christian Zionists rather than a “Jewish lobby,” has bent American Middle East policy away from the national interest. Writing about it took scholarly courage. This frames the 2006 and 2007 controversy as moral and intellectual heroism rather than a career risk.

NATO and EU expansion provoked Russia in Ukraine. The war reads as a tragedy of great-power politics that any realist could see coming. This lets him cast his commentary from 2014 onward as foresight rather than Kremlin apology.

The liberal international order is a doomed fantasy that breeds nationalism, rivalry, and blowback. Only a realist strategy of restraint can manage the return of great-power competition. This keeps his argument in The Great Delusion and his recent essays prophetic rather than isolationist.

Criticism that calls him pro-Russian, anti-Israel, or controversial comes from a threatened foreign-policy blob that cannot stomach realism’s hard truths. This shield turns scholarly and media backlash into confirmation of the theory.

His long home at the University of Chicago, his editorial influence, and his platform across op-eds, podcasts, and lectures give him the ideal perch. He has academic freedom and public reach, and he can speak to power without institutional cost. This accounts for his steady output and his visibility.

Clear-eyed realist analysis, the kind that puts power, fear, and security competition first, serves American interests better than moral or ideological crusades, even when it costs him popularity in the short run. This turns unpopular positions on Ukrainian neutrality or the price of containing China into patriotic duty.

History and the scholars who come after will judge his offensive-realist project kindly, because it named the costly illusions of liberal hegemony even if the academy and the Beltway recognize this late. This gives him insulation against the margins and recasts present professional friction as a sign of the theory’s force.

These beliefs work as a self-reinforcing system. They coordinate his theory, his public interventions, and his media presence. They justify his standing critique of liberal foreign policy, the Israel lobby, and NATO expansion. They hold him in solidarity with fellow realists and heterodox thinkers. They take potential moral or professional dissonance, the charges of determinism, selective focus, or political naivety, and turn it into a sense of duty. As Turner might note, the goodness of these beliefs lies in how well they let the man and his intellectual coalition function and persist, not in how closely they map Ukrainian agency, alliance behavior, domestic lobbying, or the record of post-Cold War American strategy. His books and his interviews shift their weight between theoretical purity and current-events polemic. The cluster as a whole sustains the project of realist demystification.

Posted in John J. Mearsheimer | Comments Off

Ten Convenient Beliefs For Israeli Political Analyst Haviv Rettig Gur

Posted on March 31, 2026 by Luke Ford

Stephen Turner (b. 1951) writes about good bad theories: beliefs that work as coordination devices. They need not map the world well. They hold a group together, lower internal friction, keep a coalition intact, and license continued action without costly self-examination. I call these convenient beliefs. A convenient belief might be true. The frame brackets the question of truth and asks a different one. What work does the belief do, and would the man hold it even if it were false, because his position rewards holding it?

Haviv Rettig Gur (b. April 4, 1981) covers Israel for a living. He is senior analyst at The Times of Israel, Middle East analyst at The Free Press, and host of the Ask Haviv Anything podcast. He grew up between the United States and Israel, served as a combat medic in the Nahal Brigade, ran communications for the Jewish Agency, and teaches at pre-military academies. He explains Israel to the world in English, at length, with the history attached. The beliefs below hold that project together.

He reads the Israeli street, the security consensus and the rightward shift, better than foreign correspondents and most academics do. He becomes the necessary translator of Israel to outsiders.

Palestinian rejectionism and the commitment of Hamas to Israel’s destruction drive the conflict, more than the occupation or Israeli conduct. He reads the war without adopting the dominant Western frame.

Explaining Israel to skeptical foreign and diaspora audiences serves the country. The work becomes a duty rather than a career.

History and realism beat moral simplification from the left and the right. He faults Netanyahu, the left, and Palestinian leadership in the same breath and stands above all three.

The split between Israeli Jews and diaspora Jews comes from different lives and different ways of building a Jewish self. He sits at the seam and reads both sides, so a real tension becomes his specialty.

His Jerusalem birth, twenty years on the beat, the teaching at the academies, and the Jewish Agency years give him standing across Israeli society. The credentials answer challenges before they land.

