Help End the War in Afghanistan!

I recognize (9.50 / 2)

that there are many here who disagree with me. Thank you for reading nonetheless.

Please challenge me below if you wish. Or support my point of view... I like that, too!

---

by: vox humana @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 00:13:39 AM CST

V. H. (0.00 / 0)

I believe everyone wants the US out of Afghanistan, including George Bush and Barack Obama.  Heck, I want us out of Korea, Japan, and Germany, where we maintain occupation troops a half century after the wars.

I can also say that the Afghanistan War is the only war in my lifetime that I did not oppose, mainly because I no longer have the energy and I didn't think it would anything but make me feel good and morally righteous.  I no longer need such demonstrations to prove my own political and moral judgments to myself.

So, assuming, if you wi8ll, that the present administration and Congress really do want to get out of Afghanistan, but don't think that getting out immediately is an option,  How do you respond to arguments that we can't leave immediately, such as those Obama made on the campaign trail or those made by Hillary or members of Congress?

For instance:

1)  Would our leaving now allow the Taliban to retake control of Afghanistan, and what would be the consequences of that?

2)  Do we have any responsibility to the people of Afghanistan, perhaps under JFK's promise that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty?"

3)  Do we have an humanitarian responsibility to do what we can, with other nations, to prevent the horrendous conditions and civil rights abuses, especially of women, from returning when we leave?  Once on TV, I heard a self-proclaimed liberal argue in the same session that we should get out of Iraq despite the likely calamity that would ensue, and that we should intervene militarily in Darfur if things didn't improve there!

4)  Is there any long-term downside of leaving immediately to our own security?

My quick answers, offered without much thought, would be, "who cares, no, no,  hard to determine, but we can do  our security from here."

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 03:31:16 AM CST

With all due respect to Mr. Kennedy, (9.00 / 1)

whose goal I admire but whose general stance I oppose, I would say that I am uncertain who made us arbiter of other country's business, other than outside the framework of the UN.

Everyone has a humanitarian responsibility, but that does not necessarily have to devolve into a unilateral military solution. As I have noted before, the military's actions in Afghanistan more often than not have a contrary result when it comes to local opinion regarding our "good motives." If "we" are not trusted, we are highly unlikely to be spreading a message of our regard for their rights and freedoms. Killing them in random accidental acts and then cavalierly blaming them on "collateral damage" doesn't really help, either.

We need much more work on infrastructure and education and much, much less on military actions. I believe you yourself are a great believer in teaching by example?

I do not believe in the argument for intervention in other countries. They do not "belong" to us and are therefore not ours to determine what is satisfactory.

Taking this "liberation no matter where" argument to its logical conclusion: If the Taliban suddenly relocated to Southwest China, should we invade China to rescue the population from these people?  

---

by: vox humana @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 08:27:28 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Voxy one (0.00 / 0)

I wish you had answered the questions...

Everyone has a humanitarian responsibility

Really?  This is a moral thesis, and, as such, may well be adopted to govern one's own behaviour.  But do those who believe this get to say that they can take over a government and force everyone to participate in carrying out their own moral beliefs?

We need much more work on infrastructure and education and much, much less on military actions.

This is the interventionist position.  Your argument is about what means work best or should be used.  No one thinks we should just storm into other nations to impose freedom (a Rousseau-ian notion, that) and democracy.  Even the lady who suggested military intervention in Darfur proposed that only if other measures didn't work, which they haven't.

Those who involved us in the Vietnam War didn't begin by envisioning an all out military involvement.  Even the Iraq War could have been avoided if Saddam had acted differently.

My view is that governments should not interfere with other nations, with or without the thin cover of the UN.  (Remember, our troops in most danger in Korea are officially UN troops.)  If you want to go to Afghanistan to work on infrastructure, or wish to donate to such NGO efforts, I applaud that.

There is a difference, to mind mind, between Mr. Bush spending zillions on health care in Africa of our money without asking us, and Mr. Gates spending more of his own money than WHO in Africa every year for the last ten years.  (What a rotten capitalist he is!)

If "we" are not trusted, we are highly unlikely to be spreading a message of our regard for their rights and freedoms.

The argument, which may have some cogency, is that "they" won't trust us unless we can provide security.  That's what the "surge" was all about in Iraq.

I do not believe in the argument for intervention in other countries.  They do not "belong" to us and are therefore not ours to determine what is satisfactory.

Welcome to right wing Libertarianism!

If the Taliban suddenly relocated to Southwest China, should we invade China to rescue the population from these people?  

The better question is whether we should intervene in any way if the people of China are being oppressed and denied the rights we believe in.  Should we intervene in any way in the matter of Tibet?  Should we insist that goods we import from China be made by workers treated according to certain standards of safety and humanity?  Is it any of our business if workers work in sweat shop conditions?  ("Our" as in the government.  You may and, it could be argued, should refuse to purchase goods made under such conditions.)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 19:08:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your final paragraph of questions (0.00 / 0)

addresses what I was trying to say in my comment.

An even better question is whether China should intervene in any way if the people of the United States are being oppressed and denied the rights they believe in.

