|
|
|
« Fairness Revisited | Main | Corpophobia » January 17, 2007Never About Right and WrongToday's blogospheric set-to, the argument over what it means if you were right or wrong about the war in Iraq. Megan McArdle argues that many of the doves were right for the wrong reasons and notes that hawks often are reluctant to admit error given the reception they receive if they do. Kevin Drum notes that the U.S. failure in Iraq does not mean that preventive war doctrine is necessarily incorrect. Publius, my replacement at ObWings (not everyone gets dealt for a founding father), takes a look at his own logic for opposing the war and how they have held up over time. The argument, for my money, is not really about Iraq, but about the future. Each side doesn't, as a rule, listen to the other side's arguments (go back to early 2003 and take a look around the blogosphere to see how many bloggers on either side were actually engaging the issues raised by their opponents). They would prefer not to listen to their arguments in the future. Thus, the ongoing dispute. Those who opposed the war would like nothing better than if those who supported the war to be discredited forever. The logic is, to its credit, easy to understand: they were wrong then, therefore they are wrong now. There's a limited appeal to that argument; certainly in future debates it is only fair to note that I supported the Iraq war, so my judgement is open to question, at least in questions of foreign policy. Conversely, I suspect that those who opposed the war have been wrong in other cases at other times, so I tend to believe it's better to examine the argument than the person advancing it. On the third hand, I would be expected to argue that, since I still want to be able to have a voice in the debate. Where you come down on this issue will, I think, ultimately come down to where you stood on the war. Those who supported the war, meanwhile, are pushing the argument that the doves were right for the wrong reasons because it allows them to continue to disregard the doves. They can take on the low-hanging fruit and note that, contrary to some doves' claims, Baghdad did not become the new Stalingrad, or that simplistic slogans like 'no blood for oil' are no substitute for a foreign policy. And I have little doubt that some doves were reflexively opposed to the invasion for various reasons, from a naive belief in the power of pacifism to knee-jerk anti-Americanism. But, as nice as it might be for me as a war supporter to be able to argue that the doves were right for the wrong reasons, that is dismissive of the doves who were right for the right reasons. Jim Henley comes to mind first for me; I greatly regret not having listened more closely to what he was saying in 2002 and 2003, and while I'm sure a careful search of his archive would turn up incorrect assumptions as well, if we're setting the bar at perfection we may as well give up on the whole idea of reasoned discussion. Jim, and doves like him, were right about Iraq for the right reasons, and while I can't speak as well to liberal doves because I didn't interact with them as I did with Jim back in 2002, I suspect that many of them were correct about the war for good reasons as well. Ultimately I see the entire argument as foolish. Some people were right about Iraq for the wrong reasons. Some were wrong for the right reasons. Some were right for the right reasons, and some were wrong for the wrong reasons. If there is anything to be learned from the arguments over going to war in Iraq, it is the wholly unsurprising realization that many of us make up our minds first and assemble reasons to support our decision, rather than the reverse and that we would all be a lot better off if we were better able to think critically. But the next time there is a major foreign policy issue that divides the country, we'll see much of the same. People will throw out a past position's failure as a reason to dismiss an argument rather than taking on that argument itself, appeals to reason will drown in appeals to emotion, and the whole process will begin again. Aren't politics wonderful? Posted at January 17, 2007 09:43 AM
Comment policyI apologize for only allowing authenticated commenters, but comment spam overwhelms the site if I don't use those measures to prevent it. I reserve the right to delete any comment, although generally comments will only be deleted due to use of profanity or personal attacks on people. I have no objection to vigorous argument, but when name-calling begins, I'm putting a stop to it. In the immortal words of Eugene Levy, "People, people, let's stop this before somebody says something untrue!" If you want to call people names, I recommend you get your own blog. Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsInterestingly, I blogged about this issue today; that is, of all the Neocon intellecutals interviewed in David Rose's Vanity Fair article "Neo Culpa" (Perle, Frum, Adelson, etc.), not a single one of them accepted any personal responsibility for the failure of their recommendations. They all pointed one giant collective finger at Bush and his Administration. Posted by: Jeff Carr i don't believe anyone should be discredited for supporting the war. i do believe they should be discredited for the inability to think critically. for four years i have had my patriotism and intelligence impuned. i have asked folks on the opposing side to try to think critically, and was told it was me who was a partisan hack and could not think for myself. the personal attacks launched by those on the opposing side of the "debate" were at times horrendous. rovian debate...when you can't argue the facts...go for the personal. swift-boat 'em. Posted by: jay k. Hey Andrew, I think it's important to note that this meme of "I was right and you were wrong" currently in high rotation is simply a digression from the original point: that those that opposed the war continue to be seriously under represented in the big media. It's impossible to have a national dialogue about concepts like "preventitive war" if one side's ability to present it's argument[s] is impeded. Posted by: spartikus Just to be clear: I don't think those that advocated the war and war will ever be without a platform. Indeed, the William Kristol's seem to be getting plum new jobs. Posted by: spartikus Jeff, I have no objection to people who point out where people who have never admitted a previous mistake attempt to advance new arguments on similar ground. Indeed, if ten years from now I am arguing for a different military intervention, I would consider it quite valid for someone to ask me why I am right this time given my previous error. spartikus, An interesting point, and one that might generate some interesting discussion. It is interesting to see how pundits rarely, if ever, are held to account for their opinions. Posted by: Andrew It is incredible how in every other walk of life, someone who is wrong, whether for the right or wrong reasons, loses all credibility (if you're a doctor and misdiagnose a fatal illness, it doesn't matter if you did it for the right reasons), whereas in punditry, it just means more props. This is CYA in the extreme: the ones who are wrong are desperate to change the focus from their wrongness so as to preserve their cred. This is not an exam where you get bonus points for showing your work, it is a war with people dying and other nastiness. Those who opposed the war from the start want to see the hawks discredited precisely because a) they refuse to admit they were wrong, and b) they continue to be regarded as voices of authority and will lead us straight into another disaster. So while it's nice to say "let's move on and deal with the pressing problem," as long as those who caused the mess in the first place are still part of the dialog, the next problem will be just like the old one, but worse. Posted by: zen_less It is incredible how in every other walk of life, someone who is wrong .. loses all credibility , whereas in punditry, it just means more props. I wouldn't say "every other walk of life" -- some professions seem to value style over substance, or perhaps membership in the club over actual ability. And of course the punditry example isn't limited to political commentators -- I'm sure every sports fan can name a few sports analysts whose continued presence in the booth is mystifying considering how often their predictions are dead wrong. Posted by: kenb Actually, publius isn't your replacement; just added extra goodness to go along with yours ;) Posted by: Hilary Bok Post a commentThanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out) (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://andrewolmsted.com/nav-commenters.gif)