Home

About

Contents

Guidelines

Glossary

Contacts

Discussion

Recent Discussion

Create New Topic

Membership

Join Now

Login

Unethical Nihilism

Note: This is a more complete review of the book than the initial response Unethical Unrealism that was produced as a response to the authors' National Public Radio interview.

The premise of "Ethical Realism," the book by Anatol Lieven and John Hulsman, is that nation states get a free pass simply because they are nation states. Legitimacy never seems an issue for this striped pants crowd. Readers could be forgiven for thinking the book could have originated in the bowels of bureaucratic Washington, since the most fawning references to contemporaries apply to those removed from positions of influence.

When it comes to attacking current foreign policy, the authors never met a pejorative adjective they didn't like. Circling each one, page after page -- "monstrous incompetence," "megalomaniacal," "messianic," "preaching," "utopian," and the delightfully insouciant "moral frivolity" -- will empty the ink reservoir of any ordinary pen. With such epithets, the authors obscure that they don't explain ethical realism and they don't differentiate it from current practice. Instead, they present "a just war" as if Christian traditions were the standard by which war should be measured, and, proffer "inestimable" patriotism as if popular meant necessarily correct.(Pp. 79-80) To them, ethical realism may be fuzzy, but they know it when they see it practiced by their special friends. That is no surprise considering the jacket blurb by Brent Scowcroft and the reference to Richard Clarke, Michael Scheuer, and Rand Beers. (Pg. 111)

No matter that the "Great Capitalist Peace" premise that power can guarantee peace looks surprisingly like the practice of the current administration that the authors challenge as a bankrupt belief. No matter that their "Great Capitalistic Peace," which concentrates "on possible results rather than good intentions" is, itself, only good intentions. (Pg. xvii) The truth is, since diplomats such as these can work with any state so long as it is in power, "good intentions" offer nothing more than situational ethics. It is laughable for the authors to report George Kennan and Hans Morgenthau suggest "there are in fact no values beyond national interest" when they immediately contradict it saying Kennan and Morganthau's actions "were suffused with moral purpose. (Pp. 60-61) For those of the persuasion of the authors, just as in the United Nations, achieving power is sufficient to establish legitimacy. Too bad that confession never makes it into the book. Too bad criticism of the United Nations never makes it into the book.

The authors claim that Reinhold Niebuhr and Kennan were close to "Morganthau's notion of a 'cosmopolitan ethic' binding the representatives of different states in a common responsibility for peace and order." -- but they fail to explain how they would describe Syria's probable assassination of Lebanese cabinet officers, Iran's provision of high tech IEDs to subvert governance in Iraq, if it is a "direct attack" to train terrorists at Iraq's Salam Pak or pay bonuses for suicide bombers. (Pg. 62, 66) Concerning other nations, the authors want "respect for their views and interests," but do not differentiate which are the sensible ones.

The authors tie their own shoelaces together and then try to walk. They want to "serve the good" without explaining who's "good" they would serve and want to change "reality for the better" without explaining the "better" they mean. Shortly thereafter they require leaders with "open minds" and "profound moral convictions" with no consideration how to reconcile open minds with moral convictions. In a classic case of projective identification the authors accuse others of rigidity when their book is filled with rigid, often unsubstantiated accusations built on fantastic constructions. (Pp. 56-57, 60)

Many pages of the book convey overwhelming misunderstanding of the "virtue" of democracy, which the authors attempt to de-legitimize by relabeling as "Democratism." (Pp. 63, 75) That's laughable because the position the authors advocate, and the process they purport to value, is the essential characteristic of the democracy they demean -- a continuous institutionalized process of re-evaluation wherein the smallest voice can suggest a better way to do things.

The authors' create straw man arguments like "America can do no wrong" and what has failed are "beliefs that America is both so powerful and so obviously good?" that are obviously not true. "Domination" and "American hegemony" is not what is being projected, except as figments in the minds of rabid critics like the authors. If it were, then Europe and Japan would be American colonies and America would not have backed out of Kuwait and Iraq after the first Gulf War. The authors' method is to ignore history that is inconvenient. If it were not so, the United Nations would have received serious consideration somewhere in the book's 180 pages instead of the handful of incidental passing references. The documented efforts to corrupt and subvert the UN by states favored by the authors would receive due consideration. And the outside factors contributing to Iraqi instability like Iranian weaponry and advanced IEDs would be acknowledged.

Sound practices of good governance stand independent of America. That America encourages sound practices doesn't automatically make them bad. Conversely, that other nations encourage different practices doesn't make them good. The authors believe outside opinions should be taken seriously simply because those opinions are held by other states, regardless of legitimacy of the opinions or the legitimacy of the states. The authors criticize America for encouraging processes that, independent of America, encourage successful society. That suggests any nationalism is okay for an ethical realist. Far from being either ethical or realistic, that's actually closer to nihilism -- the belief that there is no universal truth or underlying reality that provides moral value.

The authors pine for "containment" the way they think it used to work with Iraq, discounting all its previously mentioned abuses and Saddam Hussein's subversion of international governance using the Oil for Food program. The authors compare present-day apples and yesteryear's oranges with alacrity. "Ethical Realism" is cover for rationalizations to justify decisions they feel in their gut. This book reeks of people lost in the foggiest of Foggy Bottom fogs, mid-level CIA and NSA bureaucracy, think tank overload, and mainstream media myopia. The writing is so insolent and disrespectful that rather than convince one to convert it seems more designed to incite the already faithful. It shows anger, not reason, and reads like left-wing blog rants.

Stepping back from the content, it's more likely that, rather than an expression of political theory, this book was meant as a political act -- to serve yet another swing of the axe against the current administration. Cast in terms of mid-level CIA leaks, State Department revolts, partisan sniping, and bogus accusations, that makes more sense. So does the authors' appearance on a softball National Public Radio interview. Mainstream media can be very accommodating when its preconceived notions are stroked. That's the cynical view.

Being charitable, even if it was written in all innocence -- or naiveté -- "Ethical Realism" desperately needs an editor, a philosopher, a political scientist, a diplomat, and, ultimately, a very heavy anchor.

Discuss

[Macro error: Can't find a sub-table named "commentIt".]