The words "humanitarian responsibility" were lifted from your original comment. I think you and I may be in agreement about much of this? It's a little hard for me to tell from your comments.

As far as the infrastructure assistance idea being an interventionist one, you are quite correct - unless a legitimately elected government requests our assistance, in which case it is difficult to call such assistance "interventionist." This is why in an earlier diary on this topic I said that local towns and provincial governments should have a say in what projects are needed and who will do them. I doubt they would choose NATO military. Well-funded NGOs are better suited to that sort of work - again - if requested.

---

by: vox humana @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 22:07:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

See, discussion brings clarity (0.00 / 0)

The 'humanitarian responsibility' language is from that used many times by interventionists, for instance, those who propose intervention in Darfur or Haiti.

An even better question is whether China should intervene in any way if the people of the United States are being oppressed and denied the rights they believe in.

I'm not sure the present Chinese government is interested.  But I hung around with some Mao-ists four decades ago, and I can tell you that the Chinese government then did exactly that.  They funded, instructed, and provided direction for US based Mao-ist groups who were bent on overthrowing the American system of oppression of the workers run by capitalist running dogs.  The goal was absolutely to usher in a workers' paradise.

unless a legitimately elected government requests our assistance, in which case it is difficult to call such assistance "interventionist."

Legitimately elected according to whom?  In any case, requiring elections is an example of our imposing our values on others.  One may call it "cultural imperialism" if one likes such language.

This is why in an earlier diary on this topic I said that local towns and provincial governments should have a say in what projects are needed and who will do them. I doubt they would choose NATO military.

I don't think that the military actually does much infrastructure work.  In fact, that is the source of much of the corruption.

But just to make it complicated, let's say that the unelected government of a certain village (where, according to local custom, the leaders arise partly by their family's standing, and partly because they are recognized as wise) requests two schools be built, one for boys and one for girls.  Now suppose that someone to their liking is hired to do the building, perhaps paid for by USAID money.  

Now, further suppose that every time they are about to open the girls' school, it gets blown up by the Taliban (they take credit) and anyone involved with building it is fired on and maybe killed.  Now, what if the village leaders then say to the Americans, "A fine and unmanly lot you are, without even a mustache.  You are hardly worthy to lick the bottoms of my shoes.  You think that all we need is money, but you, with your fine military, won't even provide enough security for our wishes to be fulfilled.  You tease us with expectations, raise our hope, and then dash us in the end.  Worse, you then stand on the sidelines and whimper, 'But what can we do?'  Men would know what to do."

To many, the avoidance of such conundrums is is enough reason to avoid intervention in the first place.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 22:39:24 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Precisely: (0.00 / 0)

To many, the avoidance of such conundrums is is enough reason to avoid intervention in the first place.

...or even to get out before things get worse.

Check out this diary for ideas on how to start trying to do that.

---

by: vox humana @ Fri Nov 20, 2009 at 21:18:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Whoa, Vox (0.00 / 0)

Not so fast.

We must always distinguish between arguments of political philosophy, those which have the ring of a general system or "If I were kind," and political discussion, which are required to take the situation and facts as we find them, and provide practical solutions.  

The latter is much more difficult because the way is never clear.  In fact, as the Founders knew so well, it is just those things in which the way is not clear that require political debate.

So my statement that the avoidance of such conundrums is enough reason to avoid intervention in the first place is an argument in political philosophy.

This in no way leads to any conclusion about what we should do when we find ourselves in a particular situation of war.  As soon as we are in a war, those of us who oppose war, or oppose this particular war, in o9rder to talk the politics of the situation, must put away our political philosophy about war in general, to focus on providing practical solutions to practical problems.  In the Afghanistan case, for each solution proposed, there are problems that might be solved or ameliorated, problems that will not be affected, and problems that will be made worse.  To make matters worse, we don't know all the details of the results of any policy.

And that is what politics is all about.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 03:57:10 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, no. (0.00 / 0)

Not so slow!

Why must I always distinguish between these two types of arguments that you lay out as your dichotomy? I am not running for office; I am trying to influence those who would like to do that at this time. You see, before "the election that matters" is when the informed electorate gets to define the issues. It is now that word gets out: this [insert issue of concerned constituency attempting to be persuasive] will be an issue this time around.

The better one frames the arguments, the more those who might have some ability to effect actual change will need to pay attention.

I want to end the war because war is wrong. Period. It is simply the wrong way to go about solving problems. One can argue about my position - thank you for doing so (I mean that sincerely)! Nonetheless, my position is a political one. I admittedly aim for influence. If enough people were convinced of my position - a majority, let's say, in my "district" - what then? In yours? Even more so... what then? Would you join me in this attempt to influence the course of events?

Then... Might Realpolitik meet the Politics of Reality? Who knows? Do you?

What if "what if" were not the determining factor in one's decisions, but "why" and "how"?

---

by: vox humana @ Sat Nov 21, 2009 at 23:52:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good points, Vox (4.00 / 1)

Let me tell you where i agree, and where i think you are walking a dangerous path.

