James Taranto points out some stunning rhetoric from John Kerry, whose pretzel logic never fails to amaze. On the Mary McCarthy story and leaking in general,
Kerry allows that “nobody should leak,” but claims it’s a less serious offense “if you’re leaking to tell the truth.” Then he says: “I’m glad she told the truth.”
Are you, Senator? Really? And yet you want to be President?
Because let’s look closely at what the noble-sounding truth championing you are proposing here actually requires. Continues Taranto:
Leave aside the question of whether the information McCarthy leaked was true. Leave aside, too, that the biggest falsehood in the VPK [Valerie Plame Kerfuffle] is the claim that Plame was a covert agent. Even if you credit Kerry his premises, he cannot possibly believe in the principle he is putting forward here. The problem with leaking is not that it spreads falsehood but that it exposes information that is supposed to be secret. Surely a man who once had serious ambitions to be president understands that truth is no defense when the issue is confidentiality.
[My emphasis]
Ah, but there’s the rub, isn’t it: confidentiality. Evidently, an emerging trial balloon being floated by some on the left (and some civil libertarians who, like their throwback hippie brethren, have gone off their nut) is that confidentiality itself is the problem: in short, a government that has something to “hide” is a government that must necessarily be engaging in illegal and immoral activities. Therefore, it is the duty of national security officers and employees to leak secrets in order to undermine the war in Iraq—at least, according to the Truth Telling Coalition, a group formed by famed “whistleblower” Daniel Ellsberg.
A more egregious example of self-righteous lawbreaking justified by blinkered question begging (“the Iraq war is wrong, therefore anything leaked that helps put an end to American involvement in Iraq is patriotic and good”) you’re unlikely to find anywhere (except perhaps in a textbook on fallacies of argument). But what should also be apparent is that such actions are inherently anti-democratic, as they attempt to effect a soft foreign policy coup against the elected leadership by way of promoting lawbreaking based upon their beliefs about how US foreign policy should be run.
The problem is, nearly 60 million Americans voted for George Bush, not Daniel Ellsberg or Mary McCarthy. Which just goes to show the hubris involved in what is beginning to look more and more like an attempt by a faction within the intelligence community (aided by the rhetoric of the DNC message machine, if not, as some have suggested, by a handful of prominently placed members in the House and Senate), to control US foreign policy through a series of selected leaks.
The irony, of course, is that the self-styled “Truth Tellers” haven’t leaked anything that is illegal on its face; instead, they have leaked information about programs they believed that, if carefully spun to give the appearance of illegality and impropriety, would damage the administration—and whether they did so out of a sincere distate for the programs or for more cynical partisan reasons is frankly immaterial.
In that vein, Taranto echoes many of the arguments I’ve been making here over the last couple of years, using John Kerry’s statement about leaking for the “right reasons” as a case study:
It seems likely that what Kerry is really getting at is that the end justifies the means. Possibly he’s being crassly partisan: The McCarthy leak is justified because it aims to hurt the Bush administration, while the Plame “leak” was not because it was in defense of the administration.
But there’s something more to this than ordinary partisanship. Note how casually Kerry utters the phrase “in order to support a lie.” He seems to have bought into the Angry Left notion that Republicans don’t just lie on occasion, as politicians are wont to do, but are fundamentally, metaphysically corrupt–the idea that every word President Bush says is a lie, including “and” and “the.” One suspects Mary McCarthy would agree.
To hear the Angry Left talk, Bush is as corrupt as Nixon, as evil as Hitler, and as incompetent as Jimmy Carter. Convince yourself of this, and cutting legal or ethical corners in the name of stopping him doesn’t seem so bad. In other words, the Democrats are being corrupted by their own imaginings about Bush’s badness.
This is precisely right, and takes us back to the fundamental question begging that animates virtually everything the Democrats say or do, and which works at the structural ideological level to justify, in their minds, whatever it takes to defeat the evil that is turning our republic into a fascist theocracy. To Juan Cole, this means shutting down FOXNews; to MyDD, MoveOn, and Craig Newmark, it means internet “neutrality” legislation; to the mainstream press, it means “teaching lessons” rather than reporting facts; and to Mary McCarthy and John Kerry (and likely a host of others soon to be exposed), it means that publicizing their versions of “truth”—even by way of national security leaks—if doing so helps “guide” the country back to the path they advocate, a path that voters have continued to reject.
It used to be that progressives and liberal Democrats could rely on the judiciary to do much of their bidding by declaring the Constitution a “living document,” one subject to contextual whims and strained rewriting (which is what it is: interpretation, as I’ve noted on many occasions, requires an appeal to authorial / consensus intent—and so rulings that fail to do so are simply exercises in free-wheeling resignification, or, if you prefer, creative writing).
But as the courts have become slowly more conservative (and far less reliable than they once were at promoting the progressive agenda), many despairing Democrats have come to believe they simply must do something to save us from ourselves—even if that means cutting corners or shaping narratives intended to “teach” us the “correct” way to think. A similar effort, as I’ve pointed out on many occasions here, has long been at play within the humanities and social sciences in our universities; and so it was only a matter of time before a kind of legitimacy for what is, philosophically speaking, nothing more than nihilism disguised as pragmatism, would work its way into the structures of our thinking and help us justify our own “interpretations” as truths.
