This new essay - hot on the heals of the controversial post regarding the
Politics of Discrimination is admittedly also, in part, a reaction to my favourite source of (mis)information, the Sun Media Corp. As a daily reader of the Canoe.ca website I am constantly astounded by the sheer ignorance and audacity that make the news world spin. Generally its the editorials that are the worst, and I suppose they are designed this way. If they don't create some kind of backlash or fervor of voices - either for or against - then they don't serve to sell papers, or advertisements, or whatever makes profits these days. In fact, editorials of these kind generally aim at that fringes. Their guise is the everyman but realistically it is only the few that take offense or applaud the often low-brow attempts to antagonize: the partisans. Most intellectuals of merit don't read such pieces, call that elitism or 'discriminating taste'. The rest of society are too busy living whatever they deem life is and some just have an ounce of that ol'fashioned good sense not to be interested when the latest pundit starts pounding his podium.So where does that leave me? I certainly "react" to these posts, am I any different? This is certainly up for debate and my opinion on the subject is definitely not authoritative - however, I would submit that my responses, at least on here, are not simply a "reaction", that knee-jerk sort of response that fills most political forums and legislatures. Rather, in the interval between, my desire is to reshape this original energy into an action in its own right, adding a positive force to an essentially negative (hence the 're-' in reaction) movement. Thus, while I berate myself for adding nothing new in the previous posts, I have been trying to espouse surreptitiously a path between the action and reaction approaches of partisan politics, as well as a new methodology of truth (rather than new truth in itself).
Today's stimulus will give me the occasion to reveal more clearly this methodology, as it finds itself rooted, in part, in similar observations, but ends with radically different conclusions than our friend from Sun Media Corp. Thus, without further ado, an column by the Toronto Sun's Peter Worthington entitled: Winning the War on Terrorism (I originally came across this article after reading an editorial on it by Salim Mansur, who earns his pay by regurgiating the work of columnists writing for the very same paper: Gitmo Captives Not POWs, Just Prisoners). I have cut the article to a few key paragraphs which I believe summarizes Worthington's view succinctly (although without the gory details of torture methods he seems fond of recounting):
Here at Guantanamo, where 432 Taliban and al-Qaida core leaders are still confined, American custodial staff -- military police gxuards, trained interrogators, FBI, psychologists and assorted experts seeking information -- are severely hampered by humane restrictions that detainees exploit.
The Americans at Guantanamo are on the front line against terrorism, just as soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are. Both are hobbled by limitations and public relations concerns that make success difficult.
After all, al-Qaida doesn't provide Bibles to American (and other) prisoners before cutting off their heads as video cameras whirr.
History has innumerable examples of terror movements quelled only by greater violence -- and few examples of fanatics or terrorists being persuaded to amend their extremism by discussions or gentle persuasion.
If America were to withdraw from the Geneva Conventions, as these are not needed to assure humane treatment, the Supreme Court would be powerless to rule otherwise. And America would be freer to use whatever means it takes to win this war (my emphasis). It would also give pause to her enemies, and reassurance to friends.
And at Guantanamo, the Americans would be able to find better ways to persuade hardcore detainees to talk than by taking away their pillows, or bribing them with ice cream.
This common sort of argument reveal the tendencies of one of the modes of our thinking. Namely there are two types which I will place into the old categories of "idealist" and "realist". Oddly enough, those who claim to be one or the other are generally both at once, and the consequences are generally sinister. For instance, the most rabid advocates for the war in Iraq, which has seen somewhere close to half-a-million dead (the majority of that number being civilians) come from the conservative heartland of the United States and Canada. These are the "moralists" of the crowd who believe in the absolute commandments of "thou shalt not". Such a system of absolutes quickly results in paradox, how can we believe in "thou shalt not kill" for example and yet bear the blood of thousands of dead Iraqis? In comes 'realism', a belief that in its essence is fundamentally amoral and anti-progressive. Coming from the realpolitik tradition, realism is the strategy of the superpowers to keep the status quo by any means necessary. This sort of nihilistic logic, often wrongly attributed to Niccolo Machiavelli, is at the heart of Worthington's pro-torture piece. We can win if we break, batter, and beat prisoners - that is the moral of his article, and the one behind realism in general.
