WordPlay - Language, Politics, and Meaning

'Imposing American-Style Democracy': Iraq, part 2

    Back in 2004-5, I used to post regularly on a UK-based political discussion site named 'Open Democracy'.  (This is the site.) Other than the fact that the site was not particularly open, and anything but democratic, the title was reasonably descriptive. The tenor of the vast majority of the posts was what might be called 'Marxist Triste', i.e, acknowledgment that the Cold War had ended, and - yeah - probably in the right way - but wouldn't it have been nice if . . .? The Iraq War had clearly revived their flagging spirits. To a man and woman, they were convinced that the stated rationales about WMD or regime change was at best secondary, at worst a subterfuge, and that the war was really an exercise in American 'imperialism'.  Resisting the temptation to offer the basic response of an Irish American to British subjects moralizing about empire - 'you oughta know' - I posted back and forth. They were all cynically sure that the various deadlines the US had set for the return of power to the Iraqi people would be postponed or ignored. When they were scrupulously met, one after another, and the cynicism of the comrades remained undented, I lost interest in the site and stopped posting there.

    One striking phrase occurred over and over in the posts. What the United States was doing in its unforgivable empire-building zeal was 'attempting to impose American-style democracy' in Iraq.  The expression  interested me, and particularly the underlined phrases. The connotative sense of the phrase is ominously imperial. 'Impose', of course, means to require someone else do something against their will. The adjectival phrase 'American-style' has a loose relation to the noun phrase 'American life-style'. In the manner of traditional conquerors, the crass Americans insist that the hapless Iraqis adopt their way of life. The crass neocons will not be satisfied until Iraqi girls are walking down the streets of Baghdad in miniskirts, with a pork sausage in one hand and a music video playing on their Ipods. It all sounds as arrogantly smug as Americans are supposed to be, and dreadfully parochial.

    But hold the phone. Let's take the expression apart rationally, before buying into the metaphorical background. The actual phrase is 'American-style democracy''. Just what exactly is 'American-style democracy'? And is there any relevant sense in which such a thing could be imposed? What does the ominous sounding phrase actually mean?

    There is not enough space to analyze 'American-style democracy' in depth, but the Reality Principle produces the salient point instantly. 'American-style democracy' does NOT mean the cloning of American institutions in a foreign culture. Not even the most demented anti-American sloganeers would advance such a contention. In its efforts at nation building, some of which have been more successful than any other in history (Germany, Japan), the United States has never attempted any such thing.

    So what exactly is 'American style democracy' in this context? As noted, too big a topic to do exhaustively. My intuition is that the essence of 'American style democracy' boils down to two central elements - (1) the Jeffersonian notion of egalitarian inalienable right, and (2) the Lincolnian notion of consensual government - in a word, the core of the Declaration of Independence and the Gettysburg Address, combined. The institutions of government vary radically - the Iraqi Constitution adopted in 2005 on Islamic principles is as different from the German as the Japanese is from the United States, etc. But the essence of individual right and consensual government is common to all.

    So this 'American style democracy' that is supposedly the point of imperial ambition - an insistence on consensual government. Perhaps the notion is not so ominous after all. But let us return to the verb - 'impose'. How on earth is it possible to impose consensual government on any people? 'OK, buddy, back into that polling booth . . . slowly'?' The concept is preposterous. It would be as useful to talk about 'imposing liberty', which is a nonsense phrase that no one would use - unless they were deliberately trying to obscure the difference between liberation and conquest. This of course was exactly what was going on.

    I have discussed the phrase 'imposing American style democracy' in some detail because it illustrates perfectly the conundrums the Demented Left faces on this issue. Like it or not - and the Demented Left does not like it one little bit - deposing a dictator of appalling cruelty, attempting to establish a nation based on consent of the governed is a Good Thing To Do. There is no way around it. Such an undertaking is not 'imperial' by any normal definition of the word. (My British friends implicitly agreed with this, by defining 'empire' in terms of breathtaking absurdity, engaging in the Glass Bead Game with unrepentant zeal.) The objections are political and practical - not the moral question, 'should it be done? (of course it should), but the realistic one, can it be done - with the resources available and without undue human cost'?

    But this reduction of the issue to its actual prosaic elements means that judgment on the war and the Bush Administration must be left to the voice of history, which may deem it wise or foolish, as time unfolds the matter - and for those who want to condemn now, and unequivocally, and with the vehemence of zealots, that will never do. For that reason, bland political language is absolutely out of the question. The issues must be formulated in terms that make it suitable for instant denunciation - moral language, in short. Thus, the commendable objective of deposing a madman oppressor is transformed into 'imposing American style democracy', 'empire' becomes redefined to something that Caesar Augusts, Napoleon, or Stalin would never have recognized, street gangs engaging in random mass murder become 'revolutionaries' or 'freedom fighters', etc.