Why must I always distinguish between these two types of arguments that you lay out as your dichotomy? I am not running for office; I am trying to influence those who would like to do that at this time. You see, before "the election that matters" is when the informed electorate gets to define the issues. It is now that word gets out: this [insert issue of concerned constituency attempting to be persuasive] will be an issue this time around.

No one has said you must do anything.  I am interested here in clarity of thought.  I am maintaining that knowing the difference between political arguments and arguments of political philosophy is important for clarity.

And while i agree that the informed electorate can define the issues any time, it is also true that the uninformed electorate can also define the issues at any time.  It is the same principle that any voter can vote for any candidate (or measure) for any reason.

The better one frames the arguments, the more those who might have some ability to effect actual change will need to pay attention.

While there may be some small measure of truth in this statement a small part of the time, I think it is naive.  It assumes that those who have some ability to effect actual change listen to, respond to, or make changes because of good arguments.  Often times, at least as I see it, they are more likely to respond to bad arguments that support their view, or even to no argument (such as "the majority of my constituents want this rather than that").

Even if you take this in a lawyer's sense, that a good argument is one that convinces no matter whether it is sound or not, I still think it is largely naive.

At any rate, an argument against war based on morality has an infinitesimally small chance of having any affect at all.  So:

I want to end the war because war is wrong. Period.

I find this an extremely dangerous notion.  It' not that I don't enjoy moral debates.  I love them.  But I don't much like anyone trying to use government to enforce their own morality on everyone.  The technical name for people like that is "fascists."

Compare these statements:

1)  I want the government to end abortion now because abortion is wrong.

2)  I want the government to end smoking now because smoking is wrong.

3)  I want the government to stop the eating of animals now because eating animals is wrong.

4)  I want the government to end the practice of sodomy now because sodomy is wrong.

5)  I want the government to stop the taking of marijuana and narcotics now because taking such drugs is wrong.  (We could call it "The War on Drugs!")

6)  I want the government to stop gay relationships and homosexual sex now because homosexual relations are wrong.

To me, there is no difference between any of these statements and yours.  However, i am aware that many of those supporting these statements would say something like, "The difference is that homosexuality IS wrong, while vox humana's statement that war is wrong is incorrect."  Perhaps you have a compulsion to make a similar statement.  Again, no difference.

I'll get back to why this is a dangerous road in a bit (and talk some political philosophy), but first, on with the exigesis:

[War] is simply the wrong way to go about solving problems.

You know, I shy away from putting myself in a position of having to support such absolute generalities.  Remember, all one needs to defeat such a statement is one counterexample.

The easiest one here is the argument from self-defense.  I do admire true pacifists, those who would commit no violence against someone raping their girlfriend in front of them, or who would not change their opinion of war even as the troops gathered on our borders to invade and implement Hitler's plan here.  Anything less is an admission that sometimes, war is not the wrong way to solve problems.  That is, there are some problems which can only be solved by war.

Here, the difference between the moral argument and the political argument is clear.  One is about making a case for a particular mode of action regardless of the consequences, while the other is about making a case for a particular mode of action where the consequences are the main concern.  You are right that you and the holders of the moral positions that i enumerated above can define the issues at any time according to their moral belief, and you and they can try to affect the effectors, and you can vote according to some litmus test based on your moral beliefs, you and they, but those we elect should be thinking about what is best for the country, what is best for each of us, not who shouts loudest about what they believe is right or wrong.
\
Let's say that an elected official believes that gambling is wrong, because many of his constituents believe that, shouted loudly, and influenced him.  Let's say that someone gives him a lottery ticket and requests him to give any winnings to the charity of his choice.  Our official often gives to the care and education of homeless children in the place he comes from.  Now, let's suppose he wins $50 million dollars. Under your scheme, he should tear up the ticket.  In my thinking, no matter what his belief, he should cash the ticket and give it to his worthy cause.  See?

Nonetheless, my position is a political one. I admittedly aim for influence.

No.  Your position is moral.  Your actions are political.  You are to war as Pat Robertson is to gay marriage.  You are both sincere, you both have a moral position, and you both seek to influence those in government to adopt your position and make it into law.

If enough people were convinced of my position - a majority, let's say, in my "district" - what then?

I don't know.  What if a majority in your district were convinced of Robertson's position on gay marriage?

What if "what if" were not the determining factor in one's decisions, but "why" and "how"?

I don't see a difference.  You are talking about "What's right?" being the determining factor in decisions.

Consider this:  you speak above as if something being wrong is reason enough to stop it.  Consider that a second.  Suppose that someone who thought abortion were wrong were to walk in on an abortion in progress.  Following your logic, they would demand that the doctor stop the procedure "because abortion is wrong."  You would agree that they were right to make this demand according to their own beliefs.  If the doctor complained that if he stopped at this point, the patient (the big one) would bleed to death, you would agree that this is of no consequence, since the procedure being wrong is the controlling interest, and once started, "I want to end the war abortion because war abortion is wrong."

I think it is always more complicated than that, as any incoming president finds out very quickly.

(Political philosophy, very important, in a separate post below.)  

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 05:27:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dangerous Path, vox (0.00 / 0)

Sorry that went so long.

