on Obama warms my heart. I'm sure the cretins will crawl out from under their rocks soon enough (although maybe they already have, didn't Obama's card in the deck of Liberals card deck handed out at the CPAC conference have him as the Jack of Spades?Nice). But in the meantime, just having Republicans willing to listen even briefly is hopeful, feels so different.

Refreshing, is it not?

Carterite "I'll never lie to you" new politics, redux. Add to this Gary Hart's third way inanities ("more is not better, less is not better, better is better") and a large helping of W's "uniter, not divider" shtick from 2000.

"For their part, liberal hawks make common cause with conservatives in reading Niebuhr as a prophet of a "muscular" foreign policy. Democrats like Peter Beinart and the late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. have drawn on Niebuhr in excoriating the left wing of their party for its sentimental approach to international affairs. Curiously, many of Niebuhr's contemporary admirers miss the irony (as it were) of enlisting their hero in the service of projects to remake the Middle East that are stunning in their naiveté, hubris, and utopianism." I am not sure that this is a fair reading of Niebuhr's foreign policy beliefs. Sure, he says the world is a dangerous place and not ammenable to the kinds of moral appeals that might lead an individual to piety. But more than an apologist for muscular foreign policy, Niebuhr is a far better source for puncturing the self-satisfied rationales that elitist and populist hawks alike typically use when they take their nations to war. Neibuhr was very aware of the power of patriotism to deceive, and would have immediately identifed Cheney as a dangerous hypocrit when he said we would be "greeted as liberators" in Iraq. As Neibuhr said: "there is an ethical paradox in patriotism which defies every but the most astute and sophisticated analysis. The paradox is that patriotism transmutes individual unselfishness into national egotism. The unqualified chararacter of this devotion is the very basis of the nation's power and of the freedom to use the power without moral restraint. Thus the unselfishness of (patriotic) individuals makes for the selfishness of nations." And thus liberals today who are trying to get beyond the conservatives emotional appeals to patriotism in the Iraq debate, are in the impossible position of trying to appeal to the nation's patriotism as a way of controlling the more destructive and selfish manifestations of that very same patriotism.

Samantha Power, author Problem from Hell: American in an Age of Genocide, took a leave from Harvard to advise Obama in the Senate. I think that's telling. Obama is about as far from being an isolationist as a person can possibly be. He's very much in the Clark/Albright mode as a human rights interventionist, with little hesitation to use military force -- as, for that matter, is Hillary Clinton. As for his domestic proposals, give the guy a chance to be specific over the course of the campaign. In his appearances I've attended (I'm in Iowa, so I get to see these guys), he invariably throws a Bobby-Kennedy-style challenge to his liberal audience into his answers. For example, on public education, he makes a point of challenging parents to do a better job of holding up their end or in the Imus controversy, he also challenged popular black culture about its depictions of women. But the guy also wants to win, so he doesn't want to lead with tax hikes. Edwards, down in third place, doesn't have much to lose. Obama, the most likely nominee, has a lot to gain by playing down specifics and instead emphasizing overall policy goals as long as he can.

The very title of The Irony of American History makes it somewhat strange that today's conservatives would find anything admirable in Niebuhr. If they get past the title, they'll find among others some remarkable passages on the capacity of Americans to fool themselves as to (a) our own real motives and (b) why the rest of the world has mixed feelings about us.

Obama hasn't shown me much of the vaunted Saul Alinsky style organizing on behalf of a better life for Alinsky's "have nots," or even for his "have-a-little-want-mores." Alinsky didn't offer "feel good" rhetoric. He "rubbed raw the sores of discontent," made targets of holders of power, and enticed people into social action. He demanded honesty, sacrifice, and tough-mindedness on behalf of the interests of the less materially endowed of the "two Americas." Perhaps that is why both H. Clinton and Obama flirted with Saul and then rejected or abandoned him. Bobby Kennedy and Saul Alinsky used rhetoric to call to arms, not to compromise, or in the interst of some amorphous "unity." The only Democratic candidate who makes even a beginning effort to carry that mantle is Edwards. At those times when I was in a room where Alinsky spoke, on a street where Bobby spoke, or in a hall where Edwards has been at his best, I've wanted to do more than merely applaud, I've wanted to act. To change America for the better, action must precede compromise.

Obama is no Bobby Kennedy who I recall being inspirational and tough-minded in the way you say.

By the age of 36, Bobby had faced down Hoffa, seggy/kluxer insurrectionists, and with Jack, that soviet bully Khrushchev. Obama got some asbestos removed from a housing project. Bobby's face showed the scars strain and passion of a thousand battles joined; Obama looks like the J Crew catalog dude.

