Kieran Healy

Reason, Truth and History

Dan Drezner weighs in about the reasons for the war in Iraq and, in particular, whether a President might be justified in lying to the country in order to invade. Steven Den Beste believes that the nation wasn’t told the real reason for invading, but that the ends justify the means. Josh Marshall thinks that this is unjustifiable.

Dan argues as follows:

1) They’re both wrong on the ethical question. Marshall and Den Beste assert deception because they both assume a monocausal argument for why the U.S. went to war. The truth is much messier.

Quick, why did the Northern states fight the Civil War—to end slavery or to preserve the Union? Did Germany decide to enter World War I because of its fear of Britain’s existing power, its concern over Russia’s emerging power, or its reliance on a grand strategy that stressed offensive military operations? …
bq. Scratch an honest historian or international relations scholar, and s/he will tell you that all of these answers have some validity. States often go to war for a melange of reasons that go beyond self-defense. …

This is why I can’t accept the “Bush lied” meme. I agree with Marshall and Den Beste that the administration emphasized the WMD issue more than the others. However, Saddam’s treatment of his citizens and the desire to spread democracy to the Middle East were mentioned on a fairly regular basis. There is a clear dividing line between lying and spinning, and the administration’s explanations for why an invasion of Iraq would be a just war fall into the latter category.

On the ethical question then, I guess I side with Den Beste.

Dan begins by saying both Den Beste and Marshall are wrong on the ethical question, but a few paragraphs later he says Den Beste is right. I think he does this because he moves the goalposts along the way. A historical explanation for why any large event—the U.S. Civil War, World War I—happened will most likely be complex and highlight multiple factors. Historians will happily debate them ad nauseam. However, Bush’s critics are not looking in the first place for an explanation of this sort. They want to know what the President’s reasons were for going to war: the reasons he was obliged to give the country as a democratically elected leader. The answer to that question is simpler and more direct than the grand historical issue. This is why Marshall can properly ask:

So, why is this little matter of the uranium statements such a big deal? Because it is a concrete, demonstrable example of the administration’s bad faith in how it led the country to war. To date that bad-faith has been all too apparent on many fronts.

The cold eye of history will judge the war, the reasons for it and its ultimate success or failure. But we don’t live in the light of hindsight. We’re stuck here now, uncertain of the future but lucky enough to live in a political system where leaders are bound at least in principle to give us good reasons for their actions, especially when it comes to something like a war. The likes of Den Beste can put on their cowboy hats, assume they’re part of the in-crowd and confidently assert that the big picture, or the drift of history and geopolitics, or the situation in the long-run, is sufficient to overcome scruples about misleading the public. But one of the chief projects of conservative thought over the past fifty years has been to dismantle the idea that a leader, a social class, or a nation can confidently assume that History is on its side. It’s odd to see the conservatives themselves, of all people, now moving toward the view that the need to adhere to the telos of history trumps the notion of democratic accountability in day-to-day politics.

I think it is very important for the mind of Steven Den Beste to be cited by other bloggers as a rational authority to the greatest degree possible. While we’re at it, we could cite Wolfowitz, Perle, and Pipes.

Excellent post. But you write, “It’s odd to see the conservatives themselves, of all people, now moving toward the view that the need to adhere to the telos of history trumps the notion of democratic accountability in day-to-day politics.”

Why is it any more odd than watching former balanced-budget republicans spend away our future in an orgy of fiscal irresponsibility? At bottom, it seems that neither party has any scruples or principles left whatsoever.

Too subtle a critique, however accurate. Perhaps Perle et al. know what you’re getting at but the average person has no clue. You have to spell it out: You say historical determinism trumps the need for legitimacy of process including honest discourse about fateful political decisions. Did I hear you correctly? Because that’s exactly what Stalin believed.

Gulags, secret detention and trials, economic forecasts that have no basis in reality . . . if the shoe fits . . . if only the road we’re trudging down weren’t likely to be so long and grueling. It makes me angry every time I think about it.

You say historical determinism trumps the need for legitimacy of process including honest discourse about fateful political decisions. Did I hear you correctly?

I think you need to read that last sentence again.

Zing! You’ve caught a potent irony in the historical triumphalism of some on the right.

I’d like to suggest a moniker for these born-again historical determinists who persist in calling themselves conservatives: Right-wing vulgar Marxists. On the other hand, such a label might encourage people like the “liberatarian” blogger who thought anti-war protesters should be beaten with 2×4s to adapt other attitudes of repressive communism. Could the time be far off when we see a one line post at the most linked-to weblogger of them all that reads, “Four walls are three too many for some people? Indeed,” with a link on “Indeed” to a scene of protest.

I need some sleep.

It would be odd if actual conservatives were making these arguments, but they are not. Perle, Wolfowitz, et al are simply old Marxists who have changed their designation, but retain the old bolshevik contempt for democracy, honest, or civility. Den Beste summed up the problem perfectly: If the President had told the people and the Congress the truth about his motives, we might not have gone along! What better reason to lie?