I'll try to make this quick, but in doing so, I am not going to be able to make all the arguments.

Let's start here.  The Founders were classical liberals who were anti-authoritarian and feared a government of too much power.  they feared it for exactly the same reason that leftists love a strong government.  They feared it because a strong government becomes a prize to be won in order to impose one's views on others.  Thus, the constitution is about limiting government.

Today's liberals want a strong central government for exactly the same reason.  They want to win the prize, and have little limit on their imposing their views on others.

Some time ago, on this board, we had a conversation about George Orwell's observation that progressive movements tend to become authoritarian.  He saw that as a bit of a contradiction, at least to the terms on which progressive movements are often founded.  One point of our discussion, which we could not resolve, was whether Orwell thought that this was just a tendency, or whether he thought that a tendency to accumulate authoritarian power was inherent in progressive movements.  I think it is an interesting question.

One of the things that the Founders feared most was the imposition of those things they called religion on others by a government won by the adherents of some religion.  As you know, Madison and others insisted on this amendment (in part):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

At the time Madison insisted on this amendment, his state, Virginia, had an established religion!  He thought it important to limit the government in this regard.

Note the wording.  I think that by "free exercise thereof" they are not concerned with delineating a right to belief, but a right to practice.  And the practice they were most concerned with was the practice of a religion's moral teachings.

All the Founders thought religion was important, even those not so religious.  They thought that the common masses needed religion to teach them what moral behaviour was, and to coerce them into following a moral practice.  But they didn't want a government to enforce a moral practice just because some religion had a majority in Congress.

I am convinced that if the Founders were writing today, they would replace the word 'religion' with the word 'morality' in this clause.  I think that they would now agree that people in general, not just the educated elite, could practice a moral life even when not religious.  So today they would write:  "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any morality, nor the free exercise thereof...."

The amendment would be interpreted as saying that
Congress could make no law because it followed Catholic moral teaching, or Muslim moral teaching, or vox humana's moral teaching.  They would recognize as they did then the right of Quakers, say, to vote according to their conscience, or to try to influence politicians.  But the Quakers would be smart enough to know that to do so, they would have to make practical arguments rooted in the problems and practical situation of the here and now.

So I see the difference between classical liberals like Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln and modern liberals like Kennedy (pick one), LBJ, or vox humana as this:  Classical liberals thought that a powerful government was so dangerous (to liberty, for instance) that even if a classical liberal felt sure that those with his beliefs would capture the government, it wasn't worth the risk.  Today's liberals, on the other hand, believe that a powerful government is such a useful tool for carrying out the imposition of their views on others (often because they confuse that with doing good)that they don't see the chance of those with different views controlling the government as enough of a risk compared to the reward of establishing their own authoritarian government.  They would rather take the chance of losing, and then fighting a guerrilla political war against them to win the power "at the next significant election."

Since i believe that the liberal drive to authoritarian government and their disdain of "individualism" signals a relative disregard for individual liberty, I believe such impulses are dangerous.  I don't want people taking away my liberties because they think they are doing the right thing by doing so.

I am especially afraid when these tendencies are wrapped in moral terms.  After all, a good portion of the most disgusting laws in our history, including the establishment of slavery, segregated schools and other institutions, the subjugation of women, had for their arguments moral principles.

And so, I particularly shudder when someone, be it Pat Robertson or vox humana, speaks as if they are so sure of their moral convictions that they should be the moral arbiter for the country, and that no opposing moral views need be or should be considered.

So, here is what i will join you in:  a movement that is convinced that we should not stay in Afghanistan any longer than is necessary because it is not good for our country, for reasons of treasure, international interactions, and the lives of our young people and the strength of our military, among other practical reasons.  A movement that fights to influence those in power to end the war just as soon as they can do so while assuring the best possible outcome and the keeping of any promises we made to the people of Afghanistan that rely on our military presence.  We should do what is in our best interests, while knowing that no action will be perfect.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Sun Nov 22, 2009 at 06:10:37 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You raise excellent points, and yet, (0.00 / 0)

alas, I fear you speak to a condition removed from what you assume.

I do not necessarily wish a strong central government. Only as strong as, say, that required to consider civil rights in the Sixties. Perhaps. Some might argue that that episode was in fact too strong an assertion of centralized power. Would you?

I appreciate and even applaud your assertions that morality and politics are in fact two separate realms (really! I do), but before we can move further in that direction, I must ask: what purpose does politics serve in your life outside your personal morality? What good is it once you have removed your own views of what is "good" and "bad" in this world?

Once I am clear on that point I will be able to converse further with you on this matter.

---

by: vox humana @ Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 00:38:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not sure how to answer, vox (0.00 / 0)

Let's start with the fairly easy one:

I do not necessarily wish a strong central government. Only as strong as, say, that required to consider civil rights in the Sixties. Perhaps. Some might argue that that episode was in fact too strong an assertion of centralized power. Would you?

Yes, it was too much of an assertion of federal power.  The sadness is that it was necessary.

