The estimable John Schwenkler offers a useful coinage: prefab
conservatives. In construction, a prefabricated house is produced in a
factory, shipped out to building sites, and assembled by folks
unequipped to design anything better.
The prefab conservative, or prefab-con, brings the same attitude to
political discourse: rather than using reason and critical thinking to
craft arguments that fit the real world, he trots out prefabricated
memes, arguments and conclusions that are passably functional at best.
All too often, they are even worse: the typical prefabcon lives in an
intellectual house of ugly, wobbly walls that collapse on themselves in
slight gusts. Undaunted, he throws up another structure on the same
spot, though that wolf named reality is standing right there, ready to
huff and puff again.
The best example of prefab conservatism occurred during the 2008 presidential race, when prefabcon Kevin James went on Hardball with Chris Matthews to discuss whether Barack Obama's campaign pledge to engage hostile countries in diplomacy amounted to appeasement.
Behold the prefab con:
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ideas.theatlantic.com/mt-42/mt-tb.cgi/10792
Three main issues right now are energy policy, healthcare and banking. What should the conservative architects design in answer to the brutalist design of the Democrats?
Was this written by an Atlantic writer? It is pretty low-grade stuff.
Democrats as well as Republicans, in fact all partisan entities, do well to limit their messages and stay on them. Avoid complexity. Stay on message.
Both parties construct platforms that summarize their positions. Their members then shape their own messages according to their party's platform. Friedersdorf merely attacks conservatives for a practice which is equally common amongst liberals.
He then appears to seek credibility for a poorly made argument by attaching the sophomoric phrase 'prefabcon.' Why not 'prefablib?' It sticks as well.
There is nothing new or newsworthy here. Friedersdorf is doing nothing more than noting that the conservatives follow a party line. Well, so do the Democrats. And Independents. There is nothing wrong about that.
What is wrong is Friedersdorf's presumptive and aggressive assault on the integrity of all conservatives. In his view, since conservatives and only conservatives follow a party line, they must not believe in what they espouse:
...It is difficult to tell how many prefabcons truly believe in what they're building, and how many are content to throw up obviously inferior products because it's cheap, easy, and it sells...
This is unnecessary. Pointless. It is a divisive partisan attack.
I voted for Obama. I am an Atlantic subscriber and reader for more than 30 years.
I am ashamed to see this sort of writing associated with the Atlantic.
What has happened to your editorial control? Would Fallows want to be associated with this?
"smart enough to know better into thinking it would be a good thing if the American landscape could be transformed into endless subdivisions of hastily constructed peach-pink houses, sprawling out into the Arizona desert"
"intellectual equivalent of double-wide trailers"
Do you think people are inferior if they can't afford a custom designed house? Is living in a trailer a mark of stupidity?
I think one of the reasons for the housing bubble is that restrictive zoning has banned trailers and other forms of cheap housing. People who could have afforded trailers bought more expensive houses that they could not truly afford.
"smart enough to know better into thinking it would be a good thing if the American landscape could be transformed into endless subdivisions of hastily constructed peach-pink houses, sprawling out into the Arizona desert"
"intellectual equivalent of double-wide trailers"
Do you think people are inferior if they can't afford a custom designed house? Is living in a trailer a mark of stupidity?
I think one of the reasons for the housing bubble is that restrictive zoning has banned trailers and other forms of cheap housing. People who could have afforded trailers bought more expensive houses that they could not truly afford.
"smart enough to know better into thinking it would be a good thing if the American landscape could be transformed into endless subdivisions of hastily constructed peach-pink houses, sprawling out into the Arizona desert"
"intellectual equivalent of double-wide trailers"
Do you think people are inferior if they can't afford a custom designed house? Is living in a trailer a mark of stupidity?
I think one of the reasons for the housing bubble is that restrictive zoning has banned trailers and other forms of cheap housing. People who could have afforded trailers bought more expensive houses that they could not truly afford.