The bottom line being that we have reached a point where we simply must decide, as a country, if we are willing to re-embrace classical liberal principles—principles built on the belief in certain “universals”—or if we are instead destined to simply surrender to the will to power we are now seeing manifest in the strained arguments by those like Kerry who have attempted to reconcile their OUTRAGE over the Plame “leak” with their initial “ethical” defense of Mary McCarthy, a reconciliation that is logically incoherent but which, when embraced and asserted by an entire motivated group, becomes frustratingly difficult to overcome.
Kerry argues:
Thirty-five years later, in another war gone off course, I see history repeating itself. It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a course in Iraq that weakens the nation. Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our troops sacrificed for a policy that isn’t working while Americans who dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic.
Just as it was in 1971, it is again right to make clear that the best way to support the troops is to oppose a course that squanders their lives, dishonors their sacrifice, and disserves the American people and our principles.
[My emphasis]
It is no surprise that Kerry is reliving his Vietnam days—the heady days of his heroism, as he fancies it.
What is surprising, however, is how many people are pretending not to see the inherent dishonesty that animates his entire argument: namely, that it is up to him to declare American foreign policy is wrong, and that it is up to him to speak for the troops—the vast majority of whom rejected his message in 2004.
Kerry is right on one point, however: It is wrong to brand Americans who ask “tough questions” as “unpatriotic.” However, it is not wrong to brand those who believe they can subvert the democratic process by advancing their own truths—through lies, selective leaks, and media manipulation (by any means necessary, in other words)—as unpatriotic, and it is likewise not wrong to point out that when such people try to shield themselves from criticism by wrapping themselves in the cloak of patriotism, they are acting cynically and reprehensibly.
Because what could be less democratic than presuming to speak for those who don’t accept your premises or share your opinions, and then setting out to save them from themselves by illegal and unethical means?
And when, in a democracy, you are promoting anti-democratic means in order to affect policy and gain power, you are, by definition, acting against the principles of your country—and so are by definition acting unpatriotically.
****
related: Tom Maguire, “Help Me! I Am Trapped In This Circle Of Logic!” (h/t to corvan and Terry Hastings)
tell me you really don’t have a problem with the net neutrality stuff.
Huzzah, Jeff!!
And when John Kerry set fire to Vietnamese villages and shot Vietnamese civilians, and went to Cambodia on New Year’s Eve and tossed his medals over the fence onto the White House lawn, it was all acceptable, because he was speaking truth to power, man.
Well said Jeff.
If Tony Snow turns down the job, you’ve got my vote…
“if carefully spun to give the appearance of illegality”
what a carefully crafted phrase….
Laguna Dave–
But what about the nasally thing?
Kind of like how the original story of the wiretapping was that the govt. was eavesdropping on calls between people in the U.S. and suspected terrrorists abroad (and the legality of such appears to be supported by previous court rulings). This story has since morphed into “domestic eavesdropping,” “spying on Americans,” “illegal wiretapping,” etc. Keep the meme alive…
I read the link you gave to Mr. Maguire and want to note this item from his post (comment cross-posted):
Ms. Linzer: ”The compact reporters enter into with sources for information that they wouldn’t get otherwise is often one of confidentiality, especially on issues of national security.â€Â
Fascinating. I thought this was remarkably similar to the compact the CIA had with its employees, i.e., they give them access to information they wouldn’t otherwise have and insist that it be kept confidential, especially on issues of national security.
The mind reels.
Turing word: increase, as in chocolate rations are on the increase.
Damn, Jeff. That’s gonna leave a mark.
Expect vigorous, well-argued debate from the left along the lines of, “Goldstein is teh stupid!”
Excellent points. I’ve been thinking about these issues myself, as you can see from this post about the Truth-Telling Coalition.
The fingerprints of the Vietnam generation are all over this current mess with security leaks. What’s amazing (I go into this in greater detail in the post), is how blatant they are about elevating their own personal opinions over any loyalties, oaths, and especially larger national security concerns. Security? Forget about it–the only thing that’s important is their opinion of when the government is overreaching.
And it’s actually worse than that. Now they are upfront about the idea that secrecy in national security is something it is the individual’s duty to breach whenever he/she happens to disagree with a policy. Ellsberg’s group was formed to combat the Iraq War by encouraging security leaks, and they’re not even hiding that fact–it’s right there on their webpage.
Komrade Kerry should receive his Order of Lenin medal any day. Hanoi John should start giving interviews and making his propaganda pitches in the nude. This article hasn’t even left John Boy a fig leaf.
Mark–
Nude windsurfing is fun.
As Thomas Sowell so accurately named it, the left today suffers from a delusion that they alone posess “The Vision of the Annointed”. They’ve elevated their sense of “self” above the sense of nation or community. They’ve replaced absolute truths with “feelings” and a sense of right or wrong with a desire to be “non-judgemental”. Tolerance and patriotism have been replaced with arrogance and haughty self-importance. In this light, how can anything they do (destroy anti-abortion displays, demean our military, attack the entreprenuerial spirit in America as “greedy”, embrace vote fraud and illegal immigration for their own political gains at the expense of the law-abiding citizenry) be “wrong” when, by definition, they’re so ENLIGHTENED that whatever they do is pure and just, simply because they “know best?