Charges that he leans too far toward the Israeli right, or goes soft on the occupation, show that outsiders miss Israeli reality. The attack confirms the brand.

Long-form analysis and patient explanation move understanding further than activism or polemic. The format follows from the belief.

Clear realism improves decisions and heads off dangerous illusions on every side, even when no solution sits within reach. The work keeps its purpose without a peace to point to.

Later readers will rank him among the accurate chroniclers of this era in Israel and the region. The long verdict outweighs the day’s controversy.

These beliefs feed one another. Together they order his output, justify the focus on security and rejectionism, hold his credit with the Israeli mainstream and with readers abroad, and turn the strain of his position, the charge of hasbara from one side and the charge of softness from the other, into a sense of duty. Turner’s point holds. The value of the cluster lies in how well it lets a man and his coalition keep working. It need not track Palestinian politics, the splits inside Israel, or the record of past peace efforts. He shifts the weight across pieces, history in one, the urgency of October 7 in another. The cluster carries the project either way.

Posted in Israel | Comments Off

Ten Convenient Beliefs For Author Yossi Klein Halevi

Posted on March 31, 2026 by Luke Ford

Stephen Turner (b. 1951) describes theories that fail as descriptions yet succeed as practices. They hold a group together, lower friction inside it, keep a coalition aligned, and let people act without checking their premises against the world. I call these convenient beliefs. They earn their place by cutting social cost, not by mapping reality.

Here is a set of ten that serve Yossi Klein Halevi (b. 1953), the American-born Israeli author and journalist, senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute in Jerusalem, co-host with Donniel Hartman of the podcast For Heaven’s Sake, and co-director of the Institute’s Muslim Leadership Initiative. They align his arc from youthful extremism to liberal Zionism, his bridge-building books, his interfaith and Israeli-Palestinian dialogue work, and his role as the empathetic explainer of Zionism into a worldview that keeps his public vocation running.

His path from teenage follower of Meir Kahane and early flirtation with the settlements to mature, dialogue-minded liberal Zionist grants him moral and intellectual standing no opponent can match. The biography becomes the credential. Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist supplies the before, the dialogue work the after.

Patient one-on-one narrative, the method of Letters to My Palestinian Neighbor, offered free in Arabic, breaks the deadlock better than any rival approach and stands on higher moral ground. This lifts his books from advocacy to peacemaking.

The Shalom Hartman Institute gives him the position he needs: enough traditional Jewish depth to reach religious readers, enough openness to challenge both Israeli and Palestinian orthodoxies. His co-direction of the Muslim Leadership Initiative and the podcast extend the reach. The platform sustains the influence.

Both peoples carry real history and real wounds, and to deny either, whether settler maximalism or Palestinian rejectionism, prolongs the tragedy. The both-sides posture makes him the wise, compassionate center.

His spiritual travels through Christianity and Islam in At the Entrance to the Garden of Eden, and his listening projects with Palestinians, express religious humanism and Zionism at full strength rather than softness. The frame turns a charge of weakness into proof of deeper fidelity to Jewish values.

Attack from the hard right for sapping resolve, attack from the hard left for normalizing Zionism, and both confirm that he holds the honest middle. Backlash becomes validation.

His American-Israeli upbringing, his IDF reserve service during the First Intifada, and his Holocaust-survivor father give him lived standing when he explains Israel to the world. Insider credibility meets outsider perspective.

Long narrative nonfiction, the award-winning Like Dreamers above all, reshapes public understanding more than activism or polemic, and so his writing becomes public service. The prolific output becomes a calling.

The future of Zionism and Israeli society lies in a radical middle of empathetic realism, Jewish indigenous rights alongside painful compromise, the path he has charted. This keeps him relevant through the long deadlock.

History will absolve him because he modeled the honest, humanizing talk that might still prevent catastrophe and keep the moral core of the Jewish state intact. The belief insulates him against frustration and marginalization and recasts political failure as part of a redemptive arc.