What of a taxonomy of the opposed: JPII Libs, Multi-Cult Libs, Mod(erate) Libs, Relativist Libs, BB (balanced-budget) Libs, AGM (anti-gay-marriage) Libs, and VC (vital center) Libs? - TL
The video is funny; even funnier is prefab-con arguments that go into a mobius strip when you ask them "Should adulterer and missing-from-work Governor Sanford resign?"
I realize this is inane nitpicking, but a column is a bad choice for an architectural analogy here. There's no real insight involved, which is why it's a building method as old as dirt, and just as common. Vaulting would be more appropriate, since it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to realize an arch can bear more weight than a post and lintel.
Queen Anne would be too ornate for the times, and Richardson Romanesque too expensively masculine. Italianate is not efficient, Greek Revival too reasonable and Randish. Gothic is too religious, Arts and Crafts too populist -- post-modern is simply weird -- so we may have to go Internationalist.
Second to point out that there are architectural canons. The military has cannons.
@jct405
I think you misread the tone of the article. You see a partisan attack by a liberal. I see criticism by a conservative. Friedersdorf doesn't claim that liberals possess lofty, superior rhetoric while conservatives throw together "gaudy McMansions." In fact, liberals aren't even mentioned. The criticism is that certain conservatives, an alarmingly vocal number IMO, are barely bothering to think about their views before loudly projecting them. Regardless of whether they reach the proper conclusion, e.g. tax cuts in this case would be good, they don't know how to reach that result. The argument most people seem to make is "this outcome is good," when it should be "this outcome is good because [reasons]." The mantra "tax cuts are good" ignores why tax cuts are good. Even if I agree that they are good in a particular circumstance, yelling that bare fact at me doesn't convince me, nor does it convince liberals. And sure, it's a talking point, but just as "hope" is utterly meaningless, at least it's not a policy position like "cutting taxes," which supposedly is based on economic theories ignored for the last several years in public. I, and many others, demand a higher level of discourse than the flimsy garbage thrown around of late. Liberals can talk about their issues any way they want, but I expect better out of conservatives.
to mike: we agree. thoughtful discourse that allows for differing views is far more satisfying than the harsh and ill-considered. at least for me. many contributors on open forums like this seem to have a genuine need to vent their personal frustrations. often lapsing into open, mean-spirited attacks on the writer or on the writer's supposed political affiliation.
your thoughtful response caused me to pause and reconsider.
the internet is new. but the tendency to bunker-in and bite is not. abraham lincoln used to write letters to newspaper editors under an assumed name falsely alleging all sorts of nefarious behavior on the part of his political rivals. this was well before rising to become one or our most profound leaders.
around the time of the War of 1812 mobs frequently stormed buildings housing newspaper printing presses, dragged the editors into the streets and tarred and feathered them. occasionally lynching them. because these editors endorsed views opposed to those of the mob...on issues of British foreign relations.
so, it seems that we have made a good deal of progress over the decades. admittedly, there is still a lot of flimsy garbage being thrown around. on the other hand, the two of us, at least, have established a space in which we can exchange differing ideas without rancor.
Tim O'Reilly talks to Bob Cohn about Twitter, transparency, and his delight in seeing "geeks playing with sensors, with robotics, with building things."...
Anti-drug activist Joseph A. Califano Jr. explains to Scott Stossel why America's substance-abuse problem is more potent--and pervasive--than ever before....
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan talks to Bob Cohn about national standards, the good parts of No Child Left Behind, and his roadtrip with Newt Gingrich and Al Sharpton.
...
University President John Hennessy talks to Bob Cohn about green technology, Condi Rice's return to campus, and what it takes to get admitted to Stanford these days....
The federal judge who ruled that so-called intelligent design cannot be taught in public schools talks to Bob Cohn about why the debate over evolution will not end....
