Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

> Arnold Kling points out a very real danger

And what a mind bogglingly stupid article by mr Kling.

Then again, anyone dumb enough to base his political preferences on "moral trump cards" can only be voting for "the dumb party" (=GOP, according to a christian conservative whose name I forgot. The Donks were of course "the evil party").

MARCUS

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at September 23, 2003 10:57 AM

And what a mind bogglingly stupid article by mr Kling.

Really?

Are going to defend that statement, or are we just supposed to assume that it's obvious? Am I equally "mind bogglingly stupid" for agreeing with it? If so, why?

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 23, 2003 11:17 AM

I am reminded of the U.S. vs them story in the Onion a few weeks back.

The U.N. is a useful tool, no more and no less. Its goal is stability, not morality. God help us if we had a U.N. that was interested on moral crusades.

I believe the phase would be "world government".

And jeebus help us if voters in the most powerful nation in the U.N. get confused on that matter.

Posted by Duncan Young at September 23, 2003 11:46 AM

Duncan, you miss the point. I don't want the UN to be a moral authority--I just want some people to stop pretending that it is.

Some people in the Democratic Party (and in Europe) act as though the desires of the dictator coddlers on the East River should take precedence over the US Constitution, or the US national interest.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 23, 2003 11:54 AM

Duncan:

If it is so obvious that the UN is not a world government, then why do so many demand that the United States defer to the decisions of the UN?

Why does a UN imprimatur, in the minds of so many of the anti-war set, constitute such a pre-requisite for action?

If the UN is supposed to be servicing stability, then how does one explain its failures in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Cambodia? And in light of the ongoing tensions in Cyprus, and its apparent inability to prevent Hizbollah attacks from Lebanon, one might well add those sites to its apparent INABILITY to provide said stability.

The UN may not be a moral entity in and of itself (indeed, the actions of many of its elements, especially on the peacekeeping side of the house, would almost certainly disqualify it), but that does not keep many a multilateralist, many a anti-American hegemonist, and many a EUrophile from holding it up as such.

Kling's argument, I believe, is that the Democratic Party is aligning itself with precisely those elements which DO view the UN as a moral entity, whose imprimatur and approval is necessary for an action to be just and justified.

Posted by Dean at September 23, 2003 11:56 AM

> I don't want the UN to be a moral authority--I just want some people to stop pretending that it is.

Just because one believes that the U.N. happens to be correct on a particular moral issue it does not follow that one believes that the U.N. is a moral authority. The "moral authority of the U.N." is just another right-wing straw man.

> We absolutely must not treat the UN as if it holds the moral trump cards.

Notice that this is not conditioned on whether or not the U.N. actually "holds any moral trump cards" (whatever that means). Kling's position is absolute. The actual truth about the U.N.'s moral position is irrelevant, not even worthy of mention.

There's an even more fundamental problem. Kling's question presumes that disagreements about moral issues necessarily indicate a moral obtuseness on the part of one party or the other. But this isn't so. Christians (except for Eastern Orthodox Christians) and Muslims differ on the morality of portraiture (with Muslims and E.O.C.'s believing it violates the Commandment against graven images). Does this indicate moral obtuseness on the part of a) Western Christians or b) Muslims and E.O.C.'s?

That so many otherwise clear-thinking people are falling for this crap is geniunely disturbing.

Personally, I don't believe in the moral authority of either the U.S. or the U.N. I think the very concept of moral authority is fraight with peril.

Posted by Ron Garret at September 23, 2003 12:40 PM

Reasons why U.N. support would have been helpful:

1. Access to political cover at home- its the "the rest of the world agrees with us!" angle that certainly a major portion of the public was looking for during the lead up to the war.

2. Military aid aboard - especially in that large scale policing aspect where the U.S. is structurally weak- Josh Marshall's interview with Joe Wilson was very interesting to this regard.

3. Enabler for NGO's quickly (which is important) during reconstruction - the last two U.N. reconstruction efforts (East Timor and Kosovo) have gone a lot better than might have been expected - one thinks they might have been getting the hang of this sort of thing.

4.Decrease the complexity of recognition and Iraqi sovereignty - Iraq's grand strategy function of becoming a liberal transmitter in the Arab world will not be helped if it is seen as a U.S. puppet. Indeed, the massive state supported anti-semitism in Egypt is in part driven by the government trying to conceal its U.S. puppet status from its public. It is not inconceivable that in order to survive, an Iraqi government would have to conduce the same demagogry.

5. Sharing the risk. In a hypothetical U.N. invasion the governments of France, China, and Russia would have a vested interest in making this work (not to suggest that they all word have been directly involved). Now they see an goldern opportunity to bring down a hyperpower to their own level - and will make the most of it.

None of this has much to do with morality, all of this has to do with practicality.

And all of these are arguments that the Dems have been making. The morality argument is a strawman.

"Can we" - not "should we" was the relevent question before the war. The U.N makes the answer a lot closer to "Oui". And I dont think getting U.N. support was impossible - the inspectors clearly would not have found any WMD, or WMD programs - but getting them to dig up some of those areas in the south where *something* big was buried, on live TV... well, it might have changed the rational.

And as to the morality of this war itself - that is an argument for another post.