A thoughtful OU post, and equally thoughtful responses by Ted Frier and Mickey Weinber. Thank you.

So, Obama says things and in a style people here find enchanting. He talks the talk. He exhorts. So what? A politician isn't just about making us "do more than merely applaud." A politician is first about getting things done, and in terms of getting things done Obama has shown precious little. Apparently, since his election, he's been too busy campaigning to legislate, more on the road than on the job.

As for Niebuhr (who no one cares to mention was also Jimmy Carter's pocket guru) he, as Frier quotes him, mistakes irony for paradox. While there may be something unexpected, i.e. ironic, in "individual unselfishness" transmuting into "national egotism," there is no by means anything contradictory, i.e. paradoxical. Individual unselfishhness is real, "national egotism" is an abstraction. National egotism is just another way of saying the national interest, and one presumes Neibuhr saw nothing wrong with that. In fact, one can say that any cause, whether it be a nation, a religion, an NGO or a sports team, transmutes the selflessness of its members into organizational "egotism." There's no paradox here, only an opportunity to engage in figurative language.

Furthermore, if Niebuhr recognizes the occasional necessity of force, then he must also abandon his insistence on morality in the use of force. Force, i.e. coercion, is at least amoral and, if in the form of even a just war, intrinsically immoral.

Niebuhr was a wise and great man, but he is greatly overused by those who, I suspect, cite him to impress. Remember that 2000 debate, when the candidates were asked who their favorite philosopher was? When all the others quoted this and that sage whom Joe Sixpack had never heard of, Bush showed them up and maybe won the election, though the too-clever-by-half crowd didn't realize it at the time.

This is not only about one's "approach" to governing or spouting the right philosophy, but about practical competence. Obama has no record of action to validate what he says. That's why he is rather reticent, which is admirable in itself. The Obama of the New Yorker article is all modest hopes, incremental change and compromise. About compromise he took quite a nuanced, one might say oblique approach. We shouldn't compromise just to get things done. We shouldn't abandon our principles, we can only go so far. On the other hand, etc. etc. Which to me sounded like a big compromise.

I think Obama is a great guy. Unfortunately, he's let himself be pushed into this thing by the blandishments of fanboys and girls, no doubt to the delight of the GOP. When he was being importuned to run, Colin Powell demurred because he didn't have a "fire in the belly." My impression from MacFarquhar's portrait is, neither has Obama. So what's he doing answering fatuous pop quizes about Reinhold Niebuhr? I bet he's asking himself the same question.

No, it is a paradox. Real patriotism (not the cheerleading variety that requires no personal sacrifice) is a personal act of unselfish devotion to one's country and fellow countrymen. But when it exists in great quantity, to the extent that millions of citizens are willing to lay down their lives for their country, it becomes a powerful force that governing elites invariably misuse to achieve narrowly selfish ends. No group (according to Niebhur), be it a political party, economic faction, religious sect or nation, is completely able to act morally, which Niebhur defines as acting more in the interests of others than for oneself. It is not merely ironic that individual selflessness becomes national selfishness. Individual selflessness supplies the fuel that enables nations to pursue their own interests, the rest of the world be damned. Of course, nations and their governing elites are never able to admit this, even to themselves, which is why wars for oil, or coal, or gold, or territory must always clothe themselves as wars of liberation, or civilization, or devotion to ones god. And that is a paradox. As a nation we need to get a grip on patriotism to ensure that our instinctive love of country is not used against us selfishly by cynical and opportunistic political con men. Ronald Reagan may have been great in many ways, but in "Making America Feel Good About Itself Again" he also unleashed passions that in the wrong hands can easily become arrogance and hubris. Republicans understand the power of patriotism as an elemental emotional force, and that is why they wrap the flag around almost everything they do. We will never find a realistic way to meet our problems, be they in Iraq or elsewhere, so long as patriotism is not kept in proper context and challenged when it is not directed at worthy objects.

I think that Niebuhr distinguished clearly between paradox (or its cousin "incongruity") and irony. He didn't mistake the one for the other, but rather emphasised that what makes a situation ironic is not the mere juxtaposition of paradoxical or even contradictory elements (e.g. generosity of team spirit and aggressive tribal/national exclusivity) but that there is a definitive causal link between the two. The energies and intentions directed to a particular end also bring about a situation in which that end is compromised. He also made the point, however, that irony is largely an observer's gift, and that those who are caught up in a series of events are not well placed to recognize its ironies. It's not easy to keep the functional connection between, say, healthy patriotism and national hubris under intellectual observation at a time of national crisis. To that extent, irony (or indeed paradox) is, as you say, a subject of figurative language, as neither can really be perceived until somebody undertakes to describe it in such language. A comic incongruity (pompous guy slips on banana skin) or a simple paradox (superpower fails to defeat bunch of insurgents) is probably something cruder that can be recognized by anyone when they see it.

