The Latest Failure of Nerve

I recently finished reading Sidney Hook's essay The New Failure of Nerve.  It was written during the Second World War, and criticized the tendency of the time, among intellectuals and others, to turn away from reason and scientific thought and accept ideals and modes of "thinking" which have their bases in what we might call (or at least I will call) the lesser angels of our nature.

I confess I was impressed by the fact that he felt it necessary to write such an article during the Second World War, which seems at this date to have been a kind of mad crusade of unreason, in some respects stupider, even, than the First World War.  WWI was in most cases fought stupidly, and can be said to have begun largely due to a combination of stupidity and paranoia, especially among the German General Staff.  WWII was not fought as stupidly as WWI, perhaps, and though stupidity had its place in its commencement, so too did other forms of unreason--weird Blood and Soil mysticism, self-pity, fanaticism, an imagined perpetual conflict between Teutons and Slavs, racism, miltarism, imperialism; name a human failing and it seems to have been present, indeed rampant.

Hook was not referring to what had lead to the war and its continuation, however.  He was referring to the reaction to the war among those who had come to believe that it was, somehow, an indictment of reason, and science, and liberal democracy.  Those things having in some sense failed, there was a movement to look to different things as protection against the ideologies of the Axis nations and their results.  If we accept those ideologies as being irrational, then, the thought was that victory over them required being irrational in different ways--nicer ways, or better ways, if you will.  Hook tried to point out that the use of reason could not be said to have caused WWII, or facisim, or nazism; that, in fact, it had never truly been tried.

Just what it was that lead some at that time to believe that wackiness is required to combat wackiness, I cannot say.  However, I think times haven't changed, much.  There seems to be a renewed conviction that reason just doesn't quite do the trick.  We need God, or rather a particular God, who varies from person to person, country to country, culture to culture, to save us from the madness of others, say some--and that God cannot be understood, or followed, through the application of mere reason.  Or, we cannot understand ourselves or others through reason, but must instead employ some mystic mechanism; or we must encounter and accept some kind of abyss, or horror, or Will, or Power, or Force; reason is, itself, just another expression of prejudice or culture, and must be replaced with something which, reason being untrustworthy, cannot be explained or expressed except, well, unreasonably.  When we abandon reason, there need be no reasons, after all.

I think we still can say as Hook said, that reason has not been given any kind of chance or test.   But one has to wonder whether it ever can be employed with any frequency or in a consistent manner where humans are concerned--perhaps we are simply so stupid, or irrational, that we cannot be reasonable to the extent necessary in the long term to determine whether reason would be of benefit to us.  A cheery thought, and probably one which would delight some. 

But if that is the case it doesn't follow that we should abandon reason as a guide to action.  It may indicate, though, that reason and intelligence are to be applied to problems as they arise, not as some kind of grand strategy.  We may be constitutionally unable to resolve the great evils of our time through reason alone, but we certainly can't do so without reason--that's been tried many times and has been fruitless.   The more ambitious we are, the less reasonable we can be.

On Tolerance and Timidity

Tolerance can be a virtue.  But tolerance should be reasonable.  There are certain views, and conduct, which need not be tolerated.  There are even some which should not be tolerated, in a certain sense.  There are circumstances where intolerance is justified.

There would seem to be nothing prima facie objectionable about the first two sentences above, from a common-sense standpoint.  The status of the following three sentences, though, appears to be questionable, or seems at least to be questioned, in these interesting times.

Judging from conversations with my own children, they if not others are being taught that it is inappropriate to make judgments, particularly about people, religions (or religious beliefs) and what may be described, in general terms, as culture.  This is not necessarily a new development.  Indeed, judgment or the act of judging has traditionally been denigrated; one has only to visit one of the many archives of famous and not-so-famous quotations on the Internet to find quote after quote taken from the famous and not-so-famous warning of the impropriety of judging anyone, or anything.

Expressing caution regarding the making of judgments, and exercising caution in making them, seems laudable enough.  The danger is that we may come to believe that they should not or cannot be made, or that even though we cannot avoid making them, it is impossible to make reasonable judgments.

Thinking can be hard, but it can be valuable.  I confess I wonder if there is behind certain excessive views of tolerance and certain criticisms of judging a prejudice against thought, particularly against the use of reason and intelligence in thought.  One finds this prejudice particularly, it seems, among those who profess (usually loudly and continually) to be various sorts of relativists or nihilists, or to be especially learned, generally in my experience in certain academic subjects, or who frequent certain electronic forums.

Person X wonders if it is wrong to long for the deaths of millions as it would make life "better"; or if the Nazis were really evil; or if murder is wrong, or torture, or whatever.  Is it necessary to tolerate such nonsense in the sense of accepting them as entirely appropriate expressions of opinion which may or may not be valid, worthy of discussion?  Cannot one be free to reject them, denounce them, even loathe them without being considered "intolerant" or "judgmental"?  Isn't one justified by not tolerating them, in such a fashion?

This is not to say that such idiotic thoughts should be regulated or suppressed by the state.  Fools should be free to be fools, provided they do no harm (and harm should not include hurt feelings or injured pride when it comes to the exercise of governmental powers).  But at the same time, there is nothing wrong with pointing out that certain opinions and conduct are objectionable, and that they are sometimes very objectionable.  They need not be accepted, or tolerated, as no better or no worse than any other thought or action.  There seems to be a kind of intellectual cowardice involved in certain forms of "toleration."

The Supremes and the State of the Union

Justice Roberts seems to be taking a bit of a bashing for wondering why he and his fellow justices should attend State of the Union addresses, or perhaps more specifically for being "troubled" by the atmosphere at those august gatherings.

