Rational Philosophy

(24 little hours…)

Kevin Rudd, just sworn in as Australia’s new prime minister, wasted no time in further isolating the United States position on global warming and the Kyoto agreement, reversing in the space of one day twelve years of steadfast opposition to Kyoto by his conservative predecessor John Howard.

Yesterday a National Intelligence Estimate (who coined that marvellous name?) tentatively declared that Iran’s nuclear weapons program (if it had one) was brought to a halt in 2003, immediately creating a new set of political parameters for the election year.  The looming hawk of military action against Iran seemed to have been suddenly caught in a downdraft.

Apart from being good news for the world in general, I’m not yet sure who this favors politically. The Democrats seem to be the winners initially, by being able to point to the administration’s overzealousness. But in the longer run, it may favor the Repulblican candidates since they won’t get drawn in to making unpopular commitments to counter the threat in Iran with force as we did in Iraq.

And the vote that upset Hugo Chavez’s plans for a socialist Venezuela led by himself for an indefinite period of time (the Castro-model) surely shifted Venezuela’s political and social course in ways almost too dramatic to imagine. The referendum was, officially at least, quite close — 49% for, 51% against. If the numbers had come out just a little more in favor, the course toward a socialist dictatorship would have been set.

With such large scale political shifts the world itself becomes a different place from one day to the next. But if we think about our own lives, we too can experience dramatic shifts from one day to the next.

My wife commented recently that the concept that everyone else has a life and experience as rich as one’s own, as important to them as our own life is to us, is a continuously amazing thought. (We were on our way for a sonogram, a check up on the progress of our baby (21 weeks). What more fitting example of a life-changing event? One day you’re not pregnant, the next day you are, and your life will never be the same again.)

Our perception of the world around us, if we choose to think of it like this, creates that world. So, as a thought or impulse becomes action, we change the world. Some actions produce unremarkable results, others have a profound and lasting impact.

There is a connection here between the personal and the public, what matters to us and what matters globally. If Rudd as a person didn’t act to sign on to the Kyoto agreement, the Australia would remain a non-signatory. If Chavez’s opposers in Venezuela didn’t personally go to the polling booths to vote, his referendum wouldn’t have been defeated.

And if the Iranian leadership had acted differently, or if the members of the 16 U.S. intelligence organizations that reviewed the intelligence had assessed it differently, the NIE issued yesterday may have been less optimistic about the past and future impact of international pressure and sanctions on Iran’s nuclear capability. The current administration and a possible future Republican administration may have been headed toward another invasion like the invasion of Iraq, an invasion orchestrated by individuals with the leverage of another NIE, and with the cummulative support of fearful and fight-happy citizens across the country.

The importance of hindsight, of course, is to use it to avoid making the same mistake again. But first one has to acknowledge that one made a mistake. And we all know who that one is…

�

News of Hugo Chavez’s narrow referendum defeat brought a decidedly unexpected relief. His proposals, in line with his former policies and stated goals, would have moved the Chavez administration toward a Castro-style dictatorship. But whereas Castro possesses an enduring charm, even if warped and spoiled by time and power, Chavez has all of the charm of a pit bull. At the conclusion of CNN’s story on the referendum result, the reporter offers a fascinating financial footnote: Venezuela’s oil-fueled prosperity, which has helped enrich Chavez’s popularity and solidify his power (the country’s wealth allows him to fund his social programs) accounts for as much as 90% of the country’s export economy. Two guesses as to who buys most of venezuela’s oil… Us. Apparently, the United States is one of the few countries that can refine Venezuela’s low-grade crude and we pick up about a million barrels per day. So, America then, Chavez’s nemesis, has been funding his regime.

A so-called National Intelligence Estimate issued today — a consensus view of “all 16 American spy agencies” (but who’s counting?) — concludes that Iran quite probably stopped its weapons program (if it had one) back in 2003, and that as of the middle of this year had probably not resumed that program (if it ever existed). Although couched in all kinds of provisos and qualifications, perhaps the most striking conclusion of the NIE is the estimate that sanctions and international pressure probably caused Iran to halt its program (if it did and if it had one). Of course, the White House has been quick to point out that this makes the President right again in seeking to maintain and increase pressure on Iran, rather than being wrong to pressage military action, since military action would have been not his error but someone else’s error for issuing a National Intelligence Estimate like the one that got us into the Iraq war. (Not that that was a mistake, but if it had been a mistake it would have been someone else’s mistake, too.) In any case, money seems to have been a key factor in making bringing to a halt the Iranian weapons grade fuel enrichment centrifuges (if they weren’t just nuclear energy centrifuges).

