Centerfield

I see. So playing to populism is deriliction of duty - something "[b]oth political parties should be ashamed of themselves" for doing" - when it comes to the DPW/P&O deal, yet playing to populism is "the best message"?

I think someone's trying to have their cake and eat it. You can't appeal to populism when it happens to stand behind you on Iraq and then pooh-pooh it when it stands against you on Dubai.

(Needless to say, I think that the premise that "[i]f you're the Republican Party, you led our troops into a mess, your victory strategy is incoherent, and the voters are about to punish you at the polls" is flawed in the first instance).

Posted by: Simon at March 14, 2006 08:42 AM

Very interesting, considering that you are, essentially, calling for what the Administration has already announced it intends to do over the course of this year.

Now, if you bothered to actually read much in the way of details, you would see ample evidence that attacks on our troops are down, that most of the attackers were either Ba'athists or Al Qaeda agents, that the Sunnis seem to be getting very tired of the Al Qaeda operatives who are very quick to kill civilians and anyone insufficiently Islamofascist for their tastes.

Note that letter from the Mayor of the city where Al Zarqawi holed up: "To the lion-hearts who liberated our city from the grasp of terrorists who were beheading men, women and children in the streets for many months." Yeah, boy, all those Iraqis hate us and want us to leave them at the mercy of jihadists and extremists.

We will leave when the time is right and conditions are appropriate. Leaving BEFORE that time is losing, because Iraq will simply sink into a dark pit, making everything that happened before a complete waste of time, money, and lives.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 14, 2006 08:47 AM

You also can't appeal to populism to stand behind you on Dubai after you pooh-pooh it when it goes against you on Iraq.

Two sides, same coin.

Posted by: Rick DeMent at March 14, 2006 08:50 AM

Two sides, same coin.

Yes, indeed, but when you toss a coin, you can't ask for a do-over just because it doesn't land on the side you call. You have to accept the result. Likewise, if you're going to say that public opinion (other than as expressed at the ballot box) should be the arbiter of national policy, you can't pick and choose when populism counts - it either does or it doesn't. Anything else is highly unprincipled, a fortiori when you're choosing whether or not it counts based on whether or not it agrees with your own preference.

I see this all the time when living constitutionalists who routinely shout down originalism suddenly turn into quasi-originalists when it suits them, or start blathering about the original intent of the framers, just because on that particular topic, they think that's the best argument they can make. Liberals do this all the time - you ask a liberal what she thinks about the second amendment, and they'll start blathering about the original understanding being about militias (not, in fact, true), and yet you ask them about the eighth amendment and they'll start quoting Trop v. Dulles. You've seen it over the NSA thing, too; liberals arguing for a strict construction of the Fourth Amendment, because it suits them right now; the constitution is static when prevailing opinion is against them, and evolving when it is with them. You saw it throughout the Roberts and Alito hearings - they wanted a strict construction of Article II and a broad constrution of Article I! That's not only unprincipled, it has the added bonus of being self-serving! The point is, of course, that you can't have it both ways. The original meaning either is, or is not authoritative, period. If it could be shown that the original understanding of the second amendment really didn't protect an individual right to bear arms, then liberals must make a choice: if you accept the authority of the original understanding when it suits your purpose, you must also accept it when it does not. Likewise: if you accept the authority of popular opinion when it suits your purpose, you must also accept it when it does not.

To keep with the coin metaphor, if you're in for a dime, you're in for a dollar.

Posted by: Simon at March 14, 2006 09:28 AM

Simon,

My two cents: I never commented or posted on Dubai, so your first accusation is unwarranted.

As for the "Liberals-Flipping-Principles" line, there's not even any point to arguing that liberals do this more than conservatives, or vice versa. For instance you give of liberals doing it, someone else will give you one of conservatives.

Posted by: Oberon at March 14, 2006 09:47 AM

Is my political solution also the best military solution? Maybe, maybe not.

I think your frame sets up a bad military solution. One of the problems we have had since very early on is that military plans were based on American political concerns rather than what Iraqis needed or would have tolerated. About the only political tack I would consider would be to assess the best realistic outcome and declare an intent to do whatever it takes to realize that outcome.

Another thing to remember is that politics is local. This is as true in Iraq as it is here. In Tal Afar, where Al Qaeda previously had its base of operations and was as savage an occupier as imaginable (or more so), we could go in and any reasonable show of respect would ensure our welcome. In less extreme cases of insurgency oppression, the level of respect we actually did show in Tal Afar might win them over anyway. However, this would be complicated, though not impossible, in towns where there is memory of less respectful treatment of the civilian population.

One change which would build on this would be instead of talking about troops needed to stabilize Iraq/number of troops Iraqis would tolerate in their country, to talk about number of troops needed to stabilize each part of Iraq/number of troops Iraqis from different areas would tolerate in their neighborhoods. Then build the Iraq-wide number from the sum of each section.

Posted by: Scott Smith at March 14, 2006 09:47 AM

My two cents: I never commented or posted on Dubai, so your first accusation is unwarranted.

Maybe not, but plenty of others did. If you didn't, then it's time to weigh in: did it matter that the public was overwhelmingly opposed? Should we have blocked the deal? If not, why not, given your obvious concern for public opinion on Iraq? Just saying that you didn't comment is no defense. Now, if you're going to say that you actually supported Congress' block of the deal because public sentiment leant that way, then I'll recant my accusation of trying to have cake and eat it.

As for the "Liberals-Flipping-Principles" line, there's not even any point to arguing that liberals do this more than conservatives, or vice versa. For instance you give of liberals doing it, someone else will give you one of conservatives.

Oh, I don't deny that conservatives do it. You'll recall that quick 180 conservatives did on federalism when Terri Schiavo was at issue? Or the CSA? Or the FPBAA? Of course conservatives try to have it both ways. It is not more valid when they try to than when liberals do, but the point is that it is not valid, period. Posted by: Simon at March 14, 2006 10:26 AM

"Victory by leaving" doesn't pass the smell test. It smells like Richard Nixon's 1968 promise to "end the war and win the peace in Vietnam." In other words it smells like a con.

And frankly, Murtha already tried this idea out and it went nowhere. Maybe Murtha messed up by being gloomy about it, but "Victory by leaving" is just rebranding his same "not losing so bad by leaving" idea. It stinks of marketing, not strategy.

If the Democrats try out a "Victory by leaving" message, the Republicans will counter with "Victory by winning" and take 51% of the country again.

Posted by: Henry at March 14, 2006 10:40 AM

[F]rankly, Murtha already tried this idea out and it went nowhere. Maybe Murtha messed up by being gloomy about it, but "Victory by leaving" is just rebranding his same "not losing so bad by leaving" idea. It stinks of marketing, not strategy.

Murtha's proposal wasn't "victory by leaving", nor even "not losing so bad by leaving" - it was unilateral surrender. It bombed. Posted by: Simon at March 14, 2006 11:02 AM

Congratulations to all of you...you've reached a beginning acknowledgement of the extremely deep dissatifaction and cognitive dissonance that various political ideologies will experience when the forthcoming "messy exit" unfolds.

As Pat points out, we already know that at some point, probably pretty soon, we'll begin to draw down our presence in Iraq. The timing and the pace of this withdrawal? Uncertain, most likely sensitive to specific events.

What we are unlikely to get is a neat outcome that prevents all the various ideological groups from declaring victory.

As we leave, Al queda will declare that that the superior resolve of the faithful has triumphed over the ephemeral passions and short attention spans of the infidels. Neocons will be prone to declaring the victory of accomplishing whatever of our goals we actually accomplished, and the anti-war ideologues will focus on whatever goals were not accomplished.