                                                                                                                - Genuine Realist

   

t

'What Elephant?': Iraq, part I

    In 1935 or thereabouts, Billy Rose produced a show on Broadway named 'Jumbo'. Along with a good Rodgers and Hart score, there was one classic visual gag. The show was about an impoverished circus, and Jumbo the name of an elephant that was its star attraction. The elephant had been mortgaged to the hilt. Creditors were closing in to foreclose. The owner (played by Jimmy Durante) tries to escape with the elephant at nightfall. The stage is entirely dark. Durante starts across. Suddenly, a spotlight illuminates him and the elephant on a leash behind him.

    Voice off-stage: "Hey, bub! Where ya goin' with that elephant?"

    Durante (hands up in bewilderment): "What. . . elephant?"

    I can hardly start a weblog as ambitious as I intend this to be, and not deal with the elephant, in this case, the war in Iraq, which has been the central topic of political and moral discussion for the last five years (beginning a year before the war began). There have been few if any issues in my lifetime that have generated as much heat and as little light. It has become next to impossible to discuss the matter calmly, let alone rationally. There are reasons for that, that have directly to do with the nature of the language that the opponents of the war have utilized at the outset. But before exploring that fascinating subject, simple integrity requires I set forth my own position(s) on the matter.

    I don't want to go too heavy duty here, but I try to analyze even situations as complex as this in strict Kantian terms. On that basis, I opposed the war in 2002-2003. The specific reason was that there seemed to me a real possibility would expand in a way that would create a huge human catastrophe. Although I accepted the premise that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, I saw that nation as too beleaguered and beset to make any use of them. At the same time, I viewed the threat of Islamic terrorism as a very real one, as to which some response had to be made. So the issue to me turned entirely on the calculations of the Bush Administration as to the human cost of the war. If that cost was clearly less than what would be incurred by Hussein remaining in power, then the war was justified, for his ogrish regime was universally regarded as tyrannical and illegitimate - there was certainly no moral issue raised by its overthrow in and of itself. But I was not at all sure that that military assessment was accurate, and so opposed the war. I did not stand on a hill holding a candle about the prospect, but I respected those who did, and hoped they were in error.

    As it turned out, they were in error, and the Hussein regime was toppled without anything like the grim disaster that had been feared, Allah be praised. If ethical logic had anything to do with it, that should have been that. However much opponents of the war may have mistrusted the tactical calculations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, surely there couldn't be serious disagreement that the best interest of the Iraqi people (not to mention the West) lay in the creation of a modern, secular Iraqi state. The nation building efforts of the Administration and those considerable numbers of persons of good will in Iraq who could see where their collective future lay were owed unqualified support. This seemed to me to be a no brainer - in theory.

    Theory was exactly where this happy thought remained. It never got close to practice. I can say I was disappointed. I can't say what I was surprised. All along, the opposition to the war had seemed to me suspiciously impassioned, far more emotional than a rational disagreement about the correctness of a military judgment. The quick success of the military campaign was not greeted with shouts to high heaven, but glum, sullen silence.

    So there should have been rejoicing. Yet there was none at all. I think the reason for this phenomenon is common knowledge. During the long decades after the Russian Revolution, during the Depression, the Cold War, and particularly in the late 60's with the Vietnam Resistance, the notion that ANY exercise of American power in ANY cause was inherently unjust and immoral - regardless of cause, regardless of effect. War is not healthy for children or other living things. It isn't pleasant. It isn't nice. The characterization of American power as suspect, even evil, is a pure, undifferentiated, fundamental value judgment. No reasons need be given, no evidence cited. That concept has become a master token in the great Glass Bead Game that substitutes for actual hard thought in Western intellectual circles.

    I have to make something quite clear at this point. I am not at all blithe about the actual human cost involved in these glib discussions of policy alternatives. Quite the contrary - I am terrifically squeamish about these things, and it is necessary to be squeamish about these things.  History may record a great military triumph with 'minor casualties'. But the 'minor casualties' is a real human being screaming his lungs out beneath an unforgiving sun, or a mother mourning the loss of her only son, or some mid level executive who comes to work on an ordinary September morning and ends up leaping to his death to avoid being burned alive. There are no minor casualties. There is no such thing as collateral damage.

    Which brings me (finally!) to the point. War is indeed dangerous to children, and other living things. But so is peace, in places like Rwanda, Cambodia, Sebrecina, Auschwitz.  The decision to go to war in Iraq may have been a disaster. The decision NOT to go to war might also have been a disaster. There are negatives in both cases. These are decisions, and evaluations, that can only be made case by case, on the basis of the reality principle, the actual effect of the use of force on living, breathing human beings. It is not possible even to talk coherently about these issues on the basis of some pre-conceived judgment.

    But that is exactly what the opposition has been doing since 2003. It reasons backwards to the its pre-ordained conclusion. Any exercise of American power is immoral - this is the fixed point around which everything revolves - it only needs to determine why. The result has been incredibly inept and flimsy reasoning, indifferent to contrary facts, often tautological, superficial to the point of cynicism, the sort of smug wink-and-nod reflex (not thought) by which members of the same club avoid real issues.  When I spoke in the Introduction of "constant strident reiteration of value judgments masquerading as thoughtful analysis", this  is what I meant.

