The Ironies of Justice
February 13th 2012 00:43
There is a case to be made for illusions.
Illusions, especially illusions that contain a kernel of truth, give our lives meaning and imbue us with a sense of pride in our own self-righteousness. But embracing illusions is a slippery slope that can bring about hideous consequences. One only has to look at the carnage wrought by the followers of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Plot and Che Guevara to understand this.
But are there cases where illusions can be harnessed to serve a just cause? For example, wouldn’t it be okay to exaggerate the virtuousness of one’s country to foster a more patriotic spirit among soldiers engaged in day-to-day battle with a fanatical enemy? A good argument can be made that an army full of true believers would be a more effective fighting force than an army full of cynical realists harboring no illusions about American innocency.
The latter groups view may be more in line with reality, but it’s unlikely to evoke the patriotic feelings that might be needed to fight an uncompromising terrorist willing, and in some cases eager, to die for his or her beliefs. It could be argued that the delusional, irrational passion of Islamist true believers must be matched by the fierce passion of the illogical true believers in our own country. But this sort of solution implies that, on rare occasions, it’s OK to manipulate public opinion for the good of the country. While one can see the logic behind this strategy, it’s hard to reconcile with the “Big Brother Knows Best” arrogance that lies at the heart of this way of thinking. And given the American people’s fierce devotion to individualism, many folks would find this sort of pragmatic propaganda inexcusable, no matter how beneficial it might be to the war effort.
Personally, I couldn’t stomach indoctrinating someone to believe in things that are only partly true. But then again, I lack the courage and/or cold-hearted pragmatism necessary to betray what I consider to be important virtues to ensure the survival of even more important virtues. Perhaps this is why soft-hearted men and women, pacifists, starry-eyed idealists and even some of our more revered saintly figures should steer clear of powerful government and military positions. As much as I admire these folks, they cannot be trusted to be ruthless enough to do what needs to be done to defeat a merciless enemy.
When you strip away the flag-waving propaganda and the false notions of U.S. innocency, American officials, particularly presidents, have been quite capable of making dispassionate decisions regarding life and death and issues. This has been true no matter what party the president is affiliated with.
Take President Barack Obama for instance. Unlike the president, I wouldn’t be willing to order predator drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan because they have killed too many innocent children. The tragic results of some of these strikes have left my heart filled with such sadness, that even if they were successful in killing terrorists I still couldn't support these operations. But Obama seems relatively unmoved by the number of civilian deaths these operations have caused.
While my heart tells me Obama is wrong, my brain tells me that it would be extremely difficult (perhaps impossible) to defeat terrorists without engaging in operations that put civilians at risk. It can be argued that people like me are free precisely because we have men and women in this country who are willing to take innocent lives for the greater good.
World War II is a perfect example of a situation where the U.S. was willing to kill the innocent, albeit with regret, to ensure the world was not taken over by forces that gave new meaning to the word evil. Americans shouldn’t ignore the fact that many of the non-combatants killed in Germany and Japan may have been innocent of any wrongdoing, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the bombs started dropping. But most people would agree that in this instance the ends justified the means, as insensitive and soulless as that sounds.
If our No. 1 priority is to sustain our republic, powerful government positions should continue to be filled by practical, pragmatic, nuanced hard-hearted men (or women) -- people who understand that idealism sometimes has to take a backseat to pragmatism. Whether we like it or not, it’s these people who ensure our nation’s survival.
Illusions, especially illusions that contain a kernel of truth, give our lives meaning and imbue us with a sense of pride in our own self-righteousness. But embracing illusions is a slippery slope that can bring about hideous consequences. One only has to look at the carnage wrought by the followers of Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Plot and Che Guevara to understand this.
But are there cases where illusions can be harnessed to serve a just cause? For example, wouldn’t it be okay to exaggerate the virtuousness of one’s country to foster a more patriotic spirit among soldiers engaged in day-to-day battle with a fanatical enemy? A good argument can be made that an army full of true believers would be a more effective fighting force than an army full of cynical realists harboring no illusions about American innocency.
The latter groups view may be more in line with reality, but it’s unlikely to evoke the patriotic feelings that might be needed to fight an uncompromising terrorist willing, and in some cases eager, to die for his or her beliefs. It could be argued that the delusional, irrational passion of Islamist true believers must be matched by the fierce passion of the illogical true believers in our own country. But this sort of solution implies that, on rare occasions, it’s OK to manipulate public opinion for the good of the country. While one can see the logic behind this strategy, it’s hard to reconcile with the “Big Brother Knows Best” arrogance that lies at the heart of this way of thinking. And given the American people’s fierce devotion to individualism, many folks would find this sort of pragmatic propaganda inexcusable, no matter how beneficial it might be to the war effort.
Personally, I couldn’t stomach indoctrinating someone to believe in things that are only partly true. But then again, I lack the courage and/or cold-hearted pragmatism necessary to betray what I consider to be important virtues to ensure the survival of even more important virtues. Perhaps this is why soft-hearted men and women, pacifists, starry-eyed idealists and even some of our more revered saintly figures should steer clear of powerful government and military positions. As much as I admire these folks, they cannot be trusted to be ruthless enough to do what needs to be done to defeat a merciless enemy.
When you strip away the flag-waving propaganda and the false notions of U.S. innocency, American officials, particularly presidents, have been quite capable of making dispassionate decisions regarding life and death and issues. This has been true no matter what party the president is affiliated with.
Take President Barack Obama for instance. Unlike the president, I wouldn’t be willing to order predator drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan because they have killed too many innocent children. The tragic results of some of these strikes have left my heart filled with such sadness, that even if they were successful in killing terrorists I still couldn't support these operations. But Obama seems relatively unmoved by the number of civilian deaths these operations have caused.
While my heart tells me Obama is wrong, my brain tells me that it would be extremely difficult (perhaps impossible) to defeat terrorists without engaging in operations that put civilians at risk. It can be argued that people like me are free precisely because we have men and women in this country who are willing to take innocent lives for the greater good.
World War II is a perfect example of a situation where the U.S. was willing to kill the innocent, albeit with regret, to ensure the world was not taken over by forces that gave new meaning to the word evil. Americans shouldn’t ignore the fact that many of the non-combatants killed in Germany and Japan may have been innocent of any wrongdoing, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time when the bombs started dropping. But most people would agree that in this instance the ends justified the means, as insensitive and soulless as that sounds.
If our No. 1 priority is to sustain our republic, powerful government positions should continue to be filled by practical, pragmatic, nuanced hard-hearted men (or women) -- people who understand that idealism sometimes has to take a backseat to pragmatism. Whether we like it or not, it’s these people who ensure our nation’s survival.
| 19 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
