Dr. Frank's What's-it

There's nothing for me to say after reading that article other than, "Yes."

Me, too, Dave. Except in my case, it would probably come out something like: "um, mmm, I mean, uh, ye-, yeah, you know, like yes."

That was a very poignant and well-thought-out examination of the war, non-rightwing author or otherwise. In fact, if more people on the right would just stick to the things Berman goes over, maybe everybody would understand each other a little better. Thanks for sharing it (and for sparking in me an interest in this Paul Berman fella).

Geoff, you should read his Terror and Liberalism, which is by far the best thing (by which I mean the most interesting, provocative, serious, persuasive thing) I've read about this war, Islamofascism, etc. And, if you're at all interested in the subject, A Tale of Two Utopias is the best thing I've ever read about the generation of 68.

You and Paul are both level-headed intelligent Americans, Frank. In otherwords the vast minority.

Terror and Liberalism: A political book whose Amazon review section is shockingly devoid of "liberals suck/conservatives suck" flame wars. Maybe that's because the only reviews there are of the published editorial variety rather than the "type of Amazon reviewer who lives for flamewars" variety? I hope so; That would be pretty great. Thanks for the recommendations, Dr. Frank. I'll see if I can get my hands on a copy soon.

I haven't read Terror and Liberalism, and I think Berman heads down a bumpy road in the linked piece; it's one thing to make a defensive argument in favor of a particular war, but should we really expect the U.S. military to go mop up every single dictatorial regime on the planet? (That's certainly the logical conclusion to Berman's argument.) If not, then we have to look at each case in its particulars - which brings us back to the whole "why Iraq, why now?" question.

But I have read "A Tale of Two Utopias" and I'm familiar with Berman from the pages of Dissent. He's always thought-provoking and honest, even when I disagree with him.

Eh, as someone who was not in favor of going to Iraq in the first place, I will admit to the "Arabs can't hold their democracy" view, but none of the other ones. Well, maybe also the "peer...and see the smirking face of Bush" thing, but, since, as a matter of fact, it is actually Bush implementing the war, I am inclined to think this is a more substantive issue than I guess Berman thinks. It seems to me, you can perfectly well want your plumbing fixed, but not want Lenny and Squiggy to do it, and, in that sense, "smirking faces" aren't automatically trivial criteria for making decisions.

The other thing is this argument that gets rehearsed all the time by everyone on the hawkish side. It goes like this:

(1) If you're left/liberal, you're supposed to care about alleviating suffering, fighting oppression, etc. (by definition)

(2) Saddam's regime is/was highly oppressive, incurred huge suffering, etc. (by observation)

(3) Overthrowing Saddam's regime --> alleviating suffering, removing oppression, etc.

(4) If you're on the left, you ought to favor overthrowing Saddam's regime. (from 1-3)

Therefore, (5) you ought to be pro-war...ta da!

This is either a massive enthymeme--that is, an argument with (in this case, an enormous number of) tacit premises--or it is *fallacious*...In either case, it isn't the simple deduction it's always presented as, and that presentation is baldly dishonest.

The reason you can consistently hold 1-4 without 5, is that every allocation of resources has an opportunity cost, and you might believe that the opportunity cost of the war in Iraq, measured in terms alleviated suffering that could've happened through alternative allocations of the resources, is greater than the benefit of the war measured in terms of alleviated suffering in Iraq. You might especially be impressed by this if you never bought the original "immanent threat" arguments. Further, virtually no one ever actually does any of the calculus that could show whether the war in Iraq was at least something like the optimum allocation of resources in terms of alleviating suffering, oppression, etc. Instead they usually talk about the war in Iraq as a kind of critical move in the great chess game of global progress, which is very airy, and invariably makes use of constructs that probably do not pick out things that actually exist. Political science is marginally more a science than, say, phrenology, but marginally.

More: In one of his essays in, I think, "Eat the Rich," PJ O'Rourke makes a parallel point. He observes that while the amount of funding that goes into AIDS research and care is astronomical, the number of deaths in the world as a result of dehydration (i.e. diarrhea) dwarfs the number of AIDS deaths. Further, for a fraction of the amount of resources devoted to AIDS, "diarrhea-death" could be virtually eliminated, world over. It'd just take getting folks some oral rehydration salts, i.e. gatorade. But, of course, that doesn't happen because AIDS is a sexy scientific problem and nobody wants to wear a brown ribbon on his lapel. Similarly, Iraq is a cause-celebre for disaffected liberal types, which is fine...I still support the liberation of Iraq, just like I still support AIDS research... But this constant suggestion that anyone (on the left, especially) who doesn't support the war is a moral hypocrite is just a rhetorical ploy, and an especially ugly one at that, and certainly people like Berman are smart enough to know better.

