The Unthinking Man's President

Jake Weisberg's brief editorial from Slate a few days ago was dead-on, I'd say. Especially this closing bit:

Back during the 2000 campaign, George Will and others argued that presidential intelligence didn't matter. This notion was reinforced after Sept. 11, when it became fashionable to argue that Bush's "moral clarity" was preferable to the ability to comprehend many sides of a complicated issue. In fact, presidential intelligence does matter. The intellectual qualities Bush lacks –– historical knowledge, interest in the details of policy, and substantive (as opposed to political) judgment –– might well have prevented the quagmire we're facing in Iraq right now. A more engaged president –– one who understood, for instance, the difference between the Sunnis and the Shiites –– surely would have asked about Plan B.

I've been thinking quite a bit about the "comprehending many sides of a complicated issue" point lately, every time I hear the President or his people ask the rhetorical question: "Can anyone really say that the world is not a safer place with Saddam Hussein out of power?" It's meant to be a no-brainer, but it only seems that way if you're looking at the problem without using your brains, or at least looking at the problem without comprehending many sides of a complicated issue.

This is not mushy, "both sides now" multiculturalism. It's realpolitik. (In this debate, strangely enough, the anti-war Democrats are the hardened pragmatists, and the neocons the pie-in-the-sky optimists.) Because the truth is you can't just surgically remove Hussein, and have the only secondary effect of that removal be his no longer controlling Iraq and its allegedly vast arsenal. When you swoop down pre-emptively on another country and depose its leader -- however hateful the leader -- you set in motion a chain of events that are partly predictable, and partly out of your control. Some of those events are Plan A events, in Weisberg's terms -- things that would have happened even if the occupation had gone well. We would have ticked off our allies in Europe, and angered countless young Arab men, even if we had been greeted as liberators after the invasion. And some are Plan B events: maybe the Iraqi people will greet us as an invading force, or at least a "meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss" force; maybe Iraq will become a lightning rod and rallying cry for every wannabe terrorist organization on the planet; maybe Iraq will fall into the hands of radical Islamic groups who hate us even more than Hussein did.

And this is where our Presidential IQ comes into play. Being able to comprehend many sides of a complicated issue is all about recognizing that the secondary chain of events often cancels out whatever was virtuous in the initial intervention. It feels good to overthrow the brutal dictator, but maybe the means don't justify the ends in this particular case, because the means have other effects that go against the interests of ordinary American citizens. (By making the US more despised around the globe, particularly in regions likely to breed terrorism; by creating a war zone where small, easily-executed anti-US strikes are guaranteed global publicity; by setting a precedent where it's okay for one state to just summarily decide to remove the leader of another state.) When people argue against the Iraq war it's not because they're "soft on terror"; it's because they believe the totality of secondary effects that come out of removing Hussein will likely make the world a more dangerous place in the end. It's not just enough to do the math on what taking down Saddam alone will achieve. You have to solve the entire equation. And that takes intelligence, not just moral clarity.

Comments

[mdd]

It's not just enough to do the math on what taking down Saddam alone will achieve. You have to solve the entire equation. And that takes intelligence, not just moral clarity.

Well said, but the problem remains: how do you fit nuanced reasoning like that into a 30 second sound bite?

[a]

Sure sucks that many many Americans seem to *actually prefer* that the president be as dumb as they are. I think the Dems don't quite get just how threatening Smart Guys can be.

What would be funny is if most Americans wanted a president that was as fat as they are.

[Ayjay]

What Steven writes here, and what Jacob Weisberg wrote in Slate, only makes sense if one agrees to the proposition that all intelligent people opposed the invasion of Iraq from the outset (or at least oppose it now). Bush was surrounded by advisors who meet every available standard of intelligence, indeed very high intelligence -- including the ability "to comprehend many sides of a complicated issue" -- and yet encouraged him to pursue the invasion. Steven and Weisberg, it seems, have both committed themselves to the propisition that if Bush had been sufficiently intelligent he would have overruled those advisors; but in saying that they also commit themselves to the view that those advisors themselves were not intelligent. A political argument that depends on the assumption that people like Condi Rice and Paul Wolfowitz are stupid is an irredeemably flawed political argument. I have never been able to understand why so many people -- intelligent people! -- can't bring themselves to believe that equally reasonable, equally intelligent, and equally honest people can disagree about highly complex issues. Instead, our political culture (including the political microculture of this blog) seems to be dominated by folks who believe that their political opponents must be liars, morons, or both.

[Ayjay]

And while I'm at it. . . .

Re: When people argue against the Iraq war it's not because they're "soft on terror"; it's because they believe the totality of secondary effects that come out of removing Hussein will likely make the world a more dangerous place in the end.

Fair enough -- at least, as a description of many people who oppose the war. Surely there are at least a few people who actually are "soft on terror." But turnabout is fair play, is it not? So: Many people who support the war do so because they believe the totality of effects that would have resulted from leaving Saddam in place would have made the world a more dangerous place in the end.

