Emphasis Added

Thursday, October 28, 2004

The Duffy Chronicles, Part I

Although my blog output has been somewhat thin today, I have been engaging in an epic email debate with Duffy and Gleason. In case you are interested, here are a few of the exchanges:

Gleason writes (to Duffy):

It is not a fundamental personal flaw in someone to vote for Kerry...sometimes I wonder if you understand that.

Duffy replies:

I am not so sure. It is a flaw to not recognize stark differences between liberty and tyranny, between terrorists and criminals, between corruption and multilateralism. Actually, it's a flaw to not be open-minded enough to see these differences when history and discovery present the findings.

[snip]

I agree with your big picture point. The Bush Doctrine, education accountability, free trade, SS reform, tort reform are all big picture positions. Tactically along the way, there have been many slip-ups by Bush, but he has nailed the strategy. The people who want Bush to admit to his mistakes conveniently forget that we are waged in a war, a war that he did not start. Any admission of mistake is fodder for the enemy and strengthens their position and morale(this is hard for people who are not military historians or of a military background to understand). That is completely unacceptable, and Bush should be commended for recognizing this. Beside, the mistakes are debatable, and I am comfortable with letting historians, with time and perspective, to decide what mistakes were made and what were their consequences. In the meantime the fight is on.

There is a good letter to the editor in today's WSJ that addresses some instances of big picture stances by Presidents that were highly questionable at the time. I quote: "John Adams, immediately after the Revolutionary War, recognized that England would become our true ally, not France as Jefferson preferred. Abraham Lincoln, often alone and discouraged, discerned what was right for the nation despite almost constant criticism. His re-election in 1864 did not happen because the electorate awakened to his vision, but was a result of Sherman taking Atlanta. Harry Truman showed wisdom in 1947 in enunciating the Truman Doctrine, which worked to contain the spread of communism in Western Europe. President Reagan called Mikail Gorbachev's bluff and effectively ended a totalitarian regime. Probably none of these men would have been considered wise...(at the time)."

The letter continues: "Following the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, the president began stating what has become the Bush Doctrine. It is based upon the principle, as he stated it, that "moral truth is the same in every culture, in every time, and in every place..." It suggests that terrorism is a product of political, not economic, oppression. The doctrine calls for the right of pre-emption and it concludes with the statement that all peoples have the right to determine their own form of government. It is too early to determine the outcome of the Bush Doctrine, but my guess is that it will be proved to have been based on wisdom."

I would agree. The people who have problems with the Bush Doctrine, Rob included, are the people who have problems with "moral truth". These would be the moral relativists of the world that believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It all depends on your perspective. My question is: what if they, the moral relativists, are wrong? What if morals are universal and do exist and can be defined? Rob has stated to me that he has problems with moral arguments because great harm has been perpetrated on the world by people claiming moral authority, thus deny any one who dares lay claim to such authority. This is a false position. In the military, it is illegal to obey an illegal order. There are certainly illegal orders, but this fact alone does not make all orders wrong. Like wise, it is immoral to act in an immoral way, even when cloaked in the name of m! orality. But not all actions are immoral. Moral actions, rather, lead to justice. It is a flaw, a personal flaw, to not recognize justice and to not seek it out. Sadly, it is a flaw that I see all around me.

Rob chimes in:

Glad to get this latest from Mr. Duffy. I was concerned that the overheated political environment was causing irreversible neurological damage, as evidenced by his posted comment on my blog yesterday. I am pleased that he is still obviously capable of higher thought and coherent expression of same.

[snip]

Brian raises the point about moral relativism, as this pragmatic approach seems to imply an indifference to higher principles. On the contrary, in my opinion, there is plenty of room for moral certainty here. Prosperity is better than poverty. Education is better than ignorance. Equality of opportunity is better than bigotry. Freedom of speech and conscience are the inherent right of each person. These are moral truths that we all share, left and right, and if they are wrong, I will happily die in error than compromise about them.

The problem is, as flawed human beings, we can�t pretend to live in a perfect world. Bringing about a condition of moral existence � e.g., making all these good things happen � is a messy process, fraught with error, uncertainty and compromise. For example, as mighty as America is, it seems foolishly idealistic to assume that we can undo 2000 years of a backward and oppressive social system in one dramatic act of �liberation.� Rather, the lessons of history show that real freedom is earned from struggle and sacrifice. It is never imposed from without, no matter how noble the intentions. So it seems to me that by insisting on the stubborn morality of a small point � the necessity to �free� Iraq from tyranny, as if such a thing were within our power � we are actually productive of greater immorality, having killed 100,000 Iraqi civilians and made billions of people around the world less safe, less prosperous, and more prone to ignorance and violence through our actions.

These are tough, complex choices. I wish they were simple, but unfortunately, if you look around, you will note a pronounced absence of simplicity in today�s modern world. That doesn�t mean we should retreat into a pessimistic relativism, or say, �it�s all a pile of shit anyway, what good can we do?� But it does mean we have to engage intelligently with these questions and resist the seductive simplicity of ideology and dogma. The risk is that we will try things that won�t work, that make things worse rather than better. Fine, so long as we have the courage to recognize our mistakes and work to undo them. The fault of hubris is especially tragic when it infects someone with so much power to do harm to so many. I think that�s the point that Jack Bogle was trying to make, and it�s important enough that I�d prefer to have someone like Kerry � who I consider less than ideal in many ways � in charge rather than Bush.

Since I don�t know how the election will turn out, I am trying my best to understand and respect the perspective of the opposition, most of whom I do not presume to be immoral, only misguided with respect to policy. On Nov. 3, we will all still be Americans and we need to try to figure out what that means, even when half of us will be stuck with a President whose views we deeply despise and mistrust.

There's more. Oh yes. Much more. I'm sure the uninitiated must find this utterly tedious, but I just hated to see all that word-count go to waste. More tomorrow, or later tonight if I'm bored.

6:06:57 PM

Emphasize This! []

Curses! Foiled Again!

Congratulations to the no-longer-hapless Boston Red Sox, who not only won the World Series for the first time since World War I, but made it look easy. I mean, they broke the Cardinals like a rotton twig, and the Cardinals were a fine team who probably would have taken the Yankees to 7. Suddenly, Massachusetts is the State of Champions - home not just to the Red Sox, but to the Super Bowl champs and still-undefeated New England Patriots. I've never cared especially for either team, but really, how can you not cheer? Too bad Ted Williams didn't live to see it.

Kinda busy today. Maybe a better post later on...

9:11:26 AM

Emphasize This! []