A further paradox of patriotism for America in particular is that it is precisely our love of country that, in todays poisonous political environment, is doing irreparable harm to the country we love. For America especially, it is essential to our view of ourselves that we not be like other countries who wage wars for personal gain. Other countries, corrupt countries, do that. But not Americam, we are different. I cannot tell you how many military people have told me that when America goes abroad to fight the only territory we seek is the land in which to bury our dead. We hold ourselves to a higher standard, we fight for higher ideals and higher causes, our very national identify is tied up in picture we have of ourselves that our might makes right. America is not about blood ties, or land, as Bush himself said in his inaugural, it is about an idea, the idea of freedom. Yet in today's current political climate of corrupted hyperpatriotism it is precisely those voices who plead the loudest and the most eloquently for America to live up to these ideals, and who are the the most injured when we do not, are also the most likely to be singled out for their disployalty, for aiding and abetting the enemy, for being card-carrying members of the Blame America First Crowd. And it is this corrupted patriotism that substitutes political or national self-interest for America's highest ideals that endangers genuine patriots by defaming them as traitors. Yet, in a democracy like ours there is no higher treason than blind loyalty.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.

makes me think of Guiliani. Terrific posts Ted Frier.

what makes a situation ironic is not the mere juxtaposition of paradoxical or even contradictory elements (e.g. generosity of team spirit and aggressive tribal/national exclusivity) but that there is a definitive causal link between the two. The energies and intentions directed to a particular end also bring about a situation in which that end is compromised. That's not irony; that's tragedy. Irony's a smirk, the intellectual's revenge on politics. Tragedy's an entirely different order of seriousness.

No, irony is a number of things, but not a smirk. It's not the same as sarcasm. It has more empathy, at least potentially, and often invites others to see the irony too. However, your point about tragedy is well taken -- the order of irony may indeed become the order of tragedy at a certain point when there's no going back. Apropos of nothing: it just occurs to me that Bush's smirk has nothing to do with irony. In contrast, JFK had an ironic wit, as a lot of his generation went in person from youth to war and knew how contingent the world could be. They knew there was a hard uncomfortable reality out there that could demand a price for irresponsible rhetoric.