Thus moral absolutism quickly leads to a sort of pragmatism or realism, although rarely ever in a coherent manner (such as a logical removal of most if not all absolute principles). In fact, today's moral leaders are blessed at having all the benefits of a stiff and inscrutable moral code while having the flexibility of a mobster in dealing with a local proprietor behind on his debts.
The Moral-Realist hybrids write columns like Worthington's. Fresh out of church on a Sunday afternoon, they hunker down in front of the keyboard to extol the virtues of Colonel Kurtz's "exterminate the brutes" mentality. For them there is no contradiction. 2+2=5 and that's that. It's obvious and you should start seeing it there way next time they ask you: how many lights do you see?
This 'logic' is the most insidious strategy, whether conscious or unconscious, of modernity. I use modernity - such a loose and ambiguous term itself - simply because there is no one group that I can attribute to orchestrating such a massive assault on cognition and thought. Nor can I simply say this is a right-wing strategy. The left loves to mix itself into this regime of mixed-up moral realism, stumbling over its own tongue as it tries to figure out what it stands for and how to engage it.
Every few years one or both sides acknowledges this 'moral corruption' and advocates for a consolidation of the ranks within each of their idealist camps, where they go through ideological retraining to purify themselves of realist taint. A reaction to the situation that most certainly comes no closer to rectifying it and only widens the gap between the poles of left and right and makes the future 'realism' more mendacious than the last.
A Machiavellian Morality
Antonio Gramsci can be credited with bringing to my attention Machiavelli's 'project'. He was not writing a treatise simply on maintaining power but a revolutionary text on creating a new power, a new state: an Italian nation-state that would rival those European superpowers of France, Spain and Britain. Machiavelli's dream would not be realized in his lifetime nor for a number of centuries afterward, Italy being a latecomer to the unified nations club, arriving in the 19th century. In Machiavelli's work, we can see that his goal was not simply to "win" although that is always good, but to achieve a material goal. Thus, Machiavelli's project is not bound by the realpolitik that grew out of the 19th century conservatives which was used to secure and maintain power; it is not a cyclical perspective that accepts no movement, but rather a radically progressive methodology that requires both values and strategy in order to power itself.
"Nietzsche asserts that having one virtue is better than having many, for 'it is more of a knot for fate to hold on to.'" (Wikipedia on Virtue).
If multiple absolute principles results quickly in paradox - ultimately requiring their being broken as we most unfortunately witness on a daily basis from those most-upstanding members of society - then the simple solution is not a dissolution of all principles, a becoming Kurtz, as Worthington and others are so willing to do from the comfort of their world so far removed from an actualized 'state of nature' (see Iraq) that their mind-numbing formulations suffer no penance. Rather it requires a strict examination as to what morals / virtues can possibly be willed indefinitely, against all odds. Who among us looking with that kind of scrutiny into our virtues could possibly say that Nietzsche's claim of even a single virtue is not a boast!
Honesty is the best policy. If we did not lie to ourselves to begin with, extolling our virtues as the West is wont to do, then we would not be accused of our moral hypocrisy nor bear the toll it takes on our individual psyches as we become more and more accustomed to the Big Lie ("The Goebbels technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to a policy of repeating a falsehood until it is taken to be the truth" (see Wikipedia's Big Lie)).
It is in the vacuum left behind by the removal of surfeit morals that we may examine realism in view of Machiavelli's progressive capacity. Worthington argues that there is no reason to hold back on the Gitmo prisoners, that the Geneva conventions don't apply anyway and if they do we should just remove ourselves from the convention. Finally, he asserts that not torturing is related to not-winning. If we tortured more we'd win. The argument has no moral compass whatsoever. In fact, the only lifeline thrown to the prisoners by Worthington is that the torturer and his society will provide the only necessary check on torture - much like arguing the police should check the police, the legislature the legislature, etc. A complete reversal of checks and balances theory itself.
