Here's a gross generalization that may have some truth in it, and may explain some of what we're seeing now:

The Left and the Right--perhaps only in the U.S., perhaps not--each have a characteristic set of intellectual/moral characteristics, and among these are some intellectual/moral failings. Among the characteristic failings of the Left is a kind of (especially intellectual) timorousness or diffidence, leading in extreme cases even to skepticism or a kind of relativism.

(note: there's a term ('relativism', that is) that is used in so many different ways, and in such vague ways, that it's almost useless. To get a better handle on relativism, you could take a look at my fascinating paper "What Relativism Isn't" in the April '98 edition of _Philosophy_...)

Anyway, among the characteristic intellectual/moral failings of the Right is DOGMATISM. And it is the dogmatism of the current administration that is at the root of many problems currently facing it and us.

If the Left too often doubts that which it should not doubt, the Right too seldom doubts that which it should doubt. As I noted in my last fascinating post, one of the main intellectual/moral failings of the current Republican leadership is that they seem constitutionally incapable of self-criticism. They simply can't seem to get their minds around the idea that they might sometimes be wrong, and that those who oppose them might oppose them for good reason. Now, of course there are times when one must ignore one's critics and simply press on in whatever way ultimately seems best. If criticism is unreasonable, it doesn't make sense to fret about it or allow it to alter one's decisions. The problem with the current administration is that it not only ignores even the most reasonable criticism, it attacks the intelligence and moral character of those who raise those reasonable criticisms.

This reaction to criticism is probably a particular manifestation of their general tendency to simply ignore the evidence. There is probably no greater intellectual vice than a resolute refusal to honestly assess and react to the evidence; but that is, perhaps, the most salient intellectual characteristic of the Bush administration.

The decision to invade Iraq in particular seems to have been made even though there was no credible evidence of any important link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and even though the preponderance of evidence and analysis by the relevant intelligence agencies indicated that Iraq probably didn't have appreciable stores of "weapons of mass destruction". (Note: that term itself is a cheat, and we really ought to call 'em what they are--or would be, if there were any of them--chemical and biological weapons, or CBW.)

One indicator--though by no means the strongest one--that the decision to invade was not made in response to any evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link is that the decision seems to have been made within days of the 9/11 attacks. There is evidence that the neo-cons were basically sitting around waiting for an excuse to invade, and that Wolfowitz pounced as soon as the WTC fell. If Powell had been closer to Bush that Wolfowitz on 9/11, the story goes, the course of history would have been different...

But the strongest evidence here is, of course, the relatively clear pattern of exaggerating evidence, ignoring counter-evidence, and intimidating our intelligence services into saying what the Administration already wanted to believe. If you handle evidence in that way, you can get away with anything you damn well please.

Among the kinds of dangerous people in the world are those who dogmatically adhere to their beliefs and intentions no matter how much evidence piles up against them. Such people aren't necessarily evil (though many evil people do share those characteristics), but they may ultimately, in the course of human history, do about as much damage as is done by those who are evil.