In Malawi two seasons of good crops have helped prevent famine. After the country’s most recent miserable crop failure in 2005, the president of Malawi, Bingu wa Mutharika, decided to ignore the financial strings attached to foreign subsidies and to subsidize himself the use of fertilizer and good seed. The U.S., Britain, and the World Bank have disfavored fertilizer and seed subsidies in countries such as Malawi because… wait for it… “foreign-aid fashions in Washington [and elsewhere] featured a faith in private markets and an antipathy to government intervention.” Let me get this straight, while the U.S. government subsidizes fertilizer purchases for our own farmers it’s been preaching and practising free-market ‘no subsidy’ religious policies overseas that have effectively been starving millions of people in Africa and elsewhere. The shamefulness of such self-righteous arrogance seems reprehenisble.

(There’s also a good op-ed piece about Goldman Sachs along similar lines, but I don’t have space to write about that.)

Money, money, money… But what about principles, what about good sense, what about logic and reason, why does money seem to lurk behind everything like a pesky accountant with an irrevocable pen poised to fall?

Allow me a quick detour into energy and matter. When Einstein equated mass with energy he unlocked a mysterious secret about the universe. The question: What is this stuff that things are made of? Einstein’s answer: Call it what you will, but you may as well call it energy.

A similar, humbler equation exists of course between money and power. Money and power are two ways of thinking about the same thing. You can convert one into the other and vice versa.

(My wife and I, for another instance, were discussing the presidential race and my wife pointed out to me the reason Mike Bloomberg could still run for president having skipped the abrasion of the primaries: He doesn’t need the money.)

Rather than just throw up my hands at this point, I’m struck by the question of what we as observers of the machinations of money and power can we do to make a difference? It seems to me that armed with the awareness that money churns away like a sump pump in the basement of every important political edifice, we’ll always be better able to judge things for what they are if we pop our head down the stairs and take a sniff. “Follow the money,” as Deep Throat apparently said, and we’ll be richer for it.

And if we doubt that paying attention to this will be enough to make a difference, we can be heartened by another discovery of science, famously encapsulated by the thought experiment of Schrodinger’s cat, that observation by itself is enough to change the outcome of a process.

The concept of motive has many facets. Understanding a person’s motive often proves to be critical in knowing how to respond to what they do or say. I was left perplexed by Lou Dobb’s comment today, because although he makes it clear that he thinks the Bush administration misstates (or lies about) the reasons why the US should sign onto the 1982 Law of the Sea Treaty, he doesn’t provide a motive for them to do so. I’m left uncertain whether they just don’t understand (in which case, how do they know to twist the truth?) or whether Bush has some nefarious reason he wants the US to sign the treaty.

(I went looking for some sound hypothesis that explains the administration’s true motives, but although everyone agrees that Bush’s support for the treaty seems odd, theories of motive lie thin on the ground. Some claim that as a lame duck Bush is pursuing a global socialist agenda. This, I thought, had to be meant as a joke. And another proposes that Bush seeks to mollify global critics of his detention policies. Again, not a convincing theory. I have to believe that there must be an economic motive, and a very immediate one. Cheney apparently signed on as a supporter of the treaty before Bush did. If that’s not a clue to there being an economic motive, then I’ll eat my hat…!)

Earlier today, I set off to school with my son as my wife ran down the street to move our car before the 8:30 street-cleaning curfew. Alas, despite her shouted pleas, when she arrived the traffic cop insisted on issuing the ticket. The traffic cop (or ticket vendor) explained that she couldn’t stop once she’d started otherwise she’d “get into trouble.” I see the exterior motive for writing tickets on street cleaning days — so that the street cleaning truck can rumble unencumbered down the curb, sweeping up all of the dirt and detritus that has accummulated in the preceding few days. But since I passed a second traffic cop also writing tickets at a shade after 8:30am, I wondered afresh whether the city might not have an ulterior motive — to collect from as many sleepy Brooklynites as possible.

And in another political story, the Bush administration denounces Iran and its Republican Guard, issuing details of automatic economic sanctions unless they shape up. The story concludes by mentioning that since Iran has done very little business with the US in the past twenty years, the effect of the sanctions would be more “political and psychological.” Again, doesn’t this either seem incredibly naive or duplicitous? Does the administration really think that sanctions without spine will deter Iran? Rice perhaps believes this — she seems quite naive — but surely for the leaders of the administration this is another step along the path toward conflict.

We are adept at letting our true motives guide us, and we are adept at concealing our true motives when we think they won’t be viewed favorably. But what is a motive, what is the mental process concealed within that word?

Motive rests on the concepts of desired outcome and action (or inaction). For a motive to exist, we must conceive of a desired outcome. Bush wants the LOST treaty signed to achieve a particular outcome. The actions he takes to achieve that outcome consist of promoting the treaty and, we posit, concealing his true motive. The traffic copy issuing the ticket is motivated by her desire not to be sanctioned, and the city, one presumes, has as its motive for setting her and her colleagues forth at 8:30am precisely the desire to collect as much ticket income as possible.