Both sides have to deal with counterfactuals -- with "what would have happened IF' -- and that is always a difficult and complicated task. So let's consider and debate the available evidence and try to calculate the probabilities. Of course, it's much easier to assign mental or moral deficiencies to those who disagree with us. . . .

[aaron wall]

If Saddam is so bad, why did it wait until now? This is unthought opportunism at its worst.

A person who is blind often has a great sense of smell. Our senses make up for one another to keep us protected from the elements. Its evolution.

Moral clarity guides those who are not intelligent enough to guide themselves. Perhaps this is the reason for the "strong moral character" in Bush.

[James]

The question is now - what does the US do? This interesting Salon article by Tim Grieve sums up the problems the Democratic candidates are having in formulating a viable response:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/10/dems_iraq/index_np.html

This segment form the article was of particular interest to me:

"One way for a candidate to stand out would be to step back and look at the war on terror more broadly. The candidates thus far have been generally supportive of the war on terror while trying to carve out the Iraq front. Retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich, who teaches international relations at Boston University, says that may be the wrong approach. Democrats could be asking whether the right response to Sept. 11 was a war at all. Wouldn't it have been better to treat the attacks as the product of an international conspiracy, and then fight back through law enforcement?

If the Democrats focus on terrorism as an international conspiracy rather than as something to be fought by war, it would be harder for Bush to justify Iraq as the "central front" on the war on terror. Because there is no evidence that Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11 attacks, there's no reason to go after Iraq while chasing the international conspirators. Framing the issue that way, Bacevich said, the Democrats could make "the error of Iraq" appear "all that much greater." "

[Aaron Wall]

"Of course, it's much easier to assign mental or moral deficiencies to those who disagree with us. . . ."

It is also easy when they openly display themselves.

[Ayjay]

Amen.

[Jeff]

"Bush was surrounded by advisors who meet every available standard of intelligence, indeed very high intelligence -- including the ability 'to comprehend many sides of a complicated issue' "

When I was a political science undergrad I was taught that the presidency was an office of compromise. So, while I was dismayed to see the Supreme Court politicized after the 2000 election, I felt that as long as Bush's staff was intelligent we'd prevent an apocalypse.

I am less sure of that now. It's too simplistic to state the presidency is an office of compromise. Ayjay, while I wouldn't dispute that the President's staff is intelligent, they aren't responsible for seeing the big picture and for making the often-difficult decisions. That is Bush's job.

I'm concerned that he is not able to make well founded and thought out decisions on his own. This puts an inordinate amount of power with his advisors, not the President.

[Aaron Wall]

"Bush was surrounded by advisors who meet every available standard of intelligence, indeed very high intelligence -- including the ability 'to comprehend many sides of a complicated issue' "

Remember how he had to fire his lead economic advisor because he did not agree with his tax break? Stupid people can reject intelligence!

I do not think coke made him stupid either. I think he was just lazy and handed everything he ever got. Its not really his fault, its all he knows.

I can attest that a person can use A TON of drugs and still be fully functional and exceptionally mentally gifted. (I have a friend that fits the bill)

[James]

"One respondent states "If Sadam is so bad ..."! What is it about mass murder, state condoned rape, support of terrorism, etc that you don't recognize as evil? I want to put you in a room with the families of the murdered Iraqi's and tell them your thoughts on Sadam , but I don't condone torture and murder."

How many other rulers can we say this about that we either prop up or tacitly support? Why is there no outrage for these others? Where do we draw the line?

"We are not hated in the world because of what we are doing in Iraq. We are hated because we threaten the way of life of many of these haters. When women see they don't have to he treated as property, thy become restive. When people see they don't have to give up all say over their future, they start to demand more of their governments. We were hated before President Bush. We were hated before 9-11. They hate us because our democracy threatens their ignorance and brutality. (And our movies threaten their sense of decency)."

You seem to be ignoring the big picture yourself by focusing on terrorist's hatred. Why are we hated now in countries that were thought of as allies? How did we go from having the sympathy of the world after 9/11 to being universally hated? Could it be the unilateral, autocratic, "with us or against us" policies of the Bush Administration?

And as for the immune system analogy - shouldn't we be attacking the international terrorist conspiracy as a police action rather than waging war on countries that have no direct link with 9/11? Shouldn't we have secured Afghanistan so that the Taliban and terrorists couldn't start making inroads again?

[Scott McKee]

"How many other rulers can we say this about that we either prop up or tacitly support? Why is there no outrage for these others? Where do we draw the line?"

I do have outrage for these, but I don't seem to see outrage from those who oppose our action in Iraq. Currently, the USA is responsible for ending or helping to end murderous dictatorships in Nazi Germany, Italy, Imperial Japan, as well as the Soviet Union and its satellites. Now many, not "universally ", of those same people and their descendants are upset when we do the same for Iraq. There are some we didn't get rid of because they were useful in fending off worse ones.