I want to comment on the above posts starting essentially at post 12. I agree with Rice's point that Obama hasn't shown us much in the way of real political accomplishment in the sense of getting things done legislatively. (It's obvious no mean feat to have risen as highly as he thus far has.) But that speaks to Rice's well taken distinction between exhortation and accomplishment beyond as exhortation, which itself speaks to the proposition that Obama is, at least as yet, no Bobby Kennedy for amongst the details that Tepluhkin nicely filled in above. I'll quibble with Rice's distinction between irony and paradox on first principles rather than on a grounding in Neibhur, which I do not have much of. Irony itself cannot be assimilated into, or equated with, the "unexpected": "While there may be something unexpected, i.e. ironic..." And paradox cannot be assimilated into, or equated with, "contradiction": "...there is by no means anything contradictory, i.e. paradoxical." While irony can be a complicated notion and is capable of many diverse manifestations, I'd want to argue that its gist is something along the lines of an antithesis between appearance and reality when appearance posits itself, or simply appears, as reality, whether by way of saying something and meaning or being the opposite (intended and unintended irony) or by way of situations having the appearance of reality when reality is the opposite of the appearance. The analytic core here, to my mind, is the antithetical relationship between appearance and reality in their inversion. Paradox is, by contrast, an apparent contradiction and not a contradiction as such. It is wrong to use paradox as a synonym for contradiction because a contradiction, as in the case of irony, asserts its own opposite, while paradox, analytically at least, allows for resolution of the contradiction that seems apparent. So, transmuting individuals' patriotic selflessness into projects of national selfishness is, I'd argue, a paradox, and a tragic one at that, and the articulation of selfless purposes to conceal selfish purposes is among other things, I'd argue, an irony, and a tragic one at that. But I take Rice's point that it is an abstraction to speak about "national egotism" or, I would add, "national selfishness" and that, as he argues, it is better and more concrete to speak here of "national interest". And Rice is to my mind incisively dead on to say that the recognizable, even only occasional, legitimate need to use force contradicts any notion of a necessary disjunction between individuals' selflessness and national selfishness. (And, by the way, and as a digressiion, I agree with Rice's assessment that Bush, whether intentionally or unintentionally-I think he spoke from his heart-was politically genius to say Jesus was his "favourite philosopher.") As to Obama, my own view is that he is, at a minimum, too unseasoned and untested to be President. But that's just me. And we shall see what we shall see. I have some difficulty with Ted Frier's (Neibhurian?) thesis that "no group...is completely able to act morally...", defined as "acting more in the interests of others than for oneself." Firstly, I do not know what it means to say "completely able" here. This, respectfully, smacks of abstraction. No one-individual, group-except in some austere, attenuated, humanly atypical way is "completely able" to act morally. We act concretely in the world out of a complex of motives and reasons and some of those actions in all that complexity can common sensically be characterized by the judgment "moral". Secondly, I don't understand that the foundation for that judgment must be the suppression of one's *interests* to privilege the *interests* of others. And, in that regard, I don't understand the necessity of speaking about *interest* when speaking about whither (or whether) moral, save for the reductive idea that human conduct is solely a matter of *interest*-a kind of personal realism, I guess. To speak so, I think, conflates the moral with the utilitarian, and tracks the difference between the moral and the legal. But I do agree that sacrifice is a necessary condition of any action we can call moral. On this basis, I want to argue, we can say that groups or political entities can indeeed act morally and are not analytically doomed to only acting selfishly, that, for example, "just war theory" is a conceivable analysis. I think that Ironyroad is bang on to see the bloodlines running the semantic veins of both paradox and incongruity. I only add my argument that incongruity's blood runs equally through irony's semantic veins in incongruity's meaning of "absurdly out of place or out of keeping with." If I as a man attend an event for women only my presence there is antithetical to the condition of attendance and is incongruous to say the least, and quite possibly ironic. And I note Ironyroad's tendency imprecisely to merge paradox and irony when noting that "what makes a situation is ironic is not the mere juxtaposition of paradoxical or even contradictory elements." In my view, paradox cannot generate irony, only antithesis can. To Teplukhin and Ironyroad, a smirk, sarcasm, is often, which is to say, can be, the face irony wears as when dramatic characters, particularly in comedies of manners, gleefully say things or let the audience know things they know not to be true, reveling devilishly in their own sense of superiority-the foundation of all smirks and sarcasm. But there is a completely defensible notion of tragic irony, as I read Ironyroad to say. Finally, one last sincere question for Ted Frier as a means of trying to tie the foregoing together and relating it to some of the themes running through the posts I've noted: would you agree that reasonable people could differ in good faith about the rightness or the wrongness of the 2002 going into Iraq. I ask as one who came to think post-2002 that it was a mistake because the inspectors should have been allowed to do their job, and if they had and no WMDs, then what? But at the time I and people I know were conflicted about it all, held diverse views and debated and discussed the issues agonizingly, sometimes angrily and ongoingly. That said, and assuming the pervasiveness of such conflictedness, does not all that qualify what may be, respectfully, some stridency in your remarks as they apply to going into war in Iraq and even as they apply to those who made those decisions. To have gone in for one set of reasons only to be confronted by the absolute opposite reality-if all the dynamics can be so reduced-would be an instance of tragic irony. If so, might not a different kind of discourse--in tone and in terms-- be more adequate to the discussion about Iraq? Respectfully to all, Itzik Basman