A particular problem with concealed motives seems to be lack of imagination. When we conceal our motives we don’t expose them to critique and challenge. I can hear you saying that that’s the whole point. But by this I mean that the more openly we share our motives the more likely we’ll end up reaching a better conclusion on the strategy to achieve them. Bush can’t imagine that the LOST treaty will be a bad thing for the US once he’s concealed his motive for why he thinks it’s a good thing. The City of New York can’t be open to the idea that it’s ultimately better for the City (and probably more profitable) not to be so hard-ass about parking tickets when it must conceal its motive to recoup as much ticket revenue as possible. Issue tickets with more discrimination and a little heart, and you’ll create good will, make people happier, more motivated to stay and contribute income to the city’s coffers by their commerce.

And since the concealed motives that led us to attack Iraq still haven’t been disclosed, here we are heading toward a similar disastrous outcome with Iran.

A concealed motive locks us so tightly in to a narrow perspective that it can be almost impossible to adjust.

President Bush warned yesterday of the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran. He spoke of his pressure tactics, including economic sanctions, by which he intends to encourage the people of Iran to find new leadership. I’m not the only one to experience deja vue and to read into this that if the sanctions and pressure fail, Bush would consider that we should do with Iran what we have done with Iraq, use force.

In a different story, but with a similar underlying theme, the head of the Federal Communications Commission has a plan to relax decades-old restrictions and again allow media companies to own a newspaper as well as a radio or television company in the same city.

Whether it’s apochryphal or not seems unlcear (although likely,) that the determination of a web-spinning spider inspired Robert I of Scotland to come out of hiding and return North to inflict a series of defeats on the English, thus originating the sentiment that if at first one doesn’t succeed, one should try, try again. (Perhaps Bush has heard of that legend.)

My connecting thought today has landed vaguely on the principle of determination, of trying again. Why do we try again? What conceptual basis causes us to respond to failure with another attempt at the same thing?

It occurs to me that there may be several reasons why one would try again: Because one believes that the circumstances have changed in one’s favor. Because one feels that one can try harder. Because one feels that the only choice one has is to keep trying, that it is the right thing to do. Or because one lacks the imagination or insight to do anything else.

In the legend of the spider, Robert I of Scotland took from the spider’s efforts a sense that defeat should not be accepted. That the right thing to do was to go back and try again. The current head of the FCC seems to feel that circumstances have changed that the communcations landscape no longer calls for the same restrictions on media ownership.

But what of Bush and Iran?

Of course, I realize now that I am following a completely erroneous path of reasoning. Bush believes that he has not failed in Iraq. He acknowledges that there have been problems. But he believes still that the approach he took was not just right, but also effective. With Iran, in his mind, he is not reapplying a failed strategy, but a winning strategy.

At which point the question becomes one of why the president doesn’t perceive his Iraq policy and his foreign policy generally as a failed policy. Why, in the face of contrary evidence, does Bush cling to the idea that he is right, that he has made good choices not poor ones?

Self-insight requires courage. We all make mistakes. We all fail. Every day I do things I shouldn’t do, say things I regret, avoid doing things that I know I should be doing. Occasionally I manage to overcome my failures, to make good on something, to follow through when I’ve procrastinated, to apologize when I’ve insulted. It’s in those moments that I feel a glimmer of courage. That I realize how much I lack by way of courage. That glimmer however slight permits me some self insight.

Bush then must lack courage. Thinking back over this administration’s failures, Bush’s lack of courage has perhaps been the single biggest impediment to his success as a leader. His lack of sharpness hasn’t helped. One wants a leader who can understand the complexities of the challenges at hand. His laziness has been a problem from time to time. But without courage he has been doomed to fail and to continue to fail, to never be able to recognize his failure for what it is, and to address his mistakes.

�

Following up on my post of a few days ago, news reports today indicate that the junta in Myanmar has resorted to even more extreme violence in suppressing the ongoing demonstrations. “YANGON, Myanmar (AP) — Security forces in Myanmar opened fire on demonstrators Wednesday, and witnesses said police beat and dragged away dozens of Buddhist monks. The government said at least one person was killed, while dissident groups and media reported up to eight dead.”

Even knowing that the consequences of its actions can have no positive outcome, the junta escalates the confrontation and resorts to violent suppression that can only fan the flames and bring more attention from the rest of the world. Not to repeat what I’ve already said, but this is an immature strategy, even from a junta.

A similar conclusion can be drawn from seeing the headlines of the New York City tabloids this week, vilifying the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When we spend so much energy making Ahmadinejad, and by inference Iran, an evil enemy, aren’t we encouraging and supporting the efforts of the current administration to pursue a policy of escalation with the possible consequence of another disastrous war? Although we now know that the administration’s goal in Iraq was not to disarm it of weapons of mass destruction, we still do not know what was the true goal. To avoid a similar sequence of events with mass fatalities, it would be helpful to understand this as rationally and fully as we can.