Joe Nye and moral reasoning

Joe Nye, the international policy scholar who coined the term "soft power," has an interesting commentary on moral reasoning and the Iraq war worth perusing.

My Lesson for this Anniversary

I agree with Joe's general argument - that moral reasoning is both more complicated, in reality, than many moralists suppose and that means and consequences are as, if not more, important in reasoning through the "goodness" of an action as intentions.

I do agree, with many conservatives, though, that many liberals are all about appreciating the complexity of moral reasoning and being compassionate about peoples' mistakes, except when a conservative is involved, a reflection of the polarizing times as much as ideological differences, I think. And as I wrote in my comments to Joe, the irony, of course, is that so many of the Administration's harshest critics about the war supported it up front, including Joe. I did not support that war, and was disappointed to read the New York Times article reporting Joe's meeting with the President and supporting the war (Joe has since indicated in communication on his blog that that February 2003 New York Times article was not correct when it indicated that Joe supported the war and that his March 2003 Boston Globe column indicates his opposition to the war), as well as the support of so many of the President's harshest critics, today, including Andrew Sullivan, Peter Beinart and the editorial board of The New Republic, and so many Democratic leaders, with special inclusion of Hillary Clinton, who supports the war, when it is popular, opposes it, when it is popular, and wants credit for "courage" in her political and moral leadership.

The saddest fact of the current political period around the issue of moral reasonsing for any honest observer is how aggressively this period is touted as a period of accountability, and yet how infrequently anyone takes responsibility, as a consequence of the aggressive efforts to secure accountability, much of the time, I am convinced, even and especially the advocates of those efforts. Joe, like others who advocate both this harsh concept of accountability and who are now critical of the war, when so many of its failures have become clearer and when it is unpopular (Joe's significant credit is that he became critical of the war's mistakes long before it was unpopular, though after his initial advocacy of the war; not something to be ashamed of, but a mistake to be responsible for and which should offer some compassion for the situation of the President who is in a similar boat).

The truth is, as I wrote in my comments to Joe, that accountability, we all seem to cynically reason during this time, is for someone else's actions, not for our own. The same critics who advocate harsh judgment, oversight, and accountability for the President for engaging in this tragic mess are not measures that these folks want for their own work, despite the fact that so many of them came to the same conclusion as the President at the war's outset.

And, consequently, we live in this bleak, harsh period of blatant moral hypocrisy, where the only thing that seems to matter, most of the time, is to take someone's, anyone's, head to end all of our problems. It's not an original idea. To the contrary, is the one of the most consistent policies of humanity for more two millenia. It has never worked. And that has never daunted us.

The following is my discussion with Joe about that matter and why I'm clear, at this point, that we have created our own failure, here, no matter how reluctant we might be to admit it.

"I definitely agree, Joe, that means and consequences need to be considered in moral reasoning (as well as classical moral virtues like forgiveness when people make mistakes).

But to be fair, Joe, you and many political observers who are now harshly judging the President's decision today supported this war publicly up front. I remember reading it in the New York Times and being disappointed because I opposed the war and thought it was a mistake that needed more discussion and debate to create a policy that included Iraqis (covert discussions with Iraqi opposition groups and alligned militias, likely) that could have developed a more coherent policy that shared risks with Iraqis for leadership if a revolution was something Iraqis were prepared to undergo (which, in all likelihood, given the desperate situation and the support from many Iraqis, they likely would have been prepared to do, in theory, had they been consulted, though unprepared to do, in reality, without the overwhelming force of the U.S. military).

The irony is to me is that at a time when it was very difficult to dissent from this war because the popularity of the war was very strong, many current critics were signing on, only to repudiate not only their support at later points when it became clearer that this war was a far more difficult venture than originally considered, but that so many have been harsh with the President over a policy that they share responsibility around.

At this point, as far as I'm concerned, we have a war that I did not support but which is a present reality to deal with and that has the potential to create some kind of workable democracy (more or, likely, less liberal), which would undoubtedly be a significant improvement over dictatorship. I think we engaged the policy wrong, and, more importantly, I think we engaged the discussion about the policy wrong, up front.

But having said that, we now have thousands of troops in Iraq that may be on the verge of a political resolution given adequate security measures to open up space for a political resolution. An oil agreement has been negotiated and the current Iraqi government has asked that we stay until they are ready to take over security for themselves (a completely reasonable request, I think, given that we, inadvertantly, created much of this mess and that our help might be needed to help try to clean it up).

It is somewhat shocking and very frustrating to me, frankly, that so many in Washington and around the country so blithely less critically supported this war, also convinced, as I was at the time, of its good intentions, and then are all washing their hands of their responsibility in the war in that way and then both laying it all at the President's lap and letting him hang for it, as if his fate is more important than the fate of the Iraqis whose security we have responsibility for in the advocacy of this war.

The real lesson in moral responsibility around this war, I think, is that when any person or any group is wrapped up in its self-righteous reactions to the world, it becomes justification for washing their hands of their own responsibilities and of persistently pecking at the splinters in the eyes of a scapegoat, even one who is ultimately responsible, and ignoring the beams in their own.

Hillary Clinton does not have the courage to oppose the war, up front, but she wants credit for having "courage" to harshly criticize the President and the war after it is unpopular?

That hardly looks like courage to me. And it certainly doesn't look like responsibility.

And during this era of accountability, it strikes me with regularlity how rarely anyone actually takes responsibility.

Accountability is for other people, we are all cynically reasoning during this period. It is not for our own advocacy or actions.

It's a sad reflection on the times, when the most important wisdom that the man who inspired our most dominant religion - that we should stop plucking the splinters from our neighbors' eyes and pluck, instead, the beams from our own - is both ignored and its opposite is treated like a moral virtue.

The best lesson in moral reasoning and responsibility, this political season, is very much a lesson in means and consequences.

This effort to aggressively hold others accountable both betrays our own general unwillingness to take responsibility and it is, generally, its source, since noone wants to face responsibility that is harsh and punitive. Contemporary critics of the Iraq War want to hold the President accountable, but none of the President's harsh critics are willing to face the same accountability for their own support of the war, up front. Which is quite reasonable, because noone wants to be treated in that manner. And that is exactly what undermines our propensity to take responsibility.

The most important lesson in moral responsibility for the current period is that the highly aggressive manner in which we have sought accountability has clearly not created a culture of responsibility that we have sought. To the contrary, not even its advocates wish to take responsibility during this cynical period. And that is a failure of moral reasoning based on means and consequences that will only reverse itself when we face what is the only true path to moral responsibility - freer independent and interdependent moral reasoning that seeks to enlighten rather than to take people down.

Today, we live with the rather bleak consequences of its popular alternative. It's strange that some of us might call it "progressive" when it has created so little real progress. And that is our most important lesson in moral consequences of our reasoning during this period."

That is the moral lesson that needs most learning, right now.

I can only hope that future generations will not be so harsh with us about our failures, in this regard, as we are with one another.

Love,
Ben