Curtis Sittenfeld, author of American Wife and Prep, talks to Scott Stossel about chick lit, George and Laura Bush, and those "disgusting sex scenes."...
Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin speaks to Megan McArdle about moving the Republican Party past the politics of personality and into the realm of new ideas....
Former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino talks to Bob Cohn about Obama's likability, the media's complacency, and whether she was wrong to turn the other cheek...
White House health care advisor Ezekiel Emanuel talks to Philips CEO Gerard Kleisterlee about the incentives that make medical technologies more and more expensive...
Jeffrey Goldberg asks Israeli Ambassador-Designate Michael Oren whether the Jewish State has failed in its mission to provide a secure haven for the Jewish people...
Secretary of Education Arne Duncan explains to Bob Schieffer why American schools have fallen behind, and how the Obama administration plans to regain ground...
James Bennet asks Susan Rice, American ambassador to the United Nations, whether the new U.S. outlook can be labeled as idealist or realist...
from THE MAGAZINE
The Atlantic's July/August issue is devoted to ideas that can change the world. Highlights:
energy
The Coming Green Economy Barack Obama is preaching the gospel of clean energy. Can he succeed where Jimmy Carter failed? by Joshua Green
technology
Get Smarter Humans have survived the centuries by evolving into quick-witted creatures. Now technology and pharmacology provide a new boost to intelligence. by Jamais Cascio
business
Dr. Doom Has Some Good News Nouriel Roubini is a famous—and famously prescient—economic pessimist. So why is he smiling? by James Fallows
Three main issues right now are energy policy, healthcare and banking. What should the conservative architects design in answer to the brutalist design of the Democrats?
Was this written by an Atlantic writer? It is pretty low-grade stuff.
Democrats as well as Republicans, in fact all partisan entities, do well to limit their messages and stay on them. Avoid complexity. Stay on message.
Both parties construct platforms that summarize their positions. Their members then shape their own messages according to their party's platform. Friedersdorf merely attacks conservatives for a practice which is equally common amongst liberals.
He then appears to seek credibility for a poorly made argument by attaching the sophomoric phrase 'prefabcon.' Why not 'prefablib?' It sticks as well.
There is nothing new or newsworthy here. Friedersdorf is doing nothing more than noting that the conservatives follow a party line. Well, so do the Democrats. And Independents. There is nothing wrong about that.
What is wrong is Friedersdorf's presumptive and aggressive assault on the integrity of all conservatives. In his view, since conservatives and only conservatives follow a party line, they must not believe in what they espouse:
...It is difficult to tell how many prefabcons truly believe in what they're building, and how many are content to throw up obviously inferior products because it's cheap, easy, and it sells...
This is unnecessary. Pointless. It is a divisive partisan attack.
I voted for Obama. I am an Atlantic subscriber and reader for more than 30 years.
I am ashamed to see this sort of writing associated with the Atlantic.
What has happened to your editorial control? Would Fallows want to be associated with this?
"smart enough to know better into thinking it would be a good thing if the American landscape could be transformed into endless subdivisions of hastily constructed peach-pink houses, sprawling out into the Arizona desert"
"intellectual equivalent of double-wide trailers"
Do you think people are inferior if they can't afford a custom designed house? Is living in a trailer a mark of stupidity?
I think one of the reasons for the housing bubble is that restrictive zoning has banned trailers and other forms of cheap housing. People who could have afforded trailers bought more expensive houses that they could not truly afford.
"smart enough to know better into thinking it would be a good thing if the American landscape could be transformed into endless subdivisions of hastily constructed peach-pink houses, sprawling out into the Arizona desert"
"intellectual equivalent of double-wide trailers"
Do you think people are inferior if they can't afford a custom designed house? Is living in a trailer a mark of stupidity?
I think one of the reasons for the housing bubble is that restrictive zoning has banned trailers and other forms of cheap housing. People who could have afforded trailers bought more expensive houses that they could not truly afford.