Remember, the ills that the Civil Rights laws were designed to redress were already unconstitutional; and illegal in our country.  What the laws did was to give the federal government some teeth to redress cases of complicity of state and local government authorities in circumventing the rights of minorities.

For instance, the feds couldn't stop state and local courts from allowing white guys who murdered Blacks to get away with it, but they could at least create a law which allowed them to punish the murder under the rubric of "denying constitutional rights."  You know, like the right to life.

The unfortunate side effects of this situation is that the federal government does indeed get too powerful (it rarely shrinks in power), and that people come to see federal government power as a good thing.  This leads to the illiberal (in the classical sense) notion that government power would be a good thing so long as the right people (those i agree with) are in power.  Thus, those who thought that Bush was asserting too much power did not make the logical step to the notion that the problem was the power of the presidency itself, specifically, and of the federal government itself, in general.

Now on to the next.  I must admit that i don't quite get where you are going.  But here is a try:

I must ask: what purpose does politics serve in your life outside your personal morality? What good is it once you have removed your own views of what is "good" and "bad" in this world?

I guess i would say that politics serves a political purpose.  that is, it is concerned with finding practical solutions to practical problems.  It does this in the public realm (we hope) in just the arena where it is likely that there will not be unanimous agreement.  And it does it in an arena where there are multiple interests.

In this realm, "good" and "bad" mean, roughly, what is best for the res publica.  Taken, that is, within the limits of our Constitution and Declaration.

My personal morality serves me, it (sometimes) guides my behaviour, and it helps me make judgments about others' personal morality.

So, to take a current topic, I am in favour of a government run health plan, but not because of any personal morality.  That way lies madness.  One becomes tempted to think anyone who doesn't want government run health care as malicious, uncaring, or morally inferior.  the truth is, i favour it because i think we would be a stronger country if we had it, we would go some way toward translating our ideal of the inherent equality of all people into an equal opportunity for health, and i think that if we are rational (for instance, accepting rational rationing), we can afford it.  Thee are no moral arguments there.  Someone may easily and cogently argue that the current plan (or any such plan) really will not make us stronger as a country (or, if it would, is not worth the cost either fiscally, or to our way of life), that it will not really make equality more of a reality (since equality in our form of government is not measured by results), and that we cannot, in fact, afford it.  Arguments either that we can do it without rationing, or that it would mean the inception of rationing (different from now) are too silly to even consider.

A few years ago, i was involved in the question of where to situate a new water tower in my town.  The answer was reached by political means.  the issues had to do with safety, efficacy, cost, and the wishes of those near the proposed sites.  What moral argument do you think was relevant?

Further, I don't think it makes much sense, although we all do it, to speak of governments or nations doing things morally or immorally.  At the end of WWII, we didn't try Germany for war crimes; we tried specific persons who brought about the war crimes.  And we did this not because what they did was immoral (which it certainly was), but because it was a crime.  (Many of these men also committed other immoralities for which they were not prosecuted, because they were not crimes.)

Remember, i am not sayng that YOU or anyone else, like Pat Robertson, say, can't exercise their own morality in their own political actions.  You can vote on morality (perhaps you would never vote for a person who would drunk drive a young woman not his wife into a lake, then walk away without trying to rescue her).  You can give to a candidate based on your morality, you can print political materials based on your morality.  You can have a TV show, like Pat Robertson, where you often talk about political questions in moral terms.  You can do these and any number of things.

In all truth, i find this confuses the issues, and serves to lessen moral actions.  that is because those who think they are acting morally by involving their moral views in politics often do less to actually act on their own moral beliefs.

So, using the example from above, I would propose that those who think that Health care for those not now getting it is a moral issue actually do something about it, and by that, i don't mean in politics.  One might, as often as one can afford, find a homeless person who needs medical care, transport him or her to where it can be found, and pay for it.  One might organize "United for Health and Care," an organization that raises money not to influence Congressman, but to actually provide health care to those who do not now have it.  One can always volunteer down at the free clinic.

Now, let me put this here, where it is germane, and where it won't poison the call to rally of your other essay.

Tom Lehrer says in the run up to that "Folk Song Army" song that such songs make us feel good.  I feel the same way about call-ins and letter writing campaigns on these important issues.  If it turns out that letters and calls to Obama have any effect whatsoever on Obama's decision about what the right way to proceed from where we are now in Afghanistan, I will be very surprised.  If it turns out that Obama makes such decisions even partially by counting up the letters and calls or their intensity, I will be forced to rethink my opinion of him drastically downwards.

I think the main effect, not entirely bad, of such campaigns is to make the writers and callers, as well as the organizers, feel good, reel righteous.  (Of course, it always seems necessary to add that i am NOT saying that this is the purpose that those people have in mind.)

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 08:24:20 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I think I see part of the foundation of our difference (0.00 / 0)

of opinion right here:

I guess i would say that politics serves a political purpose.  that is, it is concerned with finding practical solutions to practical problems.

I would say very little of politics is concerned with finding practical solutions to practical problems, though I have no doubt that most public servants begin their careers with those intentions.

No, most politics is about getting and maintaining power, pure and simple. To the extent that major corporations and lobbying organizations provide the funding for these highly political beings, theirs will be the point of view that will be reflected more often than not in laws passed.

