Stephen Bainbridge has an interesting essay up about foreign policy over at Andrewsullivan.com, “On Non-Interventionism.” It´s a helpful dose of wisdom, but…. a presumption in favor of prudence suggests that other principles, which are to be applied prudently, need not be articulated. That seems quite wrong-headed to me. A general presumption in favor of non-intervention is itself prudent; it´s not the alternative to prudence. A prudent approach will know when to resort to war (very, very rarely, if ever), but the presumption should be for non-intervention. That would by itself be prudent.
A Presumption in Favor of Prudence?
3 Responses to “A Presumption in Favor of Prudence?”
Leave a Reply
Hm… in other words it’s not that we should or shouldn’t invade other countries, it’s that we should consider our decisions more carefully and shouldn’t mess up (which wouldn’t be prudent)… what’s so new?
Sorry, Orkster, but you should read more carefully before you put words into the mouths of others. What you state may be more closely related to the views of Stephen Bainbridge, but not to mine. When thinking about war, one ought to remember that it’s tremendously destructive; that innocent people are inevitably killed, injured, harmed; that it leads to increases in state power; and so on. A prudent approach is not to do that unless there is no better course, say, if you’re being invaded or are are in imminent danger of being attacked.
Prudence is not by itself a foreign policy. A foreign policy requires some additional principles, that are to be prudently applied. One is that you don’t kill people or blow up their stuff unless you have to. That’s not arrived at merely as a result of prudence. But a presumption against war is certainly prudent.
Maybe you’ve heard that people have actually discussed this stuff in the past. You might want to rad the American Declaration of Independence, which launched a war that resulted in loss of life and treasure:
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. â?? Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
There was a major burden of proof to be discharged before taking up arms. The point of the bill of particulars was to establish that the burden of proof was discharged and that the decision was justified. And, overall, it turned out well, despite the loss of innocent life that it occasioned. Prudent people don’t resort to violence if they can avoid it, unless the violence is itself unavoidable (you are going to be attacked anyway) or the consequences of avoiding the use of violence are worse (e.g., slavery).
One thing that that suggests is that facts matter. But not, I gather, to you.
Thatâ??s correct, facts matter little.
They did not in the prelude to the last war. Facts are stubborn things but there are ways of getting around them. Politics (and marketing) seem to follow this principle, never resorting to outright lying, create out of the fragments of truth an image that resembles reality insofar as it promotes the policy objectives (or sales).
You are talking about how foreign policy should be, prudent, cloaked in wisdom and farsighted, how we should resort to war only in the extreme circumstances. I am talking about pop-politics, flashy, decisive, where wars (while remaining hell) are exiting and ultimately, happen to other people.
My personal connection to the war is minimal; both emotionally and materially I am isolated from it just like most people. Something tells me that until this country experiences war directly there is no way we will be prudent with the use of force.
Sorry Tom, you are right and I cannot but agree with your view on war but there is a world of people who do not mind bombing others. Let me argue their side because their voices matter too and it is they who form the image of America abroad.