It seems that there is a lot useless postioning here. If you're left think this but don't call me right because I'm thinking more left than you. Nah, I don't buy it. It seems like this is becoming everyone's favorite pastime: let me tell you what to believe because what I believe is right, and after I pound it into you it's all you'll have left. I'm not so sure that your position in the political spectrum should dictate what you always believe, which is what what's-his-face (I can't remember this guy's name) hints at in this article but cannot seem to avoid doing himself. After slogging through it all, I declare this to be annoying gibber jabber at best.

spacetoast, re: distributing resources and funding optimally for disease cures, last month I wrote up my dream solution:

http://www.geeklife.com/article.aspx?articleid=1350

It's a pretty complicated task, and probably technically impossible to fully unpoliticize the portions, but that doesn't mean it's not worth looking into. I suppose the same sort of theoretical perfect program could be implemented to "cure" general human suffering.

Dave, that looks interesting. I'm a quality over quantity guy though, so I'd at least switch your 1&2. I agree that what's technically (and politically) possible is always going to impose constraints on even how it's reasonable to think about these kinds of things. (And, for the record, I'm not a real utilitarian.) But it annoys me that hardly anyone ever even pays lip-service to comparative analysis w/Iraq. Let's see a cost-benefit analysis of "Iraq vs. Diarrhea," for example, *and then* an argument for where liberals should be on Iraq.

Mr. Toast,

While I agree that the premises that you've listed as 1-5 do not automatically lead one to the conclusion that Berman supposes, I'm not sure that's Berman's point. I'll take you at your word that you've been on the receiving end of, "Constant suggestion[s] that anyone (on the left, especially) who doesn't support the war is a moral hypocrite," but just as frequently, people on the left that DO support the war are the target of equally ugly rhetorical ploys. As Berman describes, people stare at you, jaw agape, waiting for you to alleviate the tension by saying, "Just kidding."
The equally repugnant line of reasoning on the other side goes something like:
1) If you're on the left, you care about the protection of innocents from outside aggression
2) Saddam's regime was bad, very terrible, but was at least authentically Iraqi (unlike those fucking exiles)
3) US action equals outside aggression
4) The regime carrying out the military action is of the right; the right supports this action because it's good for them (somehow).
Therefore
5) Anyone who is on the left is FOR outside aggression against the innocent iraqi people and for the advancement of a new, native proto-fascistic movement in the US and against Iraqi self-determination and peace.
As I think you'll agree, the tacit premises are a little less tacit here, but by virtue of the intensity with which they're argued, that's not a terribly compelling objection.
In light of this, I read Berman's essay as advancing a plausible explanation for his support of an action that is, in the view of many on the left, an excommunicable sin. He's not trying to convince everyone (hence the line at the end about smashing the drinks at each other) - he's merely trying to say that there is a way in which one can be for the military ouster of Saddam's regime and against martial law in the US at the same time!
Personally, this line of reasoning resonates with me, and the frustrated/inebriated tone Berman takes is also extraordinarily familiar. Just as you may be sick of being called a hypocrite (though don't you live in the Bay Area?), I'm really, really tired of being called a racist, a fascist or even a conservative. The line of thinking that assigns a political silo or, worse, one's moral worth, to this particular question is bound to be sloppy.
While opportunity cost is perhaps the best counterargument to Berman (or Frank, or me), it's also the least used option. If we could take the debate down from "Please choose A or B, but note that anyone who chooses B is scum and secretly desires the extermination of [Jews/Arabs/Moral, christian society/those who do not blindly follow Shrub]," i'd be a happy guy. I'm not holding out much hope, though.

Well, we'll all have to to get together some time and hit each other over the head with our respective drinks.

marc-

To be clear, I wasn't defending Berman's interlocutor character (that would be stupid). I was specifically commenting on the "psst, we pro-war guys are the *real* liberals" thread, which I think you know has gotten heavy rotation, and which neatly brackets Berman's story:

start:

"You call the war in Iraq an antifascist war. You even call it a left-wing war-a war of liberation. That language of yours! And yet, on the left, not too many people agree with you...most people don't seem to agree with you."

Six thumps later...

"The [real] traitor to the left is you [the anti-war friend]. . ."