I think the main effect, not entirely bad, of such campaigns is to make the writers and callers, as well as the organizers, feel good, reel righteous.

I am not surprised you feel that way, based upon your assumptions. I view all such campaigns as notices to elected officials that our votes are not to be taken for granted. If an issue matters enough to enough people and they make those feelings known, it can temporarily counterbalance the normally much stronger pecuniary interest of those in power. Our one say in this republic is our vote. Announcing our intentions in the use of this one lever of power is a legitimate part of our system.

I really doubt that other lobbyists think their main purpose is to feel good and righteous. They aim for results. Letter writing and phone calls are forms of lobbying. Their effectiveness is of course open to question, but their place in our current system as tools of the lobbyist is not.

---

by: vox humana @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 12:26:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Vox (0.00 / 0)

Let's start here:

I would say very little of politics is concerned with finding practical solutions to practical problems, though I have no doubt that most public servants begin their careers with those intentions.

No, most politics is about getting and maintaining power, pure and simple.

First, I was presenting an ideal, and opposing it to using politics instead to enforce one's moral views on others.

And to say that "most politics is concerned with maintaining power" is simply to say that most politics is about politics.  You see, as idealist newbies soon find out, one is most effective in politics when one has power.

The genius of our system is that it recognizes that fact, sees a use in power and politics, but tries to limit power and provide for an orderly transfer of power through the "consent of the governed."  Although we are used to it, it is still wondrous to behold that in 2008, power passed in a bitter election, and no one worried that the army or some militia would aid any of the candidates.

I view all such campaigns as notices to elected officials that our votes are not to be taken for granted. If an issue matters enough to enough people and they make those feelings known, it can temporarily counterbalance the normally much stronger pecuniary interest of those in power. Our one say in this republic is our vote. Announcing our intentions in the use of this one lever of power is a legitimate part of our system.

of course it is a legitimate thing to do.  As I said.  No, it does not counterbalance anything.

I realize that the picture of pecuniary politicians casting votes only for reasons of their own monetary reward is a common narrative, but all my calls for general evidence hve gone unanswered.  (One gets the anecdote, not evidence that most votes are made for monetary reasons). m I think this is part of the general "our guys are moral, your guys are under the sway of your contributors" mantra.

So here is the evidence necessary to even start this discussion:  give me a case where a person was going to vote one way, but changed hi vote against his own previously stated beliefs because he got money for it.  (This would be bribery.  it has happened, of course, but i don't think it happens generally.)

I think the influence argument depends on a logical fallacy, such as post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  This Senator voted in a way that would benefit the pharmaceutical industry (by providing government supported medicine to seniours on Medicare, say).  This senator got a contribution from the Pharmaceutical industry.  Therefore, his vote was only meant to benefit the Pharmaceutical industry, and only made because he got money from the pharmaceutical industry.

I suspect that the truth in most cases is that interests put their money where they think it will do them good.  One of your organizations is likely to help candidates who agree with your views.  If there is legislation in the works that would woulk to a business's advantage, it might send PAC money to the candidate in a race who says he supports that legislation (say, the nasty idea that seniours on Medicare should get subsidies for medicine) rather than her opponent, who promises to vote against the legislation.  Heck, if you were a seniour, you might write in and promise your vote and some contribution to the former candidate for the same reason,  you know, because of your own dirty pecuniary interests!

I guess I don't see what is wrong with trying to influence the government (say, by calling in or writing letters or voting) for your benefit.  What i DO see as "wrong" (that is, unAmerican) is trying to influence government to adopt one's moral values and using the government to impose one's moral values on others.  This amounts to an attempt to create an established morality.  It would be like a Catholic president making decisions on the basis of Catholic moral teaching.

And i worry about those who have fallen so far into this mode of thinking that they want to avoid anything if it promises to benefit a corporation or a rich person.  If you can think of a way to reform health care in our modern environment without benefitting anyone but those too poor to have health insurance and care, I'd be interested.  Hospitals and medical workers are bound to benefit if there is more demand for their services, likewise, medical equipment manufacturers and manufacturers of pharmaceuticals.  To oppose any bill that does this just because these people benefit is madness, at least to me.

I really doubt that other lobbyists think their main purpose is to feel good and righteous.

You must have read past my disclaimer.  I said that this was one of the main effects, not one of the main purposes.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Tue Nov 24, 2009 at 19:05:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You have received little to no response (0.00 / 0)

in this regard because it is impossible to provide physical evidence of what you ask: that the votes a representative makes are a result of the monetary lobbying contributions s/he receives. As you said, were you to get such direct evidence, we would be talking about something else: blatant bribery. That's why they don't do it that way. Would you at least concede, though, that there is at a minimum a symbiotic relationship involved? The pharmaceutical industry does not generally give a great deal of money to candidates who promise to vote for price controls in their industry. A Senator who receives substantial contributions from health insurers is unlikely to advocate on behalf of a government option.

I guess I don't see what is wrong with trying to influence the government (say, by calling in or writing letters or voting) for your benefit.  What i DO see as "wrong" (that is, unAmerican) is trying to influence government to adopt one's moral values and using the government to impose one's moral values on others.