"smart enough to know better into thinking it would be a good thing if the American landscape could be transformed into endless subdivisions of hastily constructed peach-pink houses, sprawling out into the Arizona desert"
"intellectual equivalent of double-wide trailers"
Do you think people are inferior if they can't afford a custom designed house? Is living in a trailer a mark of stupidity?
I think one of the reasons for the housing bubble is that restrictive zoning has banned trailers and other forms of cheap housing. People who could have afforded trailers bought more expensive houses that they could not truly afford.
Sorry about the triple post. The first two times I got an error message.
What of a taxonomy of the opposed: JPII Libs, Multi-Cult Libs, Mod(erate) Libs, Relativist Libs, BB (balanced-budget) Libs, AGM (anti-gay-marriage) Libs, and VC (vital center) Libs? - TL
Mercer: "Do you think people are inferior if they can't afford a custom designed house? Is living in a trailer a mark of stupidity?"
Of course not. But I do think that trailers are less sturdily built than custom houses.
The video is funny; even funnier is prefab-con arguments that go into a mobius strip when you ask them "Should adulterer and missing-from-work Governor Sanford resign?"
I realize this is inane nitpicking, but a column is a bad choice for an architectural analogy here. There's no real insight involved, which is why it's a building method as old as dirt, and just as common. Vaulting would be more appropriate, since it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to realize an arch can bear more weight than a post and lintel.
The classical cannon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannon
Queen Anne would be too ornate for the times, and Richardson Romanesque too expensively masculine. Italianate is not efficient, Greek Revival too reasonable and Randish. Gothic is too religious, Arts and Crafts too populist -- post-modern is simply weird -- so we may have to go Internationalist.
Second to point out that there are architectural canons. The military has cannons.
@jct405
I think you misread the tone of the article. You see a partisan attack by a liberal. I see criticism by a conservative. Friedersdorf doesn't claim that liberals possess lofty, superior rhetoric while conservatives throw together "gaudy McMansions." In fact, liberals aren't even mentioned. The criticism is that certain conservatives, an alarmingly vocal number IMO, are barely bothering to think about their views before loudly projecting them. Regardless of whether they reach the proper conclusion, e.g. tax cuts in this case would be good, they don't know how to reach that result. The argument most people seem to make is "this outcome is good," when it should be "this outcome is good because [reasons]." The mantra "tax cuts are good" ignores why tax cuts are good. Even if I agree that they are good in a particular circumstance, yelling that bare fact at me doesn't convince me, nor does it convince liberals. And sure, it's a talking point, but just as "hope" is utterly meaningless, at least it's not a policy position like "cutting taxes," which supposedly is based on economic theories ignored for the last several years in public. I, and many others, demand a higher level of discourse than the flimsy garbage thrown around of late. Liberals can talk about their issues any way they want, but I expect better out of conservatives.
to mike: we agree. thoughtful discourse that allows for differing views is far more satisfying than the harsh and ill-considered. at least for me. many contributors on open forums like this seem to have a genuine need to vent their personal frustrations. often lapsing into open, mean-spirited attacks on the writer or on the writer's supposed political affiliation.
your thoughtful response caused me to pause and reconsider.
the internet is new. but the tendency to bunker-in and bite is not. abraham lincoln used to write letters to newspaper editors under an assumed name falsely alleging all sorts of nefarious behavior on the part of his political rivals. this was well before rising to become one or our most profound leaders.
around the time of the War of 1812 mobs frequently stormed buildings housing newspaper printing presses, dragged the editors into the streets and tarred and feathered them. occasionally lynching them. because these editors endorsed views opposed to those of the mob...on issues of British foreign relations.
so, it seems that we have made a good deal of progress over the decades. admittedly, there is still a lot of flimsy garbage being thrown around. on the other hand, the two of us, at least, have established a space in which we can exchange differing ideas without rancor.
small progress? i'll take it.
thanks.