Now look, Berman's (stooge-for-Socrates) friend is explicitly held up as *the* proponent of the anti-war view, and Berman's explicit answer to the question "why do other lefties disagree with you?" is that they "cannot identify the main contours of reality right now." In case you think that's a little freaky, note that you might suffer from a television age case of false consciousness. Of course this gets cashed out in willfull blindness to antisemitism, viewing America as the font of all evil, and all the other usual suspects. So look, I agree that the anti-war crowd says a lot of stupid things, but (tu quoque, one wrong turn deserves another, and all) that doesn't somehow redeem Berman's particular turd from its turdiness. And it is very turdy.

I'll have a Jack and Coke.

While I'm certainly in favor of head-drink-hitting at the drop of a hat, I'd have to take offense to the opportunity cost notion of implementing liberalism. Berman seems to believe in the old-fashioned concept of ideologies, and I think ideology comes before both opportunity cost and cost-benefit analysis (a pity that more corporations aren't ideologically-minded).

Perhaps if this war had been initially waged on an antifascist premise it would have garnered more left-wing support -- you could argue that Bush tried, but (a) he's got that whole repulsion thing working against him, and (b) saying Saddam has WMDs is not the same as stating a righteous moral and/or ideological position. If we are to arrogate to ourselves the power to "topple dictators", as we certainly did in this case, let's have a more coherent game plan. I think a motivated left (whatever the "left" is these days) could deplutocratize the surface motivations of this and other antifascist initiatives and create something akin to a 21st century Manifest Destiny plan (of attack, or otherwise).

And I apologize for making up the word "deplutocratize". Really, I do.

Ok, I promise to cut it out, but, Wes, you could fill in the variables for "opportunity cost" however you wanted, it doesn't have to be "suffering"...I just picked that so I could go on with the diarrhea-death stuff. In other words, it could be that the most important thing to you is that fewer people in the world live under repressive governments, and *still* you would want to do a comparative analysis of possible implementations, and *still* invading Iraq might not be the best thing to do...maybe you'd want to invade Syria, or Liberia, or even Mexico.

"I think ideology comes before both opportunity cost and cost-benefit analysis"

I don't know what you mean by this. In some broad sense, ideology necessarily comes first. You can't even get a cost-benefit analysis going until you say what you value, which things you value more, and which things you value less. At any rate, my point wasn't even about the war, it was merely that, contra this little argument that pops up everywhere, being pro-war is not some kind of de facto liberal position for everyone who has successfully identified the main contours of reality.

And also that Dr. Frank uses this blog to transmit right-wing propaganda, which is why he's not punk enough to play Vegas.

Wes,
I'm certainly not going to disagree with you that Bush, had he seriously wanted leftist support, should have done things differently. But Bush is largely indifferent to left-wing support, unless you belong to a steelworkers union in a swing state. I'm also not inclined to argue against the repulsion thing either; I just think it's secondary. Let's also not kid ourselves that going to war to alleviate suffering even in the absence of a UN mandate is some sort of brand new thing that GW Bush invented out of necessity. The commander in chief matters, but again, if the debate centered around Bush's capability to see the mission through, or his capacity to distinguish threats/limit US responsibility to police all the worlds thugs, then great, let's talk about that. I'd much rather be called naive or just plain dumb than racist, neocolonialist or bloodthirsty. The latter are sloppy and idiotic. The former are pretty much true.

And Spacetoast, in large part this debate reflects the arguments you typically hear, which in large part depends on where you live. I'll agree that if you take Berman's essay as arguing, ""The [real] traitor to the left is you [the anti-war friend]. . ." then that would be fucking annoying. But that's why the format is so important. It's two slightly drunk guys at the bar. Now that's a situation I can identify with, and I hope it's clear that Berman isn't trying to create an airtight, debate-team ready argument here. It's about the frustration he feels at having to constantly prove that he's not a bloodthirsty freak. Again, I may be projecting like crazy, and I'll admit that's a part of why Dr. Frank and I love this essay.
Dr. Frank - thanks for playing seattle and not vegas. I'll buy you a drink on Feb 9th, and I'll promise not to smash it on your head.

I hope you will all enjoy being smacked over the head with a pint of beer. Me? Think I'll wear a helmet...

Spacetoast -- agreed, put that way it's definitely possible to make a cost-benefit analysis from a background of ideology. Just wasn't looking at it that way.

Marc -- I don't disagree. I guess I'm less interested in defending myself against accusations of "betrayal to the left" than Berman. The terms left and right don't have as much currency with me as they probably do to those of you who were actually alive in the '60s.

Cheers to all.