It's likely that Iraq will experience chronic violence at some level, as various opportunists seek to claim power in the wake of SH's removal and our stepping back. I'm not willing to make any answers to "was it worth it" until 10 or 20 years passes. If 2025 shows us a more modern and more democratic middle east and Iraq is a stable democracy whose various sects have slowly come to learn how to tolerate one another, that's a W. But if Iraq and the rest of the middle east is still a backward, divided, violence-prone region run by the despot-theocrat-warlord-henchman system, it'll have been a waste, an expensive and largely pointless venting of rage.

Posted by: bk at March 14, 2006 11:05 AM

Just saying that you didn't comment is no defense.

Yes it is.

Posted by: Oberon at March 14, 2006 11:07 AM

Therefore, the best message for voters is "The key to victory in Iraq is to leave."

Sorry, I don't think the voters are that stupid. While they are indeed looking for a quick way to gain a long term solution to the mideast problem. Lies like that are too easy to spot. And they are well aware that the 'quick' fix is unlikely to be the long term right one.

The strategy seems fairly coherent to me. Regime change. We've removed the old one and are in the process of stabilizing the new one. Wars (if you can even call Iraq a war, I think of it as a large scale police action) tend to be messy. Iraq seems less messy than most militarily. Complex politically. Check your premises.

Posted by: Dennis at March 14, 2006 11:16 AM

For a counterargument -- both to "victory by leaving" and the Bush administration's "no time table draw down" strategy -- check this article by Stephen Biddle in Foreign Affairs. Biddle proposes a longer, stronger U.S. presence in Iraq and a slow down of internal political reforms:

First, Washington must slow down the expansion of the Iraqi national military and police....Second, the United States must bring more pressure to bear on the parties in the constitutional negotiations. And the strongest pressure available is military: the United States must threaten to manipulate the military balance of power among Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds to coerce them to negotiate.

I don't know what U.S. election campaign message this strategy implies ("victory by sticking"?), but at least it's a rationale attempt to think about the long term issues.

Posted by: Henry at March 14, 2006 11:20 AM

Yes it is.

That doesn't answer the question. Point blank: are you saying public opinion trending towards withdrawal should lead us to withdraw, and if so, do you also accept that public opinion trending against the Dubai deal should have sunk that deal? If the former and not the latter, what's the difference? These aren't questions you can avoid and hope to retain any credibility in this post. Posted by: Simon at March 14, 2006 11:26 AM

People can swallow a large dose of politically silly reasoning if things get desperate enough, or if they have to personally start sacrificing.

The American public isn't completely dimwitted. They know the exit will be messy. Give it another year or two and a second helping of "Peace with Honor" will appeal to the majority of voters.

Posted by: Bob J Young at March 14, 2006 11:32 AM

Simon, since you brought up Dubai, how about if you go first?

Suppose public opinion is trending against some policy. In this case, if there ever a rationale for Congress or the President taking or continuing a course that the public disapproves of? Or no? Why not tell us where you stand? It's Oberon's thread, so if you are going to expand the topic to include a discussion of the moral imperatives, the least you can do is to say precisely where you stand. I'm not clear.

The thing I think you're missing here is that Oberon's post doesn't concern the "should" of any ideal moral imperative for the principled country-loving practice of politics. His "should" concerns a reccomendation for garnering electoral support. Your "should" concerns the practice of some elusive, idealistic, principled moral imperative.

You're asking Oberon to speak to that practice. However, people express a variety of views on when and whether a politician's imperative to act should come more from his or her imperative to represent his or her constituents or from the internal patriotic moral imperative to lead the people to the place he or she thinks is right.

And fair warning, please take care to acknowledge that any politician who acts on his or her internal patriotic moral imperative to lead the people where they don't want to go is acting paternally.

Do you believe that a politician should act as a flawless conduit for the wishes of the people? How much leeway does a politician have to act based on his internal values?

Posted by: bk at March 14, 2006 01:03 PM

And fair warning, please take care to acknowledge that any politician who acts on his or her internal patriotic moral imperative to lead the people where they don't want to go is acting paternally.

Hmm. If public opinion wants them to act against their sworn oath, which should they follow? Is it paternalism to follow your sworn oath instead of populist sentiment?

Just wondering.

Posted by: Tully at March 14, 2006 01:07 PM

sworn oath to ___?___

By the way, Tully, are you going to claim that government is NOT ever an institutional manifestation of pateralism? Why exactly would you suggest that acting on your sworn oath precludes paternalism? I don't get it.

Don't forget, a policy can be paternalistic without being bad.

Posted by: bk at March 14, 2006 01:53 PM

are you going to claim that government is NOT ever an institutional manifestation of pateralism? Why exactly would you suggest that acting on your sworn oath precludes paternalism?

Preclude it? It DEMANDS it! By definition, ALL government is "paternalistic." Don't dodge the oath question by pretending you don't know that public officials take oaths of office. The form is pretty much the same everywhere--I can cite that of my state by rote, having taken it so often. Here, from memory...

"I, Tully, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Kansas, and will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of the office of [whatever it is this time], so help me God."

What I'm saying is that I found your original question inherently biased and somewhat nonsensical. A public official performing their duties of public office is acting paternally by definition. Indeed, they are sworn to do so. So why use "paternalism" as an implied pejorative? If their sworn oath is worth a hoot, they don't have any choice in the matter.

Which brings my question back to: If the "will of the people" (i.e., public sentiment) conflicts with a clear sworn duty, shouldn't the official do their sworn duty rather than what the masses want? Why should that be a bad thing? Would they not be breaking their oath to do otherwise?

I'm sure that any politician can invent countless rationalizations to justify doing what they want to do. But if their (implicit only) duty to represent their constituents (NOT the public in general, but THEIR constituents) conflicts with their sworn duties, how other than through their "internal values" can they resolve the conflict? Got a heirachy to suggest? 'Cause you can search the Constitution all day and not find "blindly enforcing the will of the people" in the list of duties for elected officials. That part's explicitly electoral, not a sworn duty of office.

Posted by: Tully at March 14, 2006 02:46 PM

Tully, that was a dig at Pat and Simon, who insist paternalism is bad, or at least to be avoided at great pains. I agree with you that many government actions are by their nature paternalistic, and have repeatedly maintained (apparently to no avail with Pat, Simon, and maybe Adam as well) that calling a policy paternalistic really DOESN'T speak to its merits or lack thereof.

That was why I was forewarning. Because suppose Simon were to take the tack that responsible politicians must sometimes follow their patriotic conscience and lead the people where the people don't want to go, just as though they were recalcitrant children. Were he to do so, I'm saying that he should experience a sensation of hoisting his own petard.

As far as oaths go, what I meant to be asking is this: "what specificially in a given politician's oath gives him guidance on the question of whether to lead based on internal conscience versus acting as a virtual conduit for his constiuent's wishes."

Which brings my question back to: If the "will of the people" (i.e., public sentiment) conflicts with a clear sworn duty, shouldn't the official do their sworn duty rather than what the masses want?

That's not what I understood you to be saying. I took you to be suggesting that something specific that exists in many government officials oaths provides specific guidance. I agree that if indeed one has sworn to fulfill a specific duty, and that contradicts the public's wishes, you are bound to fulfill your oath or resign your office. But oaths are generally vague.