Your argument here would appear to be: one should not advocate for a political position unless one can be certain one has no moral stake in the issue, which I must admit I regard as patently absurd. All people have moral standards they bring to their political arguments (and I would hope they would). The issue is the power to persuade others to adopt one's political positions. And yes, Madsci, that would include those with whom I have moral disagreements. They have that right, too. And no, it does not imply the yearning to establish a theocracy. Though that might be a goal of some, others simply use the arguments of moral suasion to reach potential constituents.

And you are quite correct to observe that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You err in reading ulterior motives of the establishing of state morality into all such actions or arguments.

The simple truth is that some have argued pacifist political positions for thousands of years, to general defeat (though it should be said, too: to frequent later regret from those who went on to fight). Yet, people who hold such positions, whether for moral, financial or purely logical reasons (or - heaven forfend - a combination of the three!) keep struggling to achieve their goals. I'm not operating under idealistic illusions, Madsci, and I am not a political "newbie" despite apparent appearances to the contrary. And if you would wish this present conversation to continue after the holidays, I would request that you no longer ascribe motives or background information as to my present or past that I do not in fact possess.

Happy Thanksgiving, Madsci! See ya some time on the other side of it....

---

by: vox humana @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:55:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

More for Vox (0.00 / 0)

it is impossible to provide physical evidence of what you ask: that the votes a representative makes are a result of the monetary lobbying contributions s/he receives.

I guess all i am asking from those who wish to be fair minded is that if they do not have the evidence to support a charge, they not make the charge as if it is true.  Where i come from, we used to say, "Your charge, your burden."  That simply meant that if you made the charge, it was your burden to provide some proof of the charge.  I don't think rational discussion is enhanced by unsupported charges.

Would you at least concede, though, that there is at a minimum a symbiotic relationship involved? The pharmaceutical industry does not generally give a great deal of money to candidates who promise to vote for price controls in their industry.

Congressman have the poser to alter the well-being of corporations and individuals, and individuals and to a lesser extent have the ability to alter the course of a Congressman's time in Congress.  We could make the holding of public office less costly, but this is difficult without amending the Constitution.

I agree with your statement that the pharmaceutical industry will not generally give a great deal of money to candidates who promise to vote for price controls in the industry.  Why should they?  Likewise, tyhose who want price controls in the industry are unlikely to give a great deal of money to a candidate who promises to vote against price controls.  Why should they?  I don't see anything amiss here.  Do you?  Exactly why a candidate thinks he should vote in either direction is not really a part of this.  So:

A Senator who receives substantial contributions from health insurers is unlikely to advocate on behalf of a government option.

I would think that this is better written:  

A candidate who advocates on behalf of the public option is unlikely to receive substantial contributions from the health insurance industry.

Since money is often given before a particular issue comes up, those who give money to candidates (or support, or votes) often do so on the basis of stated philosophy or past votes.  So a candidate who routinely votes against or speaks against government intervention or takeover of the health insurance industry is unlikely to get votes from those who think that the government shouldn't do so.  I certainly don't see anything evil in that, any more than i would see anything evil in people voting against, working against, or contributing against those who propose that money be taken out of Medicare to help pay for the Health care bill because they are afraid they will be adversely affected.

Your argument here would appear to be: one should not advocate for a political position unless one can be certain one has no moral stake in the issue, which I must admit I regard as patently absurd.

No.  Let me repeat my position.  Everyone and anyone may vote for anyone (or any proposition) for any reason whatsoever.  Likewise, they can espouse any cause or candidate, contribute to any cause or candidate, demonstrate for any cause or action, etc., for any reason whatsoever.  One could vote for Obama because he is Black, or against him because he is Black.  One could vote for him because he is a family man who apparently doesn't cheat on his wife, or vote against him for the same reason.  And one could vote for or against him for moral reasons.

What i am saying is that for the purposes of political discussion, one should rely on practical arguments for solving practical problems.  If one has a political position of moral (or religious or ideological) reasons, he is announcing that no political argument will change his mind, that he is not open to political discussion.  That's perfectly OK, of course.  But i think people should be up front about it.  (That's my moral position.)

Suppose someone says, "I am against including funding for abortion in the health care bill because abortion is morally wrong."  I agree with you that they have every right to hold this position, and to act on it.  But we can't have a political discussion with them, because no political argument can change their mind.  Further, I am bothered when someone like this tries to make a political or practical argument to support their position, because this amounts to cherry picking arguments when the arguments so cherry picked don't matter in that person's supporting their own position to himself.

It's a little like the time i was working in a Jewish funeral home.  One night, one of the funeral directors was saying that we had good reason for following the dietary laws because it turns out, although the ancient Jews could not have known it, that following them made them healthier.  A passing rabbi corrected the gentleman, pointing out that it was not "kosher" to use such arguments to justify following what was simply God's law, which should be followed simply because it is God's law.