As always, you ask a fair question and one that is not easily answered because it is directed at the question of "motivation," which is never easily answered since it involves such a tangle of personal interests and larger idealism. And I also accept your observation about my sometimes stridency, but if I am strident it is the stridency of the wounded idealist, at least I think that is my motivation. I do believe I believe strongly in the need for justice, which requires a fair-minded and honest balancing of our own interests against the legitimate interests of others. And when I see someone or some group acting in a way that is deliberately and unfairly self-seeking and unjust I lash out. But I do recognize that I can be wrong both about their motivations and my own. It happened to be coincidental that I was more than halfway through Niebhur's "Moral Man, Immoral Society" just as the question was raised in the last debate, which promoted this post on Obama. I began reading this book (written in 1932, just as Hitler was coming to power) because I had seen it mentioned many times before and because my particular interest is in the way that people think and the ideals, interests and principles that statesmen or other political actors use to govern a country. I do believe that people of good faith can differ about the legitimacy of reasons for invading Iraq, as well as the rightness or wrongness of the hawk or dove position on what to do now. Reading Kagan in today's Post and his rather glowing portrayal of the success of the surge so far (whether it is accurate or not is another question) caused me to rethink the motivations of those of us who oppose Bush and further escalation. Could it be that we are blinded to the wisdom of Bush's course, and in some way are rooting for defeat, because it would prove Bush a disaster? Can we really say that all of our criticisms are based exclusively on an evaluation of facts on the ground, and not merely our political prejudices? I don't know, I don't think so, but honesty demands that we at least explore the possibility that our own motivations are not so pure. So, while I agree that people of good faith can differ, my problems with Bush and the GOP is that all of its decisions in Iraq fit so conveniently with their larger ambitions, and are consistent with actions they have taken on issues other than Iraq. Specifically, wars, any wars, are good for a Right Wing because they arouse nationalist, patriotic sentiment of the kind that Republicans have used against Democrats for a generation. They are also good for a movement that seeks to make this country a one-party nation because under the color of protecting the national interest wars can be used to silence or destroy an opposition. The Conservative Movement has always sought to concentrate power in the executive, and Iraq helps them do that as well. Right wing movements are also hostile to democracy and to civil liberties because they give too much power and too many rights to the larger population that conservatives believe as a matter of principle need to be controlled by conservative elites and the institutions and traditions they control. Iraq has served that agenda as well. And then there is the rhetoric that Bush has used, and conservatives use to defend Bush and his actions. This is a dead giveaway that a larger self interest is involved. Conservative rhetoric on the war almost immediately takes on typically right wing patriotic overtones where war critics are smeared as traitors who do not support the troops and aid and abet the enemy. Putting all of this together makes me very suspicious about the administration's underlying motivations for this war, or its ability to think an issue through dispassionately as morality or a desire for justice demands, and make a decision on whether to invade or not invade based on a mature and serious consideration of what was in the national interest, not just the interest of George Bush and the GOP. That same attitude I believe is also involved in their decisions on what to do now that the original pretext has collapsed. And finally, there is the way that the Bush administration has politicized virtually every institution or tradition it has touched, bending accepted practive to its own narrow ends. They are in my view simply unprincipled when principle impinges on political ambition. There is no question that if the US is eventually forced out of Iraq without a satisfactory conclusion, Bush will be judged a disaster by history and the GOP's hopes of becoming a permanent governing majority to decades to come will erupt in flames and be lost for a generation or more. And this I think colors every move they suggest. I would have been much more forgiving of Bush and the GOP for the disaster in Iraq if invading Iraq worked against its other ambitions, instead of supporting them in the way I have tried to describe above. And putting Iraq into this larger context I am left with the conclusion that their decision to go to war was reckless and selfish and so has produced a legacy of deception meant to cover up what its genuine motivations were. There are genuine tragic choices that have to be made about where we go from here and how many other lives must be lost before we can get out of Iraq and still protect our national interest, and the moral debt we owe the Iraqi people for tearing up their country. But I have no confidence that Bush or the GOP have the moral standing to make those choices objectively since in my opinion at least they have already shown themselves to be guilty of either criminally reckless opportunism or hopeless delusion about their ultimate motives.

Thanks, Basman. Nice try, Frier.

Let me try to explain it this way:

Both are negations.

Irony is temporal negation. This is what Niebuhr is saying, that (individual) selflessness leads to (national) egotism.

Paradox is simultaneous negation. By using the word "transmutes," Niebuhr has excluded simultaneity. Thus, there is nothing paradoxical about the relationship between personal selflessness and national "egotism". There is, of course, something ironic about it.

My point is that, whatever you want to call it, Niebuhr is presenting a false dichotomy. Though it may be challenged on other grounds, patriotism contains no "ethical paradox". The (selfish) interest of any organization (or organism) is necessarily contingent on the selflessness of its members. And my further point is that it's rather fatuous to use Niebuhr, as David Brooks did, with Blake's approval, as some kind of scriptural challenge for Obama, as a fundie might use Bible passages to challenge, say, Brownback, in order to establish bona fides with their respective constituencies.