"You seem to be ignoring the big picture yourself by focusing on terrorist's hatred. Why are we hated now in countries that were thought of as allies? How did we go from having the sympathy of the world after 9/11 to being universally hated? Could it be the unilateral, autocratic, "with us or against us" policies of the Bush Administration?"

Many to most of the people who hate us now hated us before, during, and after 9/11. In many cases, the reason they feel this way is because of slandering average their media and educational systems have bombarded them with for decades. The same as many of our own media outlets do in our own country. Unilateral? A number of countries have joined us. It seems it would be unilateral if everyone but France, Germany, and the Islamic Countries joined us. Autocratic? Most people in the country supported then, and still support now, the invasion. Bush also is merely doing what Clinton said should be done when he was president.

Most importantly, you continue to ignore the disastrous consequences your proposed policies have had in history. They made Hitler and his ilk possible. And if an infection is centered in an area or areas of tissue, it is often necessary to excise those areas to eliminate the infection.

Sorry to be long winded. I used to hold many of your opinions, and to feel smug about my ability to see beyond what the current leaders could. I opposed our policies in Vietnam. So our country left, and probably 2 million people were murdered by the resulting governments. I have learned from history. Won't you? Be smart enough not to share in the type of guilt I do.

Respectfully,

Scott McKee, M.D.

[Scott McKee]

I continue to be amused by the contention that President Bush is stupid. This stupid President continues to get his initiatives passed. Apparently, he is out-thinking you folks. So, if he is stupid, what would that make you?

Seriously, as it has been pointed out above, intelligent people often have positions that don't agree.

Perhaps it is you who do not understand the full picture, with all of the possible ramifications? Perhaps you are good in science, but not in history? We are not hated in the world because of what we are doing in Iraq. We are hated because we threaten the way of life of many of these haters. When women see they don't have to he treated as property, thy become restive. When people see they don't have to give up all say over their future, they start to demand more of their governments. We were hated before President Bush. We were hated before 9-11. They hate us because our democracy threatens their ignorance and brutality. (And our movies threaten their sense of decency).

Our enemies will not give up trying to kill us if we respect them, and retreat if they say Boo! It only emboldens them. They will either respect our power or they will be defeated. Our bodTies don't survive because our immune systems look at the larger context. They survive because our immune systems constantly recognize threats and mobilize to fight. I am sure Neville Chamberlain appeased because he was aware of the larger issues, more so than that stupid Churchill fellow.

Maybe history will show yon were on the "smarter" side this time. I doubt it.

Respectfully,

Scott McKee, M.D.

[Scott McKee]

One respondent states "If Sadam is so bad ..."! What is it about mass murder, state condoned rape, support of terrorism, etc that you don't recognize as evil? I want to put you in a room with the families of the murdered Iraqi's and tell them your thoughts on Sadam , but I don't condone torture and murder.

Scott McKee, M.D.

[aaron wall]

"Most importantly, you continue to ignore the disastrous consequences your proposed policies have had in history. They made Hitler and his ilk possible. And if an infection is centered in an area or areas of tissue, it is often necessary to excise those areas to eliminate the infection. "

Who is to say we are not Hitler? With programs such as the war on drugs we are sending money to slaughter Columbians by the day. Despite its ineffectiveness, we continue to feed the war on drugs more money, more attention, and more biological weapons to be used on serfs who can not afford to produce the coke the president needs to face the day. Conclusion: the war on drugs must be serving its purpose. No complex analysis required.

As far as quoting me with "If Sadam is so bad ..." I have been in some aweful situations.
I have a sister rotting in jail for a murder she did not do. I personally got railroaded by this same great US justice system that intelligent people like you support.

My point is not that Sadam is a good man. Perhaps my line of thinking is that we should not have supported him long ago when we were giving him biological weapons to use on other living people. In my eyes it is you, and not me, who have been exersizing selective amnesia.

Respectfully
Aaron Wall
kid who almost lost his life to/for his country and still does not know why

[Scott McKee]

"Who is to say we are not Hitler?"

I say we are not Hitler. If you truly believe the USA equates to Hitler, you are beyond rational discussion, and yes, are ignorant of history. With that, I will leave you to your bitterness. I do hope you and you sister can find some peace and tranquility in the future.

Truly wishing you a better future,

Scott McKee, M.D.

[aaron wall]

When we were giving biological weapons to Iraq back in the day we felt no guilt or shame - the same way Hitler did.

Am I saying that we are going to try and control the whole world by brute force - NO.

I am saying that we are very selfish as a country and as individuals. I am saying we often lack regard for the consequences of our actions.

right now I am not bitter, I am getting to use free expression. I want to be able to retain that abilitily. I am actually starting to become more popular in certain parts of the internet.

My point is that because things happen does not make those same things ok.

[diseño web]

No body talk of brute force.
But, sometimes the power need make order..
I think if that is the problem here.

[Dominios]

A political argument that depends on the assumption that people like Condi Rice and Paul Wolfowitz are stupid is an irredeemably flawed political argument

Sign: Alojamiento web

[Diseño web]

I`m impressed about your comments. I think like all of yours.