    I have to state my own views. I think the war was the correct response to the social forces that produced 9/11, the lesser of two evils (for war is never desirable, definitely unhealthy for children and other living things). In posts to come, I'll state the reasons. But that is not what I am after here. I could easily be wrong. The point is that the question is a QUESTION, still open, one that will not be resolved for decades if not generations.

    The reason why the opposition adopted moral language, why it insists on the unquestioned validity of its  value judgment, is precisely to avoid acknowledging  the  reality - that the the question is very much open, still subject to the final evaluation of history. It wants its condemnation NOW, unequivocal and final.

    Sorry. It just ain't that simple.

    More of this anon.

                                                                                                - Genuine Realist

Introduction

    Hello, and welcome to Word Play. The ongoing subject of this weblog will be political language, its varieties, its nuances, its hidden meanings, and its subtext. By virtue of philosophical training, personal inclination, and maybe plain persnicketiness, I am one of those people who are far more interested in the language in which an issue is discussed than the issue itself. The political landscape of the United States is plagued by the constant strident reiteration of value judgments masquerading as thoughtful analysis. The op-ed piece may seem thoughtful. The tone may appear moderate. Examine it a little more closely and it turns out to be one long scream. Terrific jokes come along all the time.  Some are absolutely to the point, and profound. Others are equally terrific, but don't mean a damn thing. Cleverness is one thing, wisdom quite another. So it is not a bad idea to peek behind the punch line before you buy into the whole message. Trust me, you can still enjoy the joke, no matter how off-base it turns out to be.

    This manner of looking at the world, and at the language of the world, makes me sound conservative. I'm not. In fact, that label annoys me enormously. The reason why I am stuck with the tag is painfully obvious.  As the whole world knows, the values of the Main Stream Media in the United States and the West are skewed radically to the left. The upshot is that the value judgments of conservative opinion makers (or wannabee opinion makers) are subject to a constant merciless barrage of scathing criticism. The woods teem with smug media critics itching to take pot shots at them. No need for another recruit to that army.

    It's in the fields on the Left that the sacred cows graze - and their mooing sounds like the Hallelujah Chorus to far too many bright people who should know better. There is an entire canon of shared values, constantly reiterated, and seldom (if ever) examined. The word 'subversive' shows up in a lot of mainstream movie and theater reviews, always in a positive sense.  But what's being subverted are almost invariably values and attitudes that the critic doesn't share. Eating beef barbecued from someone else's sanctified meat on the hoof is always an enormous treat. When it is your own brand that's being rounded up for slaughter, it's another story.  Then the cheerful word 'subversive' becomes the rather more ominous 'blasphemous'.

    With all this prating about other people's values, I believe I am obligated to state what mine are. I consider myself a Populist, in the old fashioned late Nineteenth Century sense of the word. What I mean by this is that I believe that the public in the mass, ordinary people in their every day lives, is ultimately the best judge and arbiter of most major issues. The Great Beast, I call it, a phrase that will reappear here constantly - the Great Beast, possessing no intelligence, but infinite wisdom. The Great Beast, that never knows best, but always knows better. I actually do believe in democracy, the rule of the people. That puts me in a teeny-tiny minority, I have learned - for while the whole world gives lip service to the word, almost no one actually believes in it. Sooner or later, nearly everyone succumbs to an elite - a king, a proletarian vanguard, the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. There is probably one clanking around in my attic somewhere, but I do my best.

    I also believe in popular values, and thereby hangs a tale - namely, figuring out what they actually are.  I freely acknowledge the impossibility of the task. We all have a general notion of their content - a belief in freedom, moderation, civility, sweet reason, respect for the individual, equality under the law, loyalty to family, friends, neighborhood and country (in that order), and so on. These values are not only inconsistent, but sometimes flat our contradictory. We demand that every person be equal before the law, but that the uniqueness of each individual be respected. Think for a second about how that actually plays out.

    It's always easy to describe values in abstract terms, in high concept. Plato had it exactly backwards.  What's difficult to do is determine how they signify in the hurly-burly of the moment, before the battle's lost and won, before the end of the day, before the issue has frozen into history, when alternatives exist and choice is still possible. Strategy is always easy, tactics are always hard. Even the dumbest mouse can see that all their problems would be solved if they could just get a bell around the cat's neck. But even the smartest mouse doesn't know how to do it.  Pretty much the same thing applies to politics and ethics.

    The application of these easy-to-grasp, difficult-to define-precisely values to real day-to-day life - that's the hard trick. I don't have the temerity to say I've mastered it - there is no mastering. But I do know what the object of the exercise is. In any case, that is the exercise that will be going on continuously on this weblog.

    And with that, this introduction is done. You might not have noticed, but we have slipped a bit more into high concept than I'd like. We have snuck into something of a paradox here. A discussion in which high concept, strategical thinking is described as too facile in comparison with low concept, tactical thought is itself high concept and strategical. So I think it is best to quit here, and let the theme of this weblog evolve in its day to day creation. The doing is everything, be it the belling of the cat, the tasting of the pudding, or exploring what political and social language actually means, and yes, the metaphors have been deliberately mixed.

    Stick around and mix your own. Any contribution is welcome. That's all for now.

                                                                                    - Genuine Realist