Obviously, a sheriff sworn to uphold the law must prevent a lynching, and a president sworn to protect national security has a solid rationale for pursuing an unpopular policy if it dfeels necessary for national security. However, what's the governing rubric when a pro-choice politician finds himself representing a pro-life populace. Suppose the Governor of SD was pro-choice. What's his duty, to his people or to his conscience. I think both positions are rationally defensible, but still my gut says that simply bowing to the people's will in such an instance would be a moral cop out, not a noble choice to respect your role as an instrument of the people.

In the absence of a guiding oath, what's your view?

Posted by: bk at March 14, 2006 03:25 PM

I see this all the time when living constitutionalists who routinely shout down originalism suddenly turn into quasi-originalists when it suits them, or start blathering about the original intent of the framers, just because on that particular topic, they think that's the best argument they can make. Liberals do this all the time

You know Simon, that works both ways. Originalists seem to only be originalists when it suits them, or stand for states' rights when it suits their positions. Both sides play this game.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at March 14, 2006 03:52 PM

I would say that the duties of most offices are pretty well laid out, and the oath generally requires the "faithful discharge" of the duties. A government official of any kind is "paternalistic" by definition. Period. Nature of the beast.

If I have a duty of office (as I often do) to make recommendations or rulings based on the applicable established policies and regulations after receiving public feedback, I'd be violating my oath of office every single time I tried to step around the rules. Even if the public feedback was overwhelming to do just that. Even if I thought it was the absolute right thing to do--and I had a case last week where I thought just that. As a finder-of-fact it was inescapable that the appellant was in clear violation, and the requested exception was clearly outside the established criteria for granting same (three out of five criteria to be met for an exception, he met only one). However much I sypmathized, however many of his neighbors said they didn't mind, however much I thought he'd been jerked around and misled to get to that point, I had to rule against his appeal for relief from the administrative determination.

Now, I did hunt him down later and tell him how he could accomplish what he wanted to do (had already done, actually, and been cited for) in a way that would get through the maze and keep him out of trouble. That was my "internal values" as a private citizen at work, and violated no oath. But my official sworn duties wouldn't let me grant an exception as the case was presented.

Posted by: Tully at March 14, 2006 03:53 PM

This is fun. Let's take violations of the oath of office out of the equation. Public sentiment is at odds with the internal sentiments of the office holder, but neither requires a violation of oath or dereliction of duty. What then?

Posted by: WHQ at March 14, 2006 04:25 PM

Tully,

I think you are missing the point. Clearly, if you are in a position where you have specific duties specified by law, those have to take precedence over your specific moral concerns. If you are a judge and the prosecution tries to enter hearsay evidence, you have to exclude that even if you think the person is guilty and should be convicted.

It's much different when you are talking in the realm of policy choices. If you are talking about whether to stay in Iraq or go, that's a completely different issue. And the fact is, democratic theorists have been arguing about that for hundreds of years. Is a politician obligated to take a position that he or she knows is political suicide? It obviously depends on what the position entails and, frankly, it often depends on whose ox is being gored.

I suppose if a president thought that withdrawing from Iraq due to public pressure would literally lead to an attack on the United States he or she would be obligated not to do so. But no one can really say that. I am disturbed by the idea that Simon seems to be expressing here that public opinion should have NO role in making policy--that once the election is over, you are stuck with whatever happens. It's not an either or thing, but I don't think in a democracy a politician should simply dismiss public opinion. Especially with respect to a war. Simon, you believe the war is right and I respect your opinion, although I disagree with it. But I can't agree with the idea that we are obligated to continue on with a policy simply because the president thinks it's correct.

I thought Oberon's comment was made partly tongue-in-cheek. It's interesting the hostility that his post generated, especially, I suppose, the implication that the policy was wrong in the first place.

Posted by: Marc at March 14, 2006 04:40 PM

I'd try this message instead:

"What lesson do you want to teach to the next generation of Americas enemies?"

In 1968 after the disasterous Tet Offensive, North Vietnam was ready to pursue conditional surrender talks because they came to believe they could not achieve victory on the battlefield. The NVA General Staff watched American media reports of the Tet Offensive describe the disaster....but to thier surprise they saw it reported not as a disaster for the NVA (which it was) but for U.S. forces (which it was not). This combined with the rising anti-war movement at home...and apparent frustration with U.S. casualties convinced North Vietnam that they could prevail despite battlefield reverses and this conviction proved correct though it took years and many more lives to achieve. This is not b.s., years after the conflict senior members of the NVA General Staff have confirmed these events in interviews and written statements. Look particularly to interviews given by Bui Tin, Giaps adjutant and the officer who eventualy accepted the surrender of Saigon for the NVA if you are interested.

Make no mistake, we lost the Vietnam war. We did not loose it due to any failing of our soldiers or the officers who commanded them. We lost it simply because the North Vietnamese wanted victory worse then we did and were willing to sacrifice more to get it. This is an object lesson that all future opponents and potential opponents of the United States would pay attention to...... kill americans, do it in a dramatic way, get the media to convince themselves it is a lost struggle (despite anything going on on the ground)....and you can defeat the United States because we will cut and run.

It's an object lesson we repeated in Somalia. From a millitary standpoint the engagement was a completely one-sided victory for U.S. forces. We killed thousands of hostile combatants at the loss of 18 U.S. soldiers killed. Any other nation, at any other time would have hailed it is an overwhelming millitary achievement. Yet because our political leaders were too afraid of the publicity of CNN showing pictures of American casualties we once again cut and ran. Once again, we provided a road map for our would be future opponents about what to do if you want to oppose American policy.... and they took notes on it.

Do you REALLY want to re-inforce that object lesson one more time in Iraq for any future opponents who happen to be watching?

I understand the sentiments of people who think the war was a mistake. I understand the sentiments of people who think those previous conflicts were a mistake. Heck, I really sympathize with the idea that we tend to rely on millitary solutions to problems too frequently.
But when the boots hit the ground, the time for all that should be over.

The best thing any nation can do for it's own future is to make it abundantly clear that it will be very reluctant to resort to force of arms unless left no alternative..... but once it does it should never, ever, ever, ever quit.... regardless of casualties...... regardless of bad publicity. That is a nation which future opponents will be VERRY reluctant to bait....because they know once that line is crossed the only way to achieve victory is to overpower that nation....and if that nation is the United States that won't be easy.

What you are proposing is the worst of all worlds (IMO). We don't walk softly.... we tromp like an elephant. We carry a huge stick but we are afraid to use it....and when we do decide to use it... all you have to do to get us to go away is poke us a few times in front of a camera. I'm sorry, I've got kids..... when they grow up I don't want that generations thugs to study the American retreat from Iraq as a roadmap for how to deal with us..... I want them to study a roadmap that says if you ever are unlucky enough to find yourself in a conflict with the U.S. your only hope is stop the violence and seek a negotiated settlement.... because killing more Americans just won't make a difference.

Posted by: cengel at March 14, 2006 04:53 PM

I just want to point out that the "drawdown" doesn't have to be 100% complete to assuage American voters and reduce Iraqi tension against the so-called "foreign occupiers." What we're far more likely to see is the gradual exit of 16 brigade combat teams and support elements constituting 140,000 troops, while being replaced by asymmetric structures that will allow the Coalition to better utilize its capabilities and minimize its vulnerabilities.

For example, sixteen interagency Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) will go in this summer. Each possesses a rather small footprint--just 60-100 personnel from Coalition military (force protection, Corps of Engineers, and civil affairs), State, USAID, Treasury, Justice, and other agencies-- including indigenous government personnel. But because their mission is inherently non-kinetic and far more stabilization/support than what we see with brigade combat teams, they're extremely effective in reducing an insurgency through reconstruction and development. In Afghanistan, they are widely accepted and even admired by the Afghan people, and as they go into Iraq, I believe the Iraqi people will come to support them as well.