I have a certain sympathy for his views on this issue, but not because I think justices of the Supreme Court should not attend due to their status.  I don't think any person should be present when this yearly ritual is observed, let alone required to attend, and would not be dismayed if it was discontinued.  Indeed, I venture to say it should be discontinued.

I confess that I have a tendency to stop listening whenever a politican begins speaking.  So, perhaps I'm not well informed regarding these declamations.  However, what little I have chanced to hear of them, and what I have read regarding their content, indicate they contain little or nothing of significance, and that they are self-congratulatory, manipulative and silly.  If it is intended that during these events the chief executive report to the Congress what actually has transpired in the administration of the nation for the preceding year, it is apparent that this does not take place, or if it does nothing is reported that is not already obvious even to the least intelligent observer of affairs.  These speeches are remarkable for what they fail to report.

When one considers the amount of time and effort, not to mention the amount of money, which must be expended in the preparation and performance of these meaningless show pieces, it's impossible not to wish that they were devoted instead to the accomplishment of something useful.  Given the technology available at the birth of our glorious Republic, it made sense to have the President report to the Congress in this fashion.  It makes no sense now, and would not even if a real report was actually made, or at least attempted.

More Regarding Trials in which "Failure is not an Option"

Now, it seems, our poor President is being advised by his handlers to abandon the idea of trying the 9/11 defendants in District Court in New York, and instead to do so before a military tribunal.   This may mean we will be deprived of the opportunity to demonstrate to the world our respect for the rule of law by holding the trial his confused Attorney General proposed would be one in which "failure is not an option."

One may expect Mr. Obama will be chastized by those on the left if he succumbs to this latest advice, but it will be difficult to condemn him for not holding what could only have been a show trial if Mr. Holder's characterization of the planned proceedings was accurate.  If the result of such a trial is in any case preordained, why not dispense with what could only have been a very expensive display of hypocrisy?  But, perhaps the administration was not aware of the expense which would be involved in holding such a trial in Federal Court--how else account for the fact it was stunned to learn that the locals were not looking forward to footing the enormous bill?  Perhaps it was even unaware that it would appear hypocritical in insisting on a trial which could have only one outcome.

The simple fact is that there is no reasonable basis on which to assume there is even the slightest chance these defendants will be found not guilty.  And therein lies the problem; a very serious problem, I think.

I consider myself a ciceronian, but am not unaccepting of the fact he had many faults.  Anyone familiar with the career of Marcus Tullius Cicero knows that he faced condemnation (primarily after the fact, of course) for putting Roman citizens to death without trial in the case of the famous conspiracy of Catalina.  And there is reason to believe he felt remorse for doing so to the end of his life.

Of course, he did not do so by his own unilateral order.  He was careful to seek and obtain approval of the Senate, and that approval was nearly unanimous.  He was not a Sulla, nor for that matter was he one of the ruthless triumvirs who condemned him to death.  The guilt of those conspirators detained was unquestioned, even admitted.  There was a fear that an army of rebels would descend on Rome if trials were held--there was no time, it was felt, for trial, as there was an immediate danger.

Yet, there was something awful about executing or otherwise punishing the conspirators without trial, which, granted, would have been a very different proceeding then.  And there still is, I believe. 

We are not even considering the possibility of dispensing with a trial, however.  A military tribunal may not provide a trial of the kind available in Federal District Court, but it can provide certain due process protections, and an opportunity to respond to the charges.  Neither the President nor the nation must accept Cicero's burden in this case.  But we are foolish if we feel that the kind of proceeding to be held will make any difference where the result is concerned.  That is something we simply must accept.

On the Stupidity of our Politicians

We humans have the capacity to be almost unimaginably stupid.  The causes of human stupidity are, I think, too little studied, and should be given serious consideration.  Our stupidity probably cannot be eradicated, but it may be limited--one likes to think so, in any case.

The recent antics of Representative Bunning add support to a belief I've held for some time--that politicians (by which I mean elected public officials) are especially stupid; that there is something about them, or their office, which radically impairs their intelligence.  This impairment may not be inherent.  It may exist only while they are politicians and while they are running for office, i.e. seeking to become politicians.

Consider Mr. Bunnings' efforts to prevent the issuance of benefits to the jobless in these troubled economic times.  There is no question, I think, that the United States has become a debtor nation to the extent that it is in danger, and it seems to be mere common sense to determine how to fund a bill before its passage (which may be why it is not done, if my speculations regarding the remarkable stupidity of politicians have any basis).  A politician who recognizes this should be applauded, or at least recognized as being sensible, generally speaking.  One cannot help but wonder, though, why Mr. Bunning chose to make this seemingly commonplace observation in connection with this expenditure in particular.  More to the point, one cannot help but wonder why he chose to put himself in the position of preventing this expenditure from taking place, single-handed, to the horror of even his fellow Republicans, thereby making himself and his party appear to be active enemies of the needy.  Why has he not been making this point, and taking such a stand, in connection with the hundreds of expenditures he has been called upon to approve or disapprove in the past?  Why did he chose to do so only with respect to a bill which it is almost insane to oppose?

The only explanation for such conduct, I fear, is that politicians are so stupid that they are incapable of thinking sensibly, or doing something sensible, unless they contrive to do so in the stupidest manner possible.  They are so stupid that they cannot even be intelligent without being, simultaneously and exceedingly, idiotic.

If politicians are extraordinarily stupid by nature, though, we cannot help but wonder why we elect them.  Do we somehow sense their stupidity during the election process, and elect them because they are stupid?  If so, do we do this because we are stupid as well, or is it that we delight in knowing that our political leaders will be at least as stupid as the rest of us or, better yet, even more stupid, perhaps even incredibly stupid?  It is more comforting to think that stupidity is caused by, or is an aspect of, the political office itself.