Ted, thank you for thoughtful, quite personal and eloquent post, which ranges far past my "semanticizing". I have never read Moral Man, Immoral Society, and for that reason should shut up about it. But if its argument as suggested by its title and by some of the above commentary on Niebhur is that necessarily that disjunction exists, moral man and immoral society, then I think that as Rice again suggests in his post 22, if I read him correctly, that argument is entirely problematic, for among the reasons I have already tried to argue for, which I think differ from Rice's. You make an interesting point in the lattrer half of your second paragraph that meets up with my original conflictedness about the war in 2002 before, just when and after it was undertaken. And all that amibiguity and uncertainty bleed into the question of how to assess the situation there now? I read or hear account "x" and I think "just get out right now, what earthly good can staying there accomplish?" I read or hear account "y" and I think more or less just the opposite. And when my thinking is "y" generated, I tend to think "good for Bush"-who I most times think extremely little of-"for, heaven help me, 'staying the course' ". At the end of the second paragraph of your post you point to the swirling complexity of the "facts on the ground", diverse assessments of them by credible people, of reasons and motivations, tactics and strategies, and the difficulties these pose for coming to terms with the issues. We are living in the whirligig of the dilemmas of history while they are occurring, and in that, I think, some tentativeness and humility are in order exactly as I read you to suggest in near to the end of that second paragraph. (I can say that in the instance of myself, I have no hope whatsoever for American defeat in Iraq, as to my mind American victory translates into something good for Iraq, however distantly remote the possibility of that might be.) I am inclined to part company with your argument in your third paragraph even on my darkest, most dire views of Iraq for amongst the following reasons: 1. even though I agree with you as to the recklessness, pre-determinedness and tendentiousness of Bush's entry into the war, I do not believe that the war was undertaken so as to advance Bush's "larger ambitions." I'll join the bulk of your criticism as to why and how Bush got into the war, how he tried to justify it and he prosecuted it, but I'll stop short of ascribing an underlying *Conservative* agenda as the underlying reason therefor; 2. I have asterisked "Conservative* because I don't think American Conservatism is assimilable to "Bushism" (although I have some understanding that there may have been a Straussian strain in the Neo-Conservatism guiding at least the origins of Bush's foreign policy after 9/11 and trying to build up influence and steam even before then). Although a discussion of the cleavages between Bushism, perhaps an evolving thing, and American conservatism as such, is beyond my sense of the scope of this thread and probably, after a few of my own soporific, on the surface, comments beyond me, for an immediate but I think bristlingly, good shorthand account of some of it listen to the discussion between Beinart and Goldberg in their Part 6 exchange of What"s Your Problem; 3. In support of reason 1., I think it can be argued that Iraq is an instance of an over-determined, if shrill, idealism driving foreign policy, which itself prompted the renaissance of the prominence and legitimacy of foreign policy realism in American thought; 4. Willing to be called a naïf, I don't agree that Bush is guided now in his policy simply by considerations of either his place in history or the future sinecure of the Republican Party. Those things, especially the first, may be on his mind--how could the first not be, as it is on the mind of every President--but my argument is that he is guided now--more than he was at the outset--by his genuine sense of what is good for America in conjunction and balanced with his assessment of what is good for Iraq; 5. If it turns out that Bush can be said to have succeeded in Iraq, and if we cannot say for certainty now that he cannot so succeed,as perhaps per your comments in your second paragraph, does that not counter--argue your assertion of his ultimately cynical, hyper--tendentiousness, and what rethinking will such success cause amongst those who so have virulently and totally criticized him all the way along; and finally for now 6. Is there not a troubling polemical tension between your assertions in paragraph 3 of your post and your sober self-reflection in its paragraph 2? I think the nub of our disagreement is your ascription of the "larger context", about which you speak in your penultimate paragraph, to Bush's actions. I say all this of course not to say I'm right and you are wrong, but genuinely to try to think through with you some of the questions and implications which the posts in this thread have raised. And in any event it is a pleasure and for me broadening trying to hash this out some with you. Regards, Itzik p.s. And, again, I agree with Rice's critical comment about Brooks's getting so rhapsodic about Obama's familiarity with Neibuhr.

Thank you for your response. There is a tension between my attempts in paragraph 2 to account for the prejudices that might cloud my objectivity and the bill of particulars I level against the GOP in the next graph. But the tension is not perhaps so much as you suppose. What I was trying to accomplish in paragraph 3 was not to accuse Bush of selfish reasons for going to war, but to identify all of the possible sources of self-interest that would have made it more attractive for him and his party to do so than someone else, and which may also have clouded his and his party's judgment about whether this war was really necessary. I did this in the spirit of Niebuhr, since Niebuhr's basic point as I understand it is that genuine morality is only possible for individuals, not for societies, because only individuals (in the intimacy and immediateness of their personal and social relations)with others are capable of a level of sympathy for others that makes it possible for them to truly transcend their own selfishness. Groups can never do this because the immediacy is lost, causing sympathy to be left to the imagination, and so leaving the group free to invent flattering rationalizations about why they do the things that they do. Under pressure and where there is counterveiling power (checks and balances, perhaps) justice between groups is possible. But groups doing what is right by their fellow man based on considerations of morality is never possible. Even achieving justice where there is no compulsion to do so is difficult, which is the source of Neibuhr's just war theories. Left to their own devices, groups will always pursue their own self-interest, usually by deceiving themselves and others about their true motivations and objectives. Most groups act as if their own self interest is synomymous with the general interest, and they pretend the values that serve them are also universal -- such as tax cuts for the rich are good for the poor, or that by serving your king you also serve god, or the invader is doing the invadee a favor by introducing them to civilization and to values like liberty and freedom which, as Bush reminds us, are not our gifts to others but God's gift to us. Niebuhr is a good source for those interested in basic human motivation and the endless ways that we, especially as members of groups, justify our actions or presume that what is good for us is good for everyone else as well, whether they know it or not. And that is why I am suspicious of the GOP. Bush may have gone to war out of the most altruistic and responsible of reasons. Many believe that, and consider Bush to be a very courageous statesmen who is risking his presidency to do what he thinks is right. It is possible, but I have my doubts, and the things I list in paragraph 3 are the sources of those doubts. I am doubtful about the GOPs ability to look at Iraq objectively because, until it started to go badly, it worked for them politically in so many different ways.