At the same time, Iraqi Army battalions and brigades will continue to be supported by embedded advisory teams-- US and Coalition combat advisors who will be embedded within Iraqi military formations in order to assist, coordinate, and direct their security operations. Again, the model is Afghanistan where Task Force Phoenix has been embedded within the Afghan National Army for three years now (full disclosure: I was one of the first TF Phoenix embeds in a previous life). It's a small footprint that again will allow the Coalition to leverage diverse capabilities against the insurgents.

Some brigade combat teams probably will remain in Iraq, but it will be reduced presence (nine next year, and I think ultimately it will drop to two or three), and their mission will likely be to support the PRTs and the Iraqi Army with kinetic action and firepower-- everything from presence patrols to raids against insurgent cells.

But once the footrpint drops to something like what we have in Afghanistan, the war will no longer resonate with American voters, and politicians will then cease to care about the issue (ask yourself: how often have you heard anyone complain about the 20,000 Americans in Afghanistan-- except to lump it in with Iraq, which is itself a source of pure ignorance). At that point, using asymmetric weapons like PRTs and embeds, I do believe we'll have a sustainable operational model which has demonstrated results in Afghanistan, thereby merging the political and military solutions.

But the bottomline is that an "exit" strategy doesn't have to be a total and complete "exit."

Posted by: Bobby at March 14, 2006 05:00 PM

I was mostly arguing against the silly idea that government officials should not be "paternalistic," Marc. I'll skip the debate over the cost of blindly following public sentiment on everything, save to note that Madison and Mill and others have spoken quite eloquently on the subject, and that there is good reason to not have a direct democracy. If following public sentiment all of the time is our sole criterion for governmental action, we don't need elected officials or even judges. Just voting kiosks on every corner.

I suppose if a president thought that withdrawing from Iraq due to public pressure would literally lead to an attack on the United States he or she would be obligated not to do so. But no one can really say that.

No? The President can. Elected officials are elected precisely to exercise such judgement. To be, in a word, paternalistic. If the executive/CiC believes such a withdrawal would be more damaging to the nation than staying put, then they're obligated by oath and ethics to fight for/advocate staying put, even against popular sentiment, right up to the point where their resistance becomes more damaging than the action resisted. I would argue that Congresscritters are in the same boat in that regard. (I suspect the reasoning and vision of many of them does not actually stretch that far.)

Now, the practicalities of electoral politics will naturally affect the choices made by said politicians, but let's not fool ourselves about the less-than-noble basis oft used for rationalizing those choices. It's the self-interest of the politicians, not the best interests of the body politic. A politician who never bucks public sentiment isn't a leader, they're a baby-kisser.

Posted by: Tully at March 14, 2006 05:21 PM

Brian - I'll reply to that shortly, but I simply must reply first to Rafique, who enlightens us that:

Originalists seem to only be originalists when it suits them, or stand for states' rights when it suits their positions.

Simply not true. Or at least, true to the extent that it is a criticism of some individual originalists, but certainly not true as a criticism of originalism as a theory in general, which seems to be your implication.

Whether one agrees with me or not, I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with an example of where I have disregarded the original meaning simply because I don't like the result it mandates, and quite the contrary, I can offer up at least two recent occaisions where I've explicitly come out against my normative preferences (likewise, I rather doubt that Justice Scalia is a big fan of people who burn flags or dope, yet he has ruled in their favor, and this much is the norm). I'm a modest sort of chap, so I don't like to brag, but it isn't something particularly inherent to originalism which prevents my wandering - it's a question of being honest with myself about the authority of the method and the results it brings. You don't always get to come out the way you like; indeed, if you find that your religion or your theory of constitutional interpretation invariably produces results you find normatively appealing, that's your first clue that it's broken. The question isn't is there something broken with originalism, or something wrong with the results - it's whether the individual originalist has the backbone to follow where it leads.

Most of the time - the overwhelming majority of the time - I feel fairly confident in saying that Our Men on the Court do precisely this (although to be sure, Justice Thomas has more courage in this regard than Our Hero). But to be sure, sometimes an originalist wanders off the reservation. But consider why we know this: because the originalist has a theory against which she can be measured. One has merely to look at the result, compare it to the judge's normative preferences, inquire if that is supported by the original understanding, and by golly, within a fwe short minutes you've got a reservation-jumper by the short and curlies. The best example I can think of is Scalia's Green v. Bock Machine Co. concurrence, which is simply painfull to read.

So anyway, the point is, when the originalist wanders, you know it. By contrast, how would you ever know when a non-originalist is departing from his theory? After all, what do we mean by "wandering"? We mean result-oriented jurisprudence, right? Well, when your judicial theory is the result you prefer, how would it be possible to ever depart from it?

I would prefer a Judge who knows that judicial activism is bad but sometimes lacks the strength to resist to a Judge who thinks that judicial activism (by whatever euphemism s/he refers to it) is good, and wallows in it. Ideally, of course, I'd like a judge that knew it was bad and wasn't occaisionally weak, but if that's too much to ask (and for as long as we're appointing humans as judges, rather than RoboJurist, I suspect it always will be), I'll take Nino over Steven Reinhardt any day.

I discussed various matters related to this at some length here.

Posted by: Simon at March 14, 2006 05:37 PM

Simon,

I'm not trying to attack the theories, but it seems to me that a lot of professing originalists are selective in their commitments. The same rule applied with so-called activist judges. Nowadays it seems that the definition of activism depends on the person's ideology.

Judges liberals don't like are activists. Judges conservatives don't like are activists. This truth doesn't invalidate the idea that there is just a thing as real judicial activism, or originalism.

Posted by: Rafique Tucker at March 14, 2006 08:28 PM

I understand the sentiments of people who think the war was a mistake. I understand the sentiments of people who think those previous conflicts were a mistake. Heck, I really sympathize with the idea that we tend to rely on millitary solutions to problems too frequently.
But when the boots hit the ground, the time for all that should be over.

Cengel,

The idea that once the a war starts, no one should question it, is a truly scary idea. If a war is considered to be wrong, what point is there keeping silent?

Does this type of logic apply to other countries, as well? Were the British who opposed their country's role in the Revolutionary War wrong to speak out against their government? Were the Germans who opposed their country's role in WWII wrong to speak out against their government? Were the Russians who opposed the expansion of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe wrong to speak out against their government?

Or does your "when the boots hit the ground" motto only apply to America (My country . . . right or wrong)?

You more or less blame our loss in Vietnam on the media and those who opposed the war. But what about blaming the politicians who lied us into that war in the first place? The whole problem of "cutting and running" (as you so kindly put it) would be a MOOT point if politicians would stop leading leading us into foreign policy misadventures in the first place.

The "cut and run" rhetoric demonstrates a profound double standard. When domestic policies are criticized, no one goes around accusing the critics of "cutting and running", yet that type of rhetoric is constantly used by war supporters to smear opponents of the war. And frankly, it's getting old.

Posted by: nicrivera at March 14, 2006 09:12 PM

nicrivera is correct insofar as he says that it is not true that criticism of a war must stop when the war starts: if you truly believe that it's a bad idea to undertake a particular war, it's then generally a good idea to stop it as soon as possible, and advocating that is not only fair game, but morally necessary. But there's a catch, and it's one that the "anti-war" side generally does not want to deal with: there is a difference between thinking that a given war (or all war) is misguided, and rooting for your country to lose.