The problem with the Worthington style argument is not its incorrectness or untruth. In fact, I might even contend that Worthington is completely within the realm of truth, Geneva may not in fact apply, and there certainly is no god I believe in that will stop us from torturing these prisoners to a messy pulp (weather Worthington's god is in agreement who knows these days, it seems the Christian god has stopped carrying about Muslims just like he did for Blacks during slavery and Jews during WWII - our god is a selective god). However, Worthington in all his eagerness to kick-some-turban-to-the-curb fails to provide a single point of merit on how torture will result in victory or change of any kind. In fact, Worthington is very short on details when it comes to what the end goals of torture are at all. Certainly torture could yield information to stop an attack but where is the evidence? What is the limitation? As it is, torture is advocated unlimitedly, for its own purposes. There is no measure, no goal to be achieved, because one can never stop winning, one can never be sure that another attack is around the corner. This is Worthington's blank cheque, which he very aggressively endorses with his consent.
A Machiavellian position would proceed differently. Firstly, it would posit a realizable goal. Torture for torture's sake or for a generalized notion of better security would not suffice. Rather, it would be properly laid out by an understanding of the here and now with an aim toward the there of future. This could be as simple as we must prevent a second terrorist strike against the United States.
Secondly, rather than starting with the assertion that more torture = more results all tactics would be examined. Does torture yield results and what kind of results? Factors such as increased coercion leads to faulty information, loss of legitimacy, excesses (ie. murder) by soldiers, and generalized indictments regarding the moral compass of the armed forces and government are to be considered (after all, you can't win a war when you're being booted out of office). Does Worthington consider these? Not at all. Torture for him does not need explanation, despite being one of the most coercive and violent activities one can commit on another. It passes from his lips/pen/keyboard as easily as if he was ordering a pizza.
A strategic reading of the situation would debate whether torture could possibly yield positive results and if so, in what cases. It would require specific license and not a generalized one. Torture writ large, by Worthington and others, is a license to backfire - as it did for the United States (which makes it doubly confusing why, despite the real critiques and complications that the Bush government's torture police has engendered, any one would advocate for it). Which itself brings us full circle. The realists are nothing more than the idealists they had descended from. Their proposals, which seem realistic simply because they are harsh and brutal, advocating excess pain and suffering for all, are nothing more than simple-minded ideals coded in the same absolutist manner. They are negative idealists but idealists nonetheless and their very form of thought is a violence which is most insidious to those of us that breathe it in. Worthington means nothing to those imprisoned at the US base in Cuba. They will never hear of him, never read his words. But Canadians will, they will absorb his doublespeak, they will praise his blunt 'realism' and will to win, and they will become the same, speaking in paradoxes that seem themselves evident and non-contradictory.
In contrast, a Machiavellian morality is neither idealist nor realist. It attempts to overcome idealism through the removal of absolutes and to enhance realism by becoming more realistic - looking at inputs, outputs, degrees of change. A Machiavellian morality embraces uncertainty rather than trying to eliminate it absolutely. At most, a Machiavellian morality is an old-fashioned ethic of moderation, designed for navigating the rocks shores of an unknown coastline rather than barreling straight through. A Machiavellian morality always knows where it is going and where it has come from and where it is, even when the journey goes off track. It is always open to re-evaluation, for the means are very much part and parcel with the ends. A means of unlimited torture yields as its end a society that has unleashed a devastation onto itself and its others - there can be no pretensions otherwise.
In sum, this is my rough sketch of a Machiavellian morality as contained in yet another critique of the Sun Media Corp. I hope to be able to further expand on this outline which in its vagueness is open to as many critiques as it supposedly resolves. In the meantime I will let it stand for some feedback.
Thanks.