"Paradox is simultaneous negation. By using the word "transmutes," Niebuhr has excluded simultaneity. Thus, there is nothing paradoxical about the relationship between personal selflessness and national "egotism". There is, of course, something ironic about it." The paradox is an apparent negation, the contradiction is a true negation. For example, it is paradoxical that the Soviet Union, a brutal and oppressive regime with global power ambitions, delivered the greatest expenditure of effort toward the defeat of Nazi Germany, a brutal and oppressive regime with global power ambitions. It was ironic, in contrast, that the United States -- the most pro-captialist nation in the world -- entered into an alliance with the USSR -- the embodiment of state socialism -- to defeat a mutual enemy. The similarity of the USSR and Germany creates the paradox; the difference between the U.S. and the USSR creates the irony. One might argue that the true simultaneous negation, the contradiction, emerged later as the Soviet Union occupied Eastern and Central Europe. There, the elements of choice between purported values (respect for national autonomy, civic freedoms, no soviet-style transformation) and actual Soviet values (100% military and political control) mutually negated each other. The Soviet Bloc/Warsaw Pact was a contradiction that kept breaking, trying to stablize, and breaking again. It wasn't a perceived but an actual negation. Coming back to your example above, there is perhaps nothing contradictory about the national egoism/selflessness equation, but there is something paradoxical about it.

I'll leave off--otherewise I'm just repeating myself-- by saying that subject to actually reading the book you mention, if it is fair to say that in American foreign policy there has been a dialectical tension between idealism and prudential self-interest (leaving aside the rationaliztions and pretexts offered for the many instances of sheerly exploitative foreign ventures) then I cannot see how you can maintain your argument. In a word, I find your argument as again expressed in the just above post unnecessarily (and not entirely helpfully) binary. Itzik

whether Obama is just being coy about what he would do, or has no idea. I'm for Edwards. After six years of Bush, we need someone who is serious about doing something. So far, Obama seems not to be such a person. Neil

I must admit that I am struggling to understand your objection, specifically the meaning of "binary." If you are saying that the rightness or wrongness of Bush's course of action in Iraq cannot be determined simply by his underlying motivations (whether conscious or not) then I would agree with you. That question can only be answered by a calculation that takes in your notion of "prudential self-interest," things such as: were the threats of sufficient moment to justify an invasion; what are the reasons we are staying in Iraq now, identified honestly; how justified are those reasons now that Saddam is gone and we have entered a new (and tragic) phase in Iraq's national development; and finally, what realistic chance do we have of success given our resources and capabilities matched against a constantly evolving strategic mission as defined and redefined by the administration. The announced purpose for Iraq has changed from one of national self-defence to one of altruistic nation-building. So, the standards for judging the rightness or wrongness of our involvement have also also shifted from considerations of practical national security to ones where considerations of moral politics are primary, and where underlying motivations become much more relevant. We invaded for our own purposes (justified according to the arguments and evidence offered at the time) but have now become the caretakers of the future, and the freedoms, of another people. This requires a much higher level of honesty, introspection, humility and intellectual and moral integrity as to our future actions and the authentic motivations behind them. Do I think that America's national security will be harmed if we are unsuccessful in preventing Iraq from descending into civil war? Yes I do, and this is where we need an open and honest debate among people who know what they are talking about and what the likely consequences will be we need to consider -- a debate without the infamy to which Bush or war critics are subjected by administration apologists who are all too ready to play the "support the troops" trump card against their adversaries. Do I also think America now has a moral commitment to Iraq for having unleashed all of these forces that now threaten to consume it? Yes I do. And we need an open and honest debate about this issue as well, and how it came to be that we took on this new moral obligation. What I think I have been trying to say, so far without much success, is that because the nature of the Iraq invasion and its aftermath has now become intertwined with questions of morality and justice (given the new relationship and the new responsibilities we now have with the Iraqi people) we must be now much more skeptical about the moral standing of the individual American actors who will determine this nation's future course in Iraq, and alert to the underlying motivations that provide a window into that moral standing. America is now being asked to fulfill a moral commitment to another people whose future we have intruded upon. And the question for us is whether the people asking us to fulfill that moral commitment have themselves been acting morally throughout. Are we being asked to engage in selfless sacrifice for another people by leaders who have acted selfishly -- immorally -- and mostly for their own interests from the very beginning. How we answer that question is likely to determine what party and what leaders will govern less than two years from now.