If you look at the domestic opposition to the war in Iraq, the war in Viet Nam, and a host of conflicts between the two, the "anti-war" side is and was consistently advocating a US loss. (It's the difference between saying the US tortures people just like Saddam did and saying that the US should be morally unimpeachable in its conduct to prisoners: the latter is a reasonable position and the former is juvenile at best, treasonous at worst.) Having lost the debate on whether to start the war, the "anti-war" folks try to make up for it by ensuring that we lose. They are, by and large, rooting for dead Americans (and even more dead foreigners) as a justification for their positions' morality.

Now it happens that that position is repugnant to most Americans (certainly to me), and that therefore the "anti-war" side, if it wants broad support, must demonstrate that it does not share the enemy's goals. Since arguing for American defeat inherently is supporting the enemy's goals, this makes it difficult to truly get broad support against a war. Models of the right way to do this were the opposition of Hamiltonians to the War of 1812 and WWI (in each case, the anti-war side tried to make the case that even if we won, we were hurting our own best interests in both the short and the long terms). Models of the wrong way to do this are almost certainly on TV as I type.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at March 15, 2006 12:16 AM

It's always interesting to hear that a significant percentage of American citizens are rooting for American servicemen to die. What about the troops in Iraq that want to go ahead and leave? Do they want more of their buddies to die?

As far as Abu Ghraib goes, how about something in between your two extremes. Upon finding out about the abuses we should have revealed it to the world asap and heads should have rolled. The highest ranking officer to be seriously punished was an Army captain. General Miller who was instructed to 'gitmoize' Abu Ghraib got a promotion. Not only was this bad morally, but it crippled the war effort.

Which enemy is it exactly that you are railing against? Is it the sunni insurgency? Perhaps the Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq. or that label might apply to the Shia death squads. No matter what we do at this point it is a victory for some faction that we would normally consider an enemy. If we stay it gives the Shia death squads and militias an advantage in the low-grade civil war in progress. If we leave then the Al Qaeda fighters will be able to claim that they kicked us out. The only ones that will lose out either way is the Sunnis.

Posted by: Chris P at March 15, 2006 04:27 AM

Do you REALLY want to re-inforce that object lesson one more time in Iraq for any future opponents who happen to be watching?

IMO, any concern over the object lessons taught to your enemy can be at best a tertiary or secondary policy concern, not the primary concern. In this case, I don't think it's a new lesson or a particular insight, so I don't worry about it that much. Smart generals know how hard it is to win a road game, and when the visiting team's fan support is weak, then it is what it is. The reality is that support for the Iraq war has never ever been more than lukewarm. That's always been a very real component of the dynamics of the situation. Whatever our policy is, it should not deny reality.

At this point, I think the president is morally bound to stick with his war as long as it's realistic to think that we can successfully establish an Iraqi democracy capable of sustaining itself without substantial American propping. He shouldn't bail only because his policy has been unpopular. He should have fought the public battle to support it harder and more often, and he should do so now. But bailing to appease a grumpy public would be disgraceful.

But if the situation in Iraq deteriorates substantially, and our presence seems to be exacerbating things, then we should leave. If there's no longer any reasonable hope of achieving our stated goals, there's no point in clinging. IF civil order crumbles, and martial law and regional warllords take over, and most Iraqis just want us to get the f%^*%K out. we should leave.

What I worry most about in Bush is that he's so stubborn that he'll be the last one to acknowledge it should things turn irretrievably bad. I'm not saying they have, but I do think there's a potential precipice in the recent sectarian violence. How many mass graves that look like tit-for-tat killings between various sects can be found before the only reality that matters is a complete lack of trust and goodwill between factions, leading to a complete crumbling of cooperative civil order?

I'm praying that this path has not been irretrievably taken and is not chosen.

Posted by: bk at March 15, 2006 09:35 AM

Tully,

Obviously I agree with nicrivera. To say that criticism should stop once boots hit the ground for ever and ever is profoundly anti-democratic. Americans have been criticizing wars forever; people criticized the Civil War. Certainly, some of the criticism is and has been misplaced. But to say people should never criticize a war is, to me, a shocking thing to say.

I never argued for a direct democracy and I certainly don't believe in "blindly" following public opinion. I was simply pointing out that this idea has been debated over and over in democratic theory and it's not an either or thing. Are you saying the president should ignore public opinion entirely once he is elected? And are you SO SURE that the president knows absolutely what will happen that he can disregard public opinion? Isn't it possible that public opinion can occasionally be right? I don't have a problem with the notion that a president should sometimes lead a public into doing things that they would otherwise not do. But that's a lot different than simply disregarding the public will? And would you say the same thing if the situation was reversed, ie, the public wanted to stay and fight and the president thought we should get out?

Jeff makes the point that there is a difference between criticizing the war and rooting for the US to lose. I agree and I certainly would not do that. But I object to the implication that most people opposing the war are rooting against the US. You are looking at the most vocal and radical elements of the antiwar movement and ascribing their sentiments to everyone that opposes the war. Apparently, by your lights, anyone that opposes the war is automatically lumped in with the Michael Moores and the other radical groups. That's unfair and inaccurate and simply a way to tar all war opposition. At this point, I think antiwar sentiment has moved way beyond that radical groups as the polls indicate. And I think very few of these people are rooting against the United States. So to say that the antiwar "side" must show that it does not share the enemy's goals is offensive and presumptious. That is only true is you assume that the TV models that you talk about are the only critics of the war.

As for opposition to the War of 1812, are you aware of the opposition in New England that at one point was talking about seceeding from the union? And how about those WW I antiwar protesters that the government jailed?

Posted by: Marc at March 15, 2006 09:51 AM

The highest ranking officer to be seriously punished was an Army captain.

In a word, Chris P, bull. The highest ranking soldier to receive a criminal conviction was Staff Sgt. Ivan Frederick, who pled guilty and got eight years, reduction to private, and BCD.

The 372nd MO Co. commander, Capt. Donald J. Reese, was reprimanded for dereliction of duty and failing to enforce the Geneva Conventions. As were 205th MI Brigade commander Col. Thomas Pappas; 320th MP Battalion commander Lt. Col. Jerry L. Phillabaum; former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib, Lt. Col. Steve L. Jordan; and 800th MP Brigade commander Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski.

Pappas refused administrative court martial and was convicted of two counts dereliction of duty, fined, and relieved of command. The others accepted admin court martial and were reduced in rank and relieved of their commands. IOW, all of the chain-of-command officers at AG received about as serious a punishment as they could get without direct evidence of criminal actions on their part.

There was no credible evidence that the enlisted personnel ever received direct orders through the chain of command to violate the standing orders or commit abuses, or that said abuses ever occured within the presence of those in the chain of command. Lacking that evidence, there was nothing much more to do to the commissioned officers. No credible evidence at all was ever produced against Miller, who did not come into chain of command at AG until after Karpinski was relieved, which was after the scandal broke.

It's called "research."

Posted by: Tully at March 15, 2006 10:07 AM

To say that criticism should stop once boots hit the ground for ever and ever is profoundly anti-democratic.

When the heck did I say anything like that? I think you're mixing up post authors. But if you want something along those lines, I'd say that once boots hit the ground, my personal assessment of a dissenter's character would have different standards. We most certainly have free speech, and that's good, but it most certainly doesn't mean that free speech is always used wisely, or that those who speak are themselves immune from criticism. And the criticism that war critics are often damaging to the war effort is valid. Their right to free speech does NOT mean that their use of free speech is above reproach. Cheering on the enemy and running down one's own nation is valid fodder for criticism of the speaker's motives and character.

Are you saying the president should ignore public opinion entirely once he is elected?