These beliefs lock together. They coordinate his books, his institutional roles, his podcast, and his interfaith work. They justify bridge-building across the deepest divides in Israel and the Jewish world. They keep him in solidarity with fellow pluralists at Hartman. And they turn dissonance, the charges of naivete or selective empathy or insufficient hawkishness, into a sense of enlightened duty. In Turner’s reading, their goodness rests on how well they let the man and his coalition function and persist, not on how closely they track rejectionism, the settlement map, or the full spread of Israeli and Palestinian opinion. Different books lean different ways, memoir here, interfaith there, the Palestinian letters elsewhere, but the cluster holds the larger project together: empathetic Zionist renewal.

Posted in Yossi Klein Halevi | Comments Off

Ten Convenient Beliefs For Philosopher Micah Goodman

Posted on March 31, 2026 by Luke Ford

Stephen Turner (b. 1951) treats some beliefs as coordination devices rather than accurate maps of the world. A belief can hold a group together, lower internal friction, keep a coalition intact, and spare its members costly self-examination, all without being true. I call these convenient beliefs. Their worth lies in what they let a man do, not in how well they track reality.

Micah Goodman (b. 1974) writes on classical Jewish thought, diagnoses Israel’s fractures, and casts himself as a healer of the country’s divides. He is a research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute‘s Kogod Research Center, a founder of Mabua, and co-host of the podcast Mifleget Hamachshavot. He lives in a West Bank settlement and counsels centrist politicians. His proposal to shrink the conflict became policy under Naftali Bennett. Here are ten beliefs that let him hold scholarship, settlement, and centrist politics together as one calling.

Classical Jewish philosophy, Maimonides (1138-1204) above all, supplies the tools to break today’s Israeli dead-ends. Applying it to current crises counts as authentic public philosophy rather than anachronism. This belief turns his early books on Maimonides and on the Kuzari, along with his later applied work in Catch-67, The Wondering Jew, and The Eighth Day, into one seamless project instead of a pivot.

The Israeli Left and Right both hold true core fears, the Left over Israel’s democratic and demographic future, the Right over security. So the post-1967 situation is a real trap with no clean exit, only wise management from the pragmatic center. This lifts his bestseller above fence-sitting and lets him scold both extremes while standing over them.

The radical center he speaks for is the moral and intellectual mainstream, not tepid compromise. The extremes own the headlines, but he speaks for a silent majority that wants nuance. His books, lectures, and podcast become the true voice of Israeli common sense.

Living in a settlement while he preaches dialogue across every divide reads as lived authenticity and courage rather than contradiction. This folds his home into his bridge-building persona and asks nothing of him, no move and no retreat.

Hartman’s pluralist platform and his own beit midrash give him the perfect perch, enough traditional standing to reach religious Jews and enough academic freedom to needle Orthodox and secular orthodoxies alike. This keeps his reach wide and shields him from the charge of partisanship.

Attack from the Left for normalizing the occupation and from the Right for sapping resolve tells him he has read the trap correctly and struck the needed balance. The backlash becomes evidence that his method works.

His podcast, his lectures, and his access to centrist leaders extend the philosophical mission rather than distract from it. Media reach and political proximity become a scholar’s duty, translating old wisdom into tools for cooling Israel’s civil war.

Fragmented attention and culture-war heat are spiritual and philosophical problems, best met by the slow, text-based learning he champions. This makes his recent book The Attention Revolution the logical next step rather than a detour, and it keeps his output fresh without leaving his themes.

The honors, a place on the 50 most influential Jews in 2017 and the 100 most influential Israelis in 2019, confirm that his approach reshapes Israeli discourse from the center rather than the margins. Outside recognition becomes inside justification for staying the course.

History will be kind to the radical-center project, because it kept Israel from tearing itself apart. Even if the crises persist, his work plants seeds of long-term renewal. This recasts present deadlock as one stage in a redemptive arc and insulates him from the frustration of the moment.

These beliefs lock together. They coordinate his output, his roles, his media presence, and his choice of home. They hold him in solidarity with the pluralists at Hartman. They convert the dissonance of the work, the charges of naivety, of selective nuance, of settlement hypocrisy, into a sense of enlightened duty. On Turner’s account, their goodness lies in how well they let Goodman and his coalition keep going, not in how well they map the conflict, the depth of the polarization, or the real spread of Israeli opinion. The emphasis shifts across his books and his podcast, from classical exegesis to contemporary diagnosis, but the cluster as a whole sustains the project.