Great conversation, all. Another classic TalkBack thread. Thank you, t

for these long posts?? I am impressed...and puzzled. Good reading though.

I'm going to respond to you further, just need some clear time. itzik

The anyone but Hillary canidate. Unfortunately we have too many good canidates and I fear Hillary will sneak through and then get roundly trashed by Gulliani.

Ted, I admire your energy in posting. It beats mine. Generally __________________________________ My reference to "binary" is to your argument ( a la Niebhur) that "genuine morality is only possible for individuals, not for societies, because only individuals (in the intimacy and immediateness of their personal and social relations)with others are capable of a level of sympathy for others that makes it possible for them to truly transcend their own selfishness." Rice can speak for himself, but I think we both don't buy it: he for his reasons--see "false dichotomy"; me for the reasons I already have tried to give, which it would be redundant to repeat. First Paragraph __________________________________ That said, I agree with the way you have framed your considerations in the main balance of your first paragraph of your #post 28. Second Paragraph __________________________________ I'm not sure I understand completely your second paragraph. The "selling" of the reasons for first going into Iraq were made such a hash of, the reasons themselves, to my mind, so poorly and ill thought through, that the going in became, absurdly enough, a kind of tabula rasa on which people could write their own analyses and interpretations. Clearly enough though, as the WMDs did not show up, the selling of necessity took on different hues and tropes, and now, differently from that, American presence is a tragic concreteness of clear imperatives being debated incessantly by all the deciders--executive and legislature--in absolutely antithetical contrast to the reckless, relatively thoughtless ease of the going in. At the outset, the legislature punted, and the President and a small coterie of ideologically driven advisors just bulled their way through come Hell or highwater. Third Paragraph __________________________________ I agree and tried to speak to this a bit just above. Fourth and Fifth Paragraph __________________________________ Agreed and agreed. Sixth Paragraph __________________________________ Agreed. But that skepticism will extend to the Legislature as well. I think, for myself, that some of the Democratic posturing and exploitation of the situation for their own political ends has been shameful, and I say that as one, though a Canadian, who strongly shares a lot the Democratic "world view", if I can put it that way Seventh Paragraph __________________________________ Not sure that that is the *question* as such, although the actions as a totality of the Iraqi leadership and its relevant political class are obviously a hugely important factor in American assessments of its own position. Itzik

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. That does help to clarify matters. I do not know that your commitment to speculation and scribbling is any less than my own, but I am sensitive to the blandishments of my wife who frequently scolds: "Ted, can't you give it a rest!" You know what I think it is. The pace of events is so swift, and the power of propaganda so immense, that unless a daily effort is made to imprint intellect on the course of current events we can easily be turned into robots and carried to our doom by the delusions of any damn fool who happens to get their hands on power. Thanks again.

...they want, turn to violence. We're always hearing about "fascists," but it's been a long time since the Brownshirts broke windows and skulls. For a long, long, time-- most of our lifetimes, it has been the Left, the "peaceloving Left" that has wrought most of the death and misery in the streets and jungles and gulags.

...meant to be posted to the previous string. Sorry. Once must rant in the right place.

Bush administration is guided in any way by true Christian values, at this point, cannot be taken seriously. The Bush administration has clearly demonstrated that, in virtually all areas, it is guided by the interests and values of big bsuiness and the very, very rich and a deep faith in cronyism, greed, and short=term winning politics. This is, unfortunately, combined with a general level of incompetence, ignorance, and simple stupidity so that the result is the Katrinaization of everything they touch. The Bush administration has placed the US in the greatest danger in its history, with relatively few obviously workable solutions. The only moral action the US can take to redeem itself is to impeach Bush and Cheney, who are war criminals, if there is such a category. If the US doesn't care about morality, probably the most effective way out of the current mess is to become true empire, with a large foreign legion and a clear message that opposing the US means death and destruction. If we kill enough mullahs who preach against us, terrorist dangers can be greatly reduced. Being an ineffective bully is about as low as one can go.