Where the hell did you get that idea? I'm saying that elected officials are supposed to keep their oaths, faithfully discharge the duties of their offices, work for the good of the body politic even when it runs against the popular sentiment-of-the-moment, and exercise discretion and judgement in doing so, even at the cost of damaging their own image or career. If they do not, then they're spineless space-fillers, and should be booted as the mindless leeches they are. Superfluous. If all they do is what the mob wants, they're no improvement on direct democracy, just a conduit for it.

I object to the implication that most people opposing the war are rooting against the US.

Once again, I think you're confusing me with someone else, as I didn't say that, or anything even close. But I'll go that extra step once more, and say that those who oppose an ongoing war have a civic duty to tread carefully in what they advocate, and acknowledge that their words and actions can and often do cause damage to the war effort, the soldiers, and the nation itself. The "free" in "free speech" does not mean "without cost or consequence."

Posted by: Tully at March 15, 2006 10:28 AM

If you look at the domestic opposition to the war in Iraq, the war in Viet Nam, and a host of conflicts between the two, the "anti-war" side is and was consistently advocating a US loss.

I always tell myself not to argue with people who believe nonsense. But sometimes I can't help myself.

While I can't claim to have conducted a scientific poll of Americans who opposed invading Iraq, I'm sure that very very very very very few them wanted the US to lose. (Feel free to quote one or two anti-American moonbats as if that proves something.)

The Americans who want us to leave Iraq no more "advocate" a loss than the Americans who want us to stay in Iraq "advocate" U.S. military people dying.

Posted by: Oberon at March 15, 2006 10:30 AM

"Cengel,

The idea that once the a war starts, no one should question it, is a truly scary idea. If a war is considered to be wrong, what point is there keeping silent?"

---------------------------------------------

Nicrivera,

Are we talking Moral Wrong (i.e. the Holocaust) or just a Poor Judgement Call?

In either case, protesting IS being unpatriotic and harming that nations interests. In the former case, though it's because that nation/regieme isn't deserving of patriotism and needs it's interests harmed so that it can be replaced by something worthy of loyalty.

So for instance, a German who opposed his countries role in WWII was indeed a traitor to the ruling regime of Germany, they were also being a moral human being because that ruling regieme wasn't worthy of loyalty.

In the latter case, where it is simply a question of good judgement, I do believe it is incumbant upon individuals of good character to stop protest once the nation has commited itself. Note I am NOT saying that it should be illegal to protest at this point....I am saying that the individuals who are doing so are doing a disservice to thier country which should reflect poorly upon them. This notion is NOT anti-democratic! As long as such individuals have been provided the opportunity for representation in the debate PRIOR to the nation commiting to a course of action then Democracy has been served.
Democracy does NOT mean that a person/group will always get thier way all the time, every time in everything. Respect for Democracy means being able to accept the fact that sometimes you get outvoted ....the responsible adult lives with that and does thier best to try to make the decision that was finaly arrived at work.

I liken it to this..... a family is getting ready to take thier yearly vacation. The family has the choice to goto Florida or Alaska. Some of the family really wants to goto Florida and some really want to goto Alaska. A vote is taken and Florida wins. Now it may turn out to be the case that it's a really bad time to goto Florida and Alaska would have been a much wiser choice. However, the tickets have already been purchased and they are on their way on the airplane. At that point, the family members who wanted Alaska have a choice to make.....they can either shut-up and try to help make the Florida trip work as best it can...even if there are going to be alot problems with it...... or they can yell and complain and do everything they can to make the Florida trip fail so that they can turn around and say "See, I told you we should have gone to Alaska"..... which do you think is the more responsible decision?

Now war is alot more serious then a family trip..... and once you are commited to it....if there is any possibility to achieve your goals.... I maintain that it is almost universaly better (long term and short term) to persevere then to bail out in the middle of it.

The absolute worst thing a nation can do is to start a fight and then quit half-way into it.

- It sets the precedent that you are dangerous

- It sets the precedent that you are vulnerable

- It sets the precedent that you can easly be dissuaded from a course of action through the infliction of casualties.

- It leaves your opponent the opportunity to recover strength and come after you on terms of thier own choosing.

- It teaches future enemies exactly what they need to do to defeat you.

Posted by: Cengel at March 15, 2006 01:00 PM

Cengel,

Your analogy seems to depend on the idea (with which I agree totally) that there is a difference between morally repugnant regimes (such as Nazi Germany) and regimes that are basically good but capable of making mistakes, ie, the US. In that case, I would generally agree that the citizen's moral obligation differs--in the latter case, he should unalterably oppose the regime itself, while in the latter, he should remain loyal to the regime and perhaps defer in some actions in which he disagrees.

But what if the basically good regime took an action that was clearly immoral? For the sake of argument, what if Bush decided that the best way to win the war in Iraq was to target and kill as many civilians as possible? Wouldn't that be immoral even if the regime was basically good and even if the end might be considered just? At that point--assuming that you decided this action was immoral--wouldn't you be in the same position essentially as the person protesting Nazi policies? In other words, isn't it possible that it might be moral to protest US policies and immoral to go along with them?

The line at which people will draw the line differs, but I object to the idea that dissent from a war is only proper if the regime is inherently immoral.

Tully,

With respect to the last point, I thought it was clear that I was responding to Jeff's comment. As for the point about ignoring public opinion, I was exaggerating your argument and I apologize. My point is that faithfully executing the laws is a different standard than working for the public good. The public good is essentially a values concept and the president cannot unilaterally determine what the public good is--public opinion ought to play some role. What is the role of a public official in a representative democracy? You make the argument that he should not simply be a conduit for "the mob." I agree. But isn't there some point at which policy should reflect what the public thinks? Otherwise, we are nothing more than a plebicitory democracy.

Posted by: Marc at March 15, 2006 02:38 PM

Marc, you've got it backwards. We are a plebicitory democracy when our public policy exactly matched the moment-to-moment opinions of the public. The U.S. is much more of a representative democracy than a participatory democracy. A key difference is that in our form of government, we elect public officials not as our proxies to vote exactly the way we would from moment to moment, but rather to exercise their own judgment about our best interests... with regular elections to protect us from them straying too far from public opinion.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 15, 2006 03:52 PM

What he said. Sorry if I missed the transition, Marc.

I object to the idea that dissent from a war is only proper if the regime is inherently immoral.

I do to, but it isn't my point. My point is that those touting dissent are morally responsible for the results of their speech and actions. Just as are those touting the prevailing policy. By default, we are all collectively responsible for everything our government does. Many dissent because they object to that imposed responsibility in particulars, but in doing so they become responsible for the alternatives they advocate.

To pick a cheap and easy example, Michael Moore has the right to encourage the jihadis by rooting for them and calling them "freedom fighters." But he can't dodge the moral responsibility that goes with actively encouraging those who blow up innocents and cut the heads off of schoolteachers for their jollies. He roots for 'em, he owns that, whether he wants it or not. It's his, and it's perfectly valid to point that out.

Pick an issue, any issue. The principle remains. Everyone wants their preferred policies, but damn few are willing to acknowledge that they ALL come with price tags. Everyone wants somethin' for nothin', but realistically they're trying to pass off the tab to others.

TANSTAAFL. No free rides. You pay either way, but it's a package deal. No pick-and-choose of taking all the bennies of a position while disclaiming all the baggage. That's what I mean when I say that free speech isn't free.

Posted by: Tully at March 15, 2006 04:39 PM

BK,

I understand the point you are trying to get at but I would raise a couple of counter-points:

Everyone believes that they are right about any given thing that they hold a strong opinion on (else they wouldn't hold such an opinion).