Posted in Micah Goodman | Comments Off

Ten Convenient Beliefs For Scholar Marc B. Shapiro

Posted on March 31, 2026 by Luke Ford

Stephen Turner treats some beliefs as coordination devices. They hold a group together, lower internal friction, and license continued action without costly self-examination or outside check. Their worth lies in what they do for the coalition, not in how well they map reality. I call these convenient beliefs, the ones a man selects because they cut his social costs and steady his way of life.

Here is a set of ten that serve Marc B. Shapiro (b. 1966), rabbi, scholar of Jewish history, philosophy, theology, and rabbinic literature, holder of the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Chair in Judaic Studies at the University of Scranton, author of The Limits of Orthodox Theology and Changing the Immutable. They align his academic-historical method, his Modern Orthodox identity, his critique of rabbinic censorship and theological rigidity, his publishing, his public lectures, and his Jewish historical tours into one worldview that keeps his role as insider-reformer sustainable.

Academic historical-critical scholarship is the only honest and rigorous way to study Jewish texts and history, and traditional Orthodox approaches often rely on unconscious censorship or deliberate rewriting that distorts the record. This frames his own books as needed correctives rather than optional readings.

Modern Orthodoxy can absorb critical scholarship and keep its halakhic commitment, which places him as the bridge between the academy and committed Jewish life. This sustains his double identity as ordained rabbi and university chair and shields him from the charge of standing outside Orthodoxy.

Maimonides‘ (1138-1204) Thirteen Principles never held the unquestioned status Orthodoxy claims for them, and showing this in The Limits of Orthodox Theology frees the tradition from needless rigidity. This raises his signature interventions to acts of intellectual liberation rather than attacks.

Orthodox history-rewriting and internal censorship, catalogued in Changing the Immutable, are real, and the community must face them to stay honest. This turns his most contested book into a public service.

His Harvard PhD under Isadore Twersky (1930-1997), his ordination, and his Weinberg Chair give him rare standing: enough traditional authority to be heard inside Orthodoxy and enough academic freedom to say what outsiders cannot. This explains why he can publish such critiques.

Pushback from traditionalist voices, such as the complaints about sourcing in Changing the Immutable, shows the same defensive rewriting and dogmatic enforcement his scholarship exposes. This converts scholarly criticism into confirmation.

Figures such as R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg (1884-1966) and Saul Lieberman (1898-1983) model the navigation between tradition and modernity that he practices, so his studies of them serve as living mirrors rather than mere history. This justifies his focus on these liminal Orthodox intellectuals.

His Torah in Motion lectures, his Seforim Blog posts, and his guided tours extend the same scholarly mission, carrying evidence-based Jewish studies to committed audiences. This folds outreach into the single enterprise.

The future of Jewish studies and a viable Modern Orthodoxy rests on open engagement with primary sources rather than sanitized or hagiographic narrative. This sustains his publishing and reads any mixed reception as a sign the field still needs his voice.

History and the wider Jewish community will vindicate his approach because it keeps Orthodoxy from intellectual insularity, even if current traditionalist circles resist. This gives him psychological cover against controversy and recasts professional friction as proof of the work’s value.

The ten reinforce one another. They coordinate his output, his institutional standing, and his public persona. They justify sustained critique of Orthodox historical and theological self-presentation. They hold solidarity with academic-traditionalist reformers. They turn the dissonance of being accused of undermining Orthodoxy, or of selective sourcing, into a sense of enlightened duty. In Turner’s terms their goodness lies in how well they let Shapiro and his intellectual coalition function and persist, not in how closely they track verifiable consensus in the Orthodox world, peer review, or the full range of traditionalist scholarship. The emphasis shifts across his books and lectures, from theological reappraisal to historical censorship, yet the cluster holds the project of disciplined internal reform together.

Posted in Marc B. Shapiro | Comments Off