Sunday, February 06, 2005
First and Ten, Go Long.
Below is the text of an article I attempted to get published in National Review. I failed this time. It is a comment on a New Republic article.
Partisanship is the necessary evil of any democracy. Its necessity is that it is the glue the binds groups together. Groups that can then act together and pass laws. Its evil resides in the fact that it can act as a funnel that narrows perspective and limits deliberate thinking.
The New Republic has recently given us an excellent example of what can happen to the partisan mind. The article “Future Perfect” by Jeffrey Herf illustrates the loss of perspective that can develop from an attempt at the partisan polemic.
Herf’s article is a brief synopsis of what he sees as the critical moment of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s most recent testimony before Congress. It is now well known that Rice was treated roughly in her confirmation. Senator Boxer (D) has become a folk hero of the MoveOn crowd for her line of attack, and formerly moderate Candidate Kerry has morphed back into Liberal Senator Kerry with his vote against Rice’s confirmation. But it also known that Rice handled herself well and said very little that could damage her or the President’s remaining tenure in the executive branch.
Herf sees this differently than the conventional wisdom. While accusing Rice, perhaps not unfairly, of evasive answers to the Senator’s questions, he still believes that he has discovered the quote that reveals Rice’s dark Hegelian side. Rice’s is a closet historical determinist and believes the ends justify the means. In his view she is not simply a Hegelian, she is the moral equivalent of Marxists, Nihilists, Stalin, Castro, and anyone else who caused trouble in the 20th Century.
The words that reveal Rice’s dark side are as follows:
“I know enough about history to stand back and to recognize that you judge decisions not at the moment but in how it all adds up. And that's just strongly the way I feel about big historical changes. I'm being as straightforward with you as I possibly can.”
To use this quote to justify an accusation of Hegelianism is absurd. The quote does not reference any kind of historical determinism or German idealism. Rice is talking about perspective. Any major decision made be a Head of State or a Foreign Minister is going to have immediate effects. It is also going to have secondary and tertiary effects. These effects have to be accounted for before the major decision is judged.
An example: if one is to say that President Truman’s decisions before and during the Korean War were good or bad decisions, one has to take in the perspective of history. At the time, many Americans felt that we had left enough dead men in foreign lands for one generation. Many also felt that removing the well respected General Macarthur was a horrible error. The Americans did judge Truman at the moment, and he left office with abysmal approval ratings. And history has judged differently. Truman is held in high regard in our time not least because he successfully defended the freedom of millions of South Koreans without starting World War III. Perspective is necessary to make this judgment. Herf has missed Rice’s point entirely.
And because of his error regarding Rice’s philosophical position he continues his essay and impugns her morality. Herf claims that Rice’s statement puts her in a category of intellectual that believes that the sweep of history justifies obvious immoral actions in the current time. He goes as far as to quote Castro’s defensive remark "History will absolve me." It is an intellectually reckless comparison to put a person who said “you judge decisions not at the moment but in how it all adds up”, in the same category as a tyrant and a murderer. The comparison is both reckless and false.
It is reckless because of course the ends can justify the means. It just depends on what ends and what means are being justified. Besides the ends what else would justify the means? Aimless action is a virtue? But the comparison is false because it is a badly constructed straw man argument. Rice is talking about the perspective needed in making judgments not the justification of immoral acts. Herf’s original error of believing that he had rooted out a secret Hegelian, leads directly to his misguided attack on Rice’s sense of morality.
The article is an attempt to create another high-brow boogeyman. This time it isn’t the evil Neocons, it is the evil German Idealists. A professor of Modern European history should know better. But this is the sort of reasoning that can follow partisanship. Especially the kind of partisanship that exists when a party is out of power and knows that is going to stay out for a long time.
Partisanship is the necessary evil of any democracy. Its necessity is that it is the glue the binds groups together. Groups that can then act together and pass laws. Its evil resides in the fact that it can act as a funnel that narrows perspective and limits deliberate thinking.
The New Republic has recently given us an excellent example of what can happen to the partisan mind. The article “Future Perfect” by Jeffrey Herf illustrates the loss of perspective that can develop from an attempt at the partisan polemic.
Herf’s article is a brief synopsis of what he sees as the critical moment of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s most recent testimony before Congress. It is now well known that Rice was treated roughly in her confirmation. Senator Boxer (D) has become a folk hero of the MoveOn crowd for her line of attack, and formerly moderate Candidate Kerry has morphed back into Liberal Senator Kerry with his vote against Rice’s confirmation. But it also known that Rice handled herself well and said very little that could damage her or the President’s remaining tenure in the executive branch.
Herf sees this differently than the conventional wisdom. While accusing Rice, perhaps not unfairly, of evasive answers to the Senator’s questions, he still believes that he has discovered the quote that reveals Rice’s dark Hegelian side. Rice’s is a closet historical determinist and believes the ends justify the means. In his view she is not simply a Hegelian, she is the moral equivalent of Marxists, Nihilists, Stalin, Castro, and anyone else who caused trouble in the 20th Century.
The words that reveal Rice’s dark side are as follows:
“I know enough about history to stand back and to recognize that you judge decisions not at the moment but in how it all adds up. And that's just strongly the way I feel about big historical changes. I'm being as straightforward with you as I possibly can.”
To use this quote to justify an accusation of Hegelianism is absurd. The quote does not reference any kind of historical determinism or German idealism. Rice is talking about perspective. Any major decision made be a Head of State or a Foreign Minister is going to have immediate effects. It is also going to have secondary and tertiary effects. These effects have to be accounted for before the major decision is judged.
An example: if one is to say that President Truman’s decisions before and during the Korean War were good or bad decisions, one has to take in the perspective of history. At the time, many Americans felt that we had left enough dead men in foreign lands for one generation. Many also felt that removing the well respected General Macarthur was a horrible error. The Americans did judge Truman at the moment, and he left office with abysmal approval ratings. And history has judged differently. Truman is held in high regard in our time not least because he successfully defended the freedom of millions of South Koreans without starting World War III. Perspective is necessary to make this judgment. Herf has missed Rice’s point entirely.
And because of his error regarding Rice’s philosophical position he continues his essay and impugns her morality. Herf claims that Rice’s statement puts her in a category of intellectual that believes that the sweep of history justifies obvious immoral actions in the current time. He goes as far as to quote Castro’s defensive remark "History will absolve me." It is an intellectually reckless comparison to put a person who said “you judge decisions not at the moment but in how it all adds up”, in the same category as a tyrant and a murderer. The comparison is both reckless and false.
It is reckless because of course the ends can justify the means. It just depends on what ends and what means are being justified. Besides the ends what else would justify the means? Aimless action is a virtue? But the comparison is false because it is a badly constructed straw man argument. Rice is talking about the perspective needed in making judgments not the justification of immoral acts. Herf’s original error of believing that he had rooted out a secret Hegelian, leads directly to his misguided attack on Rice’s sense of morality.
The article is an attempt to create another high-brow boogeyman. This time it isn’t the evil Neocons, it is the evil German Idealists. A professor of Modern European history should know better. But this is the sort of reasoning that can follow partisanship. Especially the kind of partisanship that exists when a party is out of power and knows that is going to stay out for a long time.