People are fallible, which means they are often wrong about thier strongly held beliefs.... including ones that predict disaster, death and harm. It is also the case that sometimes taking a course of action that is meant to minimize disaster, death and harm often itself leads to greater disaster, death and harm then the origional course of action would have.

Being part of any greater organization then oneself means subsuming part of ones autonomy to the decision making process of the organization as a whole. It means placing a certain degree of trust in the decision making process of the group as a whole....even if you have personal doubts about some of the decisions which are ultimately made.

If you've been given the opportunity to have your opinion fairly heard and considered.... and still been over-ruled what more can you do? At a certain point continuing to further that arguement not only becomes futile but is actualy counter-productive....and makes the situation even worse then it already would be. Most of us have experienced this in our proffesional lives at some point, I believe. I know that I have.

It is VERY often the case that even a poor decision can achieve reasonably tolerable results if everyone resposible for it's execution pulls together behind it and puts forth thier best effort to see it realized. Conversely it is also quite often the case that even a reasonably well chosen course of action can fail miserably if there is divisveness and lack of support among the people responsible for executing it.

I believe this is ESPECIALY true in they type of conflict we are currently engaged in..... and make no mistake, the people responsible for it's successfull execution aren't just our brave men and women in uniform risking thier lives over-seas... it also includes, at least in a small part, all the rest of us who are over here, safe out of harms way on the homefront...if not then we've doomed the effort of our soldiers, sailors and marines even before it began..... and we've doomed the people that they are fighting to try to give a chance at a better future.

Make no mistake, our enemies may be fanatics but they are neither blind nor stupid. Al Queda and the Islamofacist insurgents can count bullets, tanks and planes just as well as the NVA could. They HAVE to know that they can defeat us by overpowering us on the battlefield alone. Thier hope for victory comes from the belief that they can defeat our will to fight.... that they can outlast us. That IS how the NVA defeated us in Vietnam..... it IS how we were driven out of Somalia as well. Our enemies are students of this history..... they studied it just like we studied thier past looking for vulnerabilities.

We KNOW what dissent on our homefront means to our enemies. We heard from the North Vietnamese just how important it was to thier efforts against us.

Every voice raised loudly in dissent lends strength to our opponents resolve to continue the struggle. Every protest reaffirms to them that they CAN wait us out rather then try to seek some other resolution..... this lends strength to thier position, allows them to draw more recruits....and ultimately prolongs the struggle and costs the lives of more Americans. If furthermore pushes the struggle just a little nudge closer to failure..... and dooms the people of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East to a future dominated by viscious totalitarian extremists.

I don't really care to be politic with the protesters. I don't care if I'm offending thier sensibilties. I call it like I see it. If you are out thier loudly banging the "bail out now, mission failed drum"...you are putting our service men and woman at greater risk, you are putting our countries future generations at greater risk and you are putting the hope of the many decent human beings living over in Iraq and other Islamic countries at greater risk. Maybe that's not your intention, maybe you have only the best of intentions at heart....but that is the effect of your actions as far as I see it.

I fully defend and support peoples right to protest during wartime. That's fundimental to our values as Americans. It's something that we need to preserve. At the same time that I defend and support peoples right to protest....I can still condemn people for choosing to undertake those actions. Just as I can fully support the right of the KKK and the Neo-Nazis and other odious organizations to exercize thier freedom of speech while at the same time condemning the speech itself.

Posted by: Cengel at March 15, 2006 05:07 PM

"They HAVE to know that they can defeat us by overpowering us on the battlefield alone. "

--------------------------------------

Er that should read "They HAVE to know that they can NOT defeat us by overpowering us on the battlefield alone."

Posted by: cengel at March 15, 2006 05:11 PM

Exactly what Cengel said. Part of being a responsible citizen of a democracy is ultimately accepting the group decision and trying to make it work as best we can, when that decision has been made through the legitimate processes established by our constitution. Yes, if there are extreme circumstances and we suddenly have an actual Hitler running things, we have a higher obligation to truth and morality. But in situations short of that level of evil taking over, we all need to be willing to accept the majority decisions made and stop fighting over decisions already made every single day, day in and day out.

Want to protest Bush's handling of the war? Fine, campaign against him on that platform... at election time. Don't keep the country from moving forward with implementing the decisions our leaders reach by fighting the same basic battle over and over and over and over and over again.

This pepetual partisanship rehashing and second guessing is what leads to the political divisiveness we all complain about.

For an example of accepting results one doesn't like when the process is legitimate, see this thread from RedState after the legislature (not the courts) of Connecticut voted in civil unions for gay people.

There's nothing wrong with fighting the good fight. But at some point, particular fights have to END. Imagine how troubled a marriage would be if the 2 spouses never moved past their disagreement over the last big decision they had trouble agreeing about.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 15, 2006 05:34 PM

"In other words, isn't it possible that it might be moral to protest US policies and immoral to go along with them?"

Sure, but if you are opposing the policies then you are by extension opposing the government seeking to enact them. Furthermore, if that government is a representative form of government (meaning you've actualy been afforded some opportunity for input in crafting those policies) then you aren't only opposing the government you are opposing the will of the people of your country. In essence you are saying that your will and judgement should be substiuted for thier own.
Now it's possible that in some cases this MAY, indeed, be the moral decision because the majority don't always make the moral choice. Heck, it's even possible that the moral decision MAY be contrary to the will of the people of the United States in some circumstances. I can even think of a few historical examples which would be relavent (slavery, treatment of the indians, internment of japanese americans) but lets not call it anything other then what it is.

Furthermore in this particular instance, if people really believe that deposing Saddam Hussein and trying to provide the people of Iraq with some chance for self-determination and freedom from oppression is an immoral policy then I REALLY have to question either thier moral judgement or thier grip on reality. I can understand the arguement that it might not have been a practical or particulary well considered policy (don't agree with that arguement but I can understand the basis for it)..... but immoral? No, I just can't see that at all.

Posted by: cengel at March 15, 2006 05:36 PM

.... but immoral? No, I just can't see that at all.

You might check with the Catholic Church on that one.

Posted by: Oberon at March 15, 2006 05:55 PM

Sorry, that Pope done bought the farm. But given the history of the RC Church, I'd say that particular moral authority is also open to debate. (Not being Catholic, I can utter that heresy without fearing for my soul.)

Everyone wants to claim the moral high ground. They usually try to accomplish that by disclaiming all the negatives of their position and exaggerating all the positives, while denying all the positives of the other's position, and exaggerating all their negatives. The desire for absolute moral authority is a powerful impulse. It's also a very damned rare thing in the real world.

And thus we end up in the wings.

Posted by: Tully at March 15, 2006 07:16 PM

Cengel, I essentially agree with the vast majority of your 2nd to last post. I'm simply pointing out one thing here. Notice that Pat said this(and I grant a Godwin's mulligan here):

Part of being a responsible citizen of a democracy is ultimately accepting the group decision and trying to make it work as best we can, when that decision has been made through the legitimate processes established by our constitution. Yes, if there are extreme circumstances and we suddenly have an actual Hitler running things, we have a higher obligation to truth and morality. But in situations short of that level of evil taking over, we all need to be willing to accept the majority decisions made and stop fighting over decisions already made every single day, day in and day out.

My point is that I think many of the people protesting the war genuinely feel that the "extreme circumstances/higher obligation" standard has in fact been met. So if people have a right to their perception(which both you and Pat seem to concede they do), and their perception shows that the higher standard has been met, then their actions are actually meeting Pat's standard!!!