So the point is  that if one has a moral position that he feels requires him to take a certain political position, then he should advocate for that position on moral grounds, openly and honestly.  If enough people agree with his moral position, and vote it in, then maybe no one will be free to commit sodomy for fear of legal consequences.  This is one of the pitfalls of democracy, which follows from what I said about anyone's right to vote for any reason.

All people have moral standards they bring to their political arguments

I make every effort to put aside my own moral views when arguing politics, especially when I have a deep moral view.  Why?  Because moral arguments cannot be effective political arguments.  those who have the same morality do not need convincing, and those of a different morality cannot be convinced.  I like to save moral arguments for moral arguments.  ( I must also admit that although I have studied many great moral thinkers, I don't have moral imperatives on moral questions.)

it does not imply the yearning to establish a theocracy.

God wasn't mentioned in our discussion, if i recall.  The issue is whether one wants his moral views to be forced on others through political power.  (Please, PLEASE do not take this to imply that I think one cannot advocate for a position that conforms to his moral views.  It's just that unless he can make a political argument (this would be the best thing for all of us, for the country, say) or state up front that this is a moral view, then he's being a little sneaky.  A priest, for instance, may advocate against the pro-life position on purely amoral grounds, and is free to vote for any candidate on that basis (and all the other political actions).  But I wouldn't have political discussions with the priest on the subject of abortion.  Moral arguments?  Absolutely.  Religious discussions?  Absolutely.

You err in reading ulterior motives of the establishing of state morality into all such actions or arguments.

Really?  I err?  I take "morality" here to be writ small.  Let's focus it on one issue at a time.  Don't you think that those who would like to outlaw abortion for moral reasons wish to establish a state morality on abortion?  Namely, their own morality?  And that those who wish to stop the Afghanistan war immediately for moral reasons want to establish a state morality on the issue of the Afghanistan war, namely, their own morality?

All I am saying is that in both cases, that is all within a person's rights, but I am more interested in a political discussion of political issues, no matter what my own morality.  I consider forcing others to adopt my morality as selfish.  And i consider that immoral.

Again, i am not reading another's mind and postulating that they want their complete morality made into law, I am simply saying that if one makes moral arguments for a political position, then we can say that they want this particular bit of their morality made into law binding on the rest of us.  I am sure people can then tell me why some of the morality should be made into law because it is moral, while other parts of their morality they don't care whether it is made into law.  I just fear, like the founders, anyone with this impulse.

Yet, people who hold such [pacifist] positions, whether for moral, financial or purely logical reasons (or - heaven forfend - a combination of the three!) keep struggling to achieve their goals.

As i said, it is certainly noble to do so.

I am not a political "newbie"

I didn't say you were.  (Go ahead, read it again.  I made a general remark, not a remark directed to you.)  I meant to echo something you had said earlier in our discussions, to the effect that idealism doesn't last long when one gets into politics.

And if you would wish this present conversation to continue after the holidays, I would request that you no longer ascribe motives or background information as to my present or past that I do not in fact possess.

I don't think I did that.  Maybe when we (you, I, and others) think this is happening, we should not assume, but ask.

"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one." -Voltaire
Ah, my dear Voltaire, doubt is an acquired and cultivated taste, like Laphroaig Whisky or fine truffles, and quite as exquisite.

---

by: Madscientist @ Mon Nov 30, 2009 at 04:56:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Two of the more ludicrous (6.00 / 2)

reasons given by the Administration for why we need to stay and fight in Afghanistan are that "Afghanistan and Pakistan are a theater (AFPAK)"  and that we need to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al Qaeda."  Everyone agrees that there are fewer than 100 alQaeda fighters left in Afghanistan.  It would seem, then, that al Qaeda has already been "disrupted, dismantled and destroyed" there.  There are hundreds of al Qaeda sympathizers in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Sudan, the Philippines, Indonesia and a hundred other countries.  Are they also a part of this "theater" called AFPAKYEMSOMSUPHILINDO+100?  In order to "disrupt, dismantle and destroy al Qaeda" must we invade and occupy each of these countries?  The Hawk, neocon policy of illegally and preemptively invading and occupying first Afghanistan and then Iraq begining in 2001, was in-credible then and has become less credible and more morally bankrupt with each passing year.  The average life expectancy in Afghanistan today is 44 years.  The country has one of the highest rates of households run by one parent on earth (mostly women for obvious reasons).  It has the greatest number of amputees per capita in the world.  How will continuing this war help anybody?  Peace  

---

by: imhotep @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 09:26:26 AM CST

Isn't Afghanistan where old empires (8.00 / 2)

go to die?

Somebody said that.

Anyways, I'm with Vox.  While I see no good options here, the better of the bad ones would be to end this war.

I recognize, of course, that there is much concern about women under Taliban rule, as well there should be.  

But I still do not see how it is that the US has some obligation to roam the earth trying to instill western democratic values into people who resent our presence... because we keep shooting at them in their own land.

I also believe that we will probably have a strong military presence in both Afghanistan and Iraq for a long, long time to come.

These wars have become normalized with the American people.  

And that is very sad, indeed.




Lord of the Karmafishes

---

by: Karmafish @ Thu Nov 19, 2009 at 10:33:13 AM CST