Cheers,
Duncan

Posted by Duncan Young at September 23, 2003 12:55 PM

Kling's question presumes that disagreements about moral issues necessarily indicate a moral obtuseness on the part of one party or the other.

No, it doesn't. You choose to infer that, but he neither says, or implies it. But it certainly can indicate that.

And Duncan, while those are arguments that some Democrats are making, others in fact imply, if not say outright, that the UN was right and we were wrong, not just that it would have been good policy to get the UN on board. I agree that it would have been good to get them on board, but it wasn't going to happen at an acceptable cost.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 23, 2003 01:09 PM

Looking at the cadidates for the party defining nomination:

Kucinich, Braun and Sharpton : who cares? Strawmen all.

Kerry, Gephardt, Clark and Edwards all object on the policy grounds I laid out above, but agree on the moral need for a war at some stage.

Lieberman is whatever Dean isn't. I dare Dean not to jump off a cliff.

Graham didn't see the threat - and it looks like history supports him. He wanted to go after Hizbulla instead. And - who cares?

And Dean - Dean is a domestic politician who will puch any button he will find. He is coming from an angle that there was no net moral or strategic argument whatsoever for the war and is willing to use all strawmen available and get away with it i.e. what the Republicans have done for years.

In other words, he is an excellent politician and, I think, electable. So far as policies I only care for his approach to the long term deficit, a workable health plan and, of course, the need to get rid of Bush.

I am really disappointed in his protectionist pandering, though.

So I count one serious candidate who use the moral U.N. strawman , and I doubt any serious candidate believes it.

Posted by Duncan Young at September 23, 2003 01:45 PM

> he neither says, or implies it

I see. So if I ask, "Rand, are you (a) an idiot or (b) a moron?" then you would have no reason to take offense since I have neither said nor implied that you are either an idiot or a moron. Right?

I like the way this new language of yours works. We should call it Randglish. I can safely pose all kinds of questions in Randglish that would get me into trouble if I said them in English. For example:

Should we increase NASA's budget by (a) 100% or (b) 200%?

Are the problems we are facing in Iraq due to (a) George Bush's stupidity or (b) his being manipulated by the oil industry?

Is the appropriate response to Rand Simberg's theory of linguistic implication to (a) laugh or (b) cry?

I like it! Now, if only we could get the rest of the world to convert to Randglish we could avoid a lot of fights. Why, we could make peace in the Middle East! The Israelis could say things like, "Should we (a) kill Yasser Arafat or (b) kill every last Palestinian and be done with it?" and no one would get angry because they have neither said nor implied that they want to kill anyone!

I think you might really be onto something here.

Posted by Ron Garret at September 23, 2003 02:47 PM

Ron, I have no idea what you're talking about. And no, it's not because I'm either an idiot or a moron.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 23, 2003 03:02 PM

Ron Garret, calm down. Everything will be ok.

Posted by at September 23, 2003 04:08 PM

> I have no idea what you're talking about.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. I was refuting your claim that Kling's question does necessarily imply that one side or the other is morally obtuse by illustrating the absurd consequences of assuming that claim to be true.

Posted by Ron Garret at September 23, 2003 04:13 PM

I was refuting your claim that Kling's question does necessarily imply that one side or the other is morally obtuse by illustrating the absurd consequences of assuming that claim to be true.

I never made such a claim. I in fact claimed exactly the opposite--that it doesn't necessarily imply that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 23, 2003 04:24 PM

Sorry, typo: I was refuting your claim that Kling's question does not necessarily imply...

Posted by Ron Garret at September 23, 2003 06:46 PM

I was refuting your claim that Kling's question does not necessarily imply...

Well, you certainly didn't do it in any convincing (or even comprehensible) way.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 23, 2003 07:12 PM

BTW, where is Kling's story?

Posted by at September 24, 2003 06:32 AM

Ah, found it. Sorry about not signing my prior post.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at September 24, 2003 06:34 AM

I got to agree with the original naysayers. Basing your vote on a single answer to a question seems pretty stupid to me. Instead, I'd depend more on past behavior and goals.

Does the politician deliver on their promises? Failure to deliver on a big promise is a sign I shouldn't vote for that candidate. Are they beholden to special interests? Have they implemented stupid, harmful, or pork programs and policies while in previous offices or businesses? And what are their goals for this office if they are elected? Do I think they can and will deliver on those goals? Do I want those goals? Finding this information will take a lot of work.

Kling prefers to reduce it to a simple a) or b) question where the proper answer is "neither". It doesn't indicate what the politician will do when they get into office. Neither does it indicate whether the politician will make a good or bad candidate for that post. Yet Kling claims he'll base his vote on a single not-very-revealing question. Why aren't we supposed to notice the obvious symptoms of idiocy?

Posted by at September 24, 2003 07:10 AM

I got to agree with the original naysayers. Basing your vote on a single answer to a question seems pretty stupid to me. Instead, I'd depend more on past behavior and goals.

---

PS, I think I double posted. I'm used to another board which requires you to enter a name before it will post your articles. I hold off on entering a name till last so I can avoid posting prematurely. Unfortunately, that tactic fails here. Sorry about that.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at September 24, 2003 07:12 AM

Post a comment