The reason why protesters are quarreling every day on a decision-by-decision basis (which Pat's standard says is wrong under normal non crisis circumstances) is that they don't acknowledge that these are normal non-crisis circumstances.

This is why I am confused that both you and Pat keep complaining about the anti-war protesters actions, when you both seem to acknowledge that such actions are in fact appropriate depending on an individual's perception of reality.

I absolutely don't quarrel with the contention that domestic protest may lend hope to foreign enemies. I believe, as both you and Pat do, that this at least means that one should generally increase one's threshold for dissent after the democratic process has yielded a decision to take a war action.
But this really doesn't much affect the standard of whether or not extraordinary circumstances apply. If you are certain the bus is going over the cliff, you are morally bound to scream regardless of how much due process led to the choice of the bus's path.

Posted by: bk at March 16, 2006 10:22 AM

Except that I'm not a moral relativist, Brian. Just because the moonbats have deluded themselves into really, truly, in their secret hearts believing that Bush=Hitler does not mean I must give them or their protests credence or accept them as justified. Indeed, it is all the more reason for me to loudly point out that they are bordering on actual insanity in their delusions. So while they may be justified in their own mind, that does not mean that they are, in fact, justified.

Travis Bickle really, deeply, truly believed that Betsy was in love with him, that his presence in Iris' life was the best thing possible for her, and that his resulting actions were justified. But, of course, they weren't.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 16, 2006 10:39 AM

Pat,
My simple point is that the conflict is one of perception, and so it's the perception that must be addressed, since the perception drives the action.

You went on and on at great length about how people should conduct themselves after a due process war declaration, and suggested that the protesters actions were invalid on this basis. In turn, I demonstrated quite clearly that the actions were actually quite valid on the basis of the principles that YOU described.

You haven't refuted that, you've simply amplified MY point, which is that the conflict concerns perception. Let me try again to show you what my small point is. You said this:

... in situations short of that level of evil taking over, we all need to be willing to accept the majority decisions made and stop fighting over decisions already made every single day, day in and day out.

My point is that I agree with this, that it's a worthwhile principle, but that it's not really relevant to this problem which you basically characterize as inappropriate protest. What you have said suggests that these protesters are intentionally being inappropriate and unpatriotic.

In other words, pursuant to your phrase "in situations short of that level of evil taking over," i believe that the problem is in coming to any sort of agreement about when such conditions exist.

Even shorter: I agree that those who equate Bush with Hitler are deluded. The problem with such people is ultimately not that they protest inappropriately, the problem is that they are deluded.

Posted by: bk at March 16, 2006 09:20 PM

But the (deluded) perception does not justify the action. Let's take an example from the law. In general, a homicide is justified if it is done when the killer reasonably believes that the killing is necessary to preserve his or another's life. A subjective, delusional belief of the necessity of the killing is not enough. If a reasonable person in the killer's position would not have believed the killing was necessary to save a life, then it doesn't matter how fervently the person actually believed it, the killing is still not justified.

Mind you, I support the right of these delusional people to make these protests. My point is that they are not justified in a moral sense, and they are damaging the body politic because of it.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 16, 2006 11:10 PM

The trick is finding a reasonable person. :-)

Posted by: Tully at March 16, 2006 11:48 PM

Pat, protesting isn't a crime, as you know. We have, by law, agreed that murder is a crime, which is what makes justifiability an issue.

When people aren't committing crimes, they have the right to their perceptions, don't they?

Mind you, I support the right of these delusional people to make these protests. My point is that they are not justified in a moral sense, and they are damaging the body politic because of it.

No, Pat. Your point is that you don't believe that they are justified according to YOUR moral sense, which is based upon your perception of what the reality of the current day is.

Even though it's pretty clear that they are justified to act upon the moral rubrics you outlined above, on the basis of perceptions that you acknowledge that they have the right to have, even if deluded, unless their actions are criminal.

I agree with you that while acting within their rights, they may well do damage to the body politic. But I don't agree that their actions are morally unjustifiable. Especially since I have shown that according to the rubric which you yourself outlined, they are. I don't believe most anti-war protested are acting in morally unjustifiable ways. I believe that they are acting morally, but upon mistaken perceptions.

That said, I do think that both wings include within them a set of actors who behave in morally unustifable ways. These are the people who treat politics as a game to be won by any means necessary, and may even say things that they don't believe, and harm people who don't deserve to be harmed, for the sake of partisan gain. SOME of the anti-war protesters are such folk, and their actions ARE morally injustifiable.

Notice that the law generally regards serious delusion as a mental illness and diminishes actor accountability in such instances. Notice further that such judgements are generally constrained to cases where the delusion factor is objectively verifiable. If you murder someone because you honestly felt Satan commanded you to do so while taking the form of a dog, you shouldn't be held morally accountable for being off your rocker. That's objectively off your rocker, IMO. Crazy is not a sin, IMO.

But if you murder your ex-girlfriend because you felt she was meant to be yours and this was the only way, then you are held accountable, because you simply made a self-serving subjective judgement. Unnatural coveting of another and an unwillingness to respect their rights and wishes is indeed a sin.

One last small aside, I don't personally agree with the notion that we should have a legal category "not guilty by reason of insanity." I think "guilty but insane" makes more sense. Those in this latter category may well deserve treatment, but the public generally deserves protection from known murderers regardless of the circumstances. IMO, Charles Manson is insane. He's quote mad. And he should never see the light of a free day, even if we thought we had "cured" him.

Posted by: bk at March 17, 2006 10:18 AM

Only, Brian, if you accept the premise that morality is a personal matter to be determined individually by each individual's own judgment. While we must all "fight for the right, as God gives us to see the right", I subscribe to the point of view that there is a universal morality (though I rarely proclaim to be certain of its exact precepts). That does allow me to determine whether other individuals are justified in their actions in accordance with what I perceieve as universal moral precepts.

You continue to assess the situation in terms of moral relativism. I started down this line of discussion in response to your statement:

This is why I am confused that both you and Pat keep complaining about the anti-war protesters actions, when you both seem to acknowledge that such actions are in fact appropriate depending on an individual's perception of reality.

I never acknowledged that such actions were appropriate "depending on an individual's perception of reality". Rather, I said: "But in situations short of that level of evil taking over, we all need to be willing to accept the majority decisions made and stop fighting over decisions already made every single day, day in and day out."

Notice the crucial difference there. I made reference to an actual level of an evil, not an individual's perception of the level of evil. You are the one who added the "individual's perception" qualification.

As I say, the First Amendment makes no distinction between the sane and the delusional, so they have a right to their speech. But I have an equal legal right to say that their actions are wrong and unjustified. I am not a moral relativist, and thus do not have to accept your apparent premise that the morality of an action depends on the individual's subjective perception of their own morality.

Posted by: PatHMV at March 17, 2006 11:01 AM

BK,

No need to point that out to me.... note what I said previously .... " I REALLY have to question either thier moral judgement or thier grip on reality."

If the case really is the latter, then thier actions aren't moraly indefensible any more then a paranoid psychotics are. However, you don't invest paranoid psychotics whith enough attention, power, influence or credability to allow them to affect anything.....certainly not national policy. Furthermore people who have truely lost touch with reality to that degree generaly do so not just in one very specific area of interest but pretty much throughout most aspects of thier daily lives.

Personaly, I don't think the majority of those protesters really have lost thier grip on reality. I think they are ALLOWING themselves to be convinced of something in order to justify their doing exactly what they wanted to do anyway..... which is a very different ball of wax then some-one who's perceptions genuinely lead them to a mistaken conclusion.

Posted by: cengel at March 20, 2006 10:58 AM