As one of the right wing radio hosts is so fond of saying, “Liberalism is a mental disorder”.
Jeff, you missed the best part from Taranto’s post.
Boo ya, bizitches, how’s that for ironical irony of the most ironclad kind!!!
Did you know that John Kerry was in VietNam?
He was in the Navy.
So, she had nowhere else to go?
Applause. One of Kerry’s problems (and, God, is he ever weighted down with issues) is that Kerry does not ask tough questions, he repeats old questions that have been answered repeatedly. This is answer shopping on a national scale.
But with his ego, why would anyone expect less of Kerry?
Obligatory posting: IGNORE ACTUS.
That is all.
But, but, but, it’s kinda cute in a rodent like way. Can we keep it? I promise I’ll feed this one. I won’t ever forget. I’ll change the papers under it’s nest every day. I swear.
Look how adorable it is. It snores and mutters nonsense when it sleeps in the sawdust bed that it made. Sure it smells foul and masterbates in it’s own feces, but that’s part of the charm.
Please, please, please, let me keep it.
Glad to see that someone is picking up for me while I was otherwise engaged.
We probably need to make it a rule that the “first poster” (including acthole) post the obligatory Ignore Acthole post.
It seems likely that what Kerry is really getting at is that the end justifies the means.
Is that so hard to understand? One weighs the public good produced by the leak with the lack of respect for the system of classification engendered by the leak.
Logic is teh hard.
Since we’re on sort of a Samuel Johnson tear:
After Dr. Johnson said patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel, the cynic Ambrose Bierce amended it with, “I beg to submit that it is the first.” Then H.L. Mencken jumped in: “But there is something even worse: it is the first, last and middle range of ,a herf=’http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0217-20.htm’>fools</a>.”
There’s even some tasty Jeff Gannon involvement. Enjoy.
SB: systems
“Complex systems that work are inevitably found to have evolved from simple systems that work.”
Shit.
I blame BUSH!
Is that so hard to understand? One weighs the <strikethrough>public good</strikethrough> political damage to the Bush administration produced by the leak with the <strikethrough>lack of respect for the system of classification</strikethrough> damage to national security engendered by the leak.
Here, jpe, I’ve fixed your quote. I look forward to Ms. McCarthy presenting her necessity defense in open court.
JPE —
I don’t think people are confused about the logic of an ends-justify-the-means paradigm; I think, rather, that they question its suitability in a representative democracy, particularly when it serves to subvert democracy by placing personal agendas above the will of the electorate.
But you’re forgiven. I’m sure you simply seized upon that point to offer up some snark because addressing the points of the post is a bit too time consuming (and would involve, you know, reading the thing…).
That’s based on the assumption that the leaked information was correct and helped the public at large. If it relates to the “black prisons” on foriegn soil, it was neither factual nor helpful. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover that the information was in fact “bait” to pinpoint the leak.
Morality is such a plastic concept for progressives.
So its been decided that they don’t exist? Isn’t it helpful that we’ve ruled that out as something that the US does not do?
>>If it relates to the “black prisons†on foriegn soil, it was neither factual nor helpful<<
>So its been decided that they don’t exist? Isn’t it helpful that we’ve ruled that out as something that the US does not do?<
I guess that pretty much sums up where you’re coming from, actus. Great Satan, meet actus.
Who is this John Kerry guy again? Gotta go, my actus is starting to itch again….
You do realize, don’t you that the ends justify the means argument is the ones that the Unabomber used, that people who blow up abortion clinics use and that Jihads use as they cut off the heads of their victims.
From the proper perspective (the end of soul deadening technology, the end of baby killing, and the victory of Islam over a corrupt society), virtually anything can be justified.
It’s an interesting position that the Left has taken.
When you accept that the ends justifies the means you truly have no discernable position as everything becomes entirely situational.
Which, to any observer of the modern left, should be instantly recognizeable.
The problem with these positions that the left has taken is they put the rest of us in danger. And that makes us really mad. And you wouldn’t like us when we’re mad.
I think its more that ends and means are the same.
What part of ‘[w]hich, to any observer of the modern left, should be instantly recognizeable’ didn’t you get?
Or it could be that the framistan is rubbing on the doohickey of the whatsis…
SB: better
pick ‘em
Does anyone know how I can get a big chunk of actus off the bottom of my shoe. I wasn’t looking when I came in and I stepped right in his last comment. It’s fresh and it really stinks. Help!
Can you imagine a network putting Ryan Leaf in the booth for color commentary in the NFL.
“I tell you what Mike, when I was in the league, it was the toughest 2 weeks of my life. But I never called an audible like that. That was just wrong. I would’ve stayed with the off-tackle on 3rd and 8. You just don’t check off like that. I’m telling you – and I know. What was he thinking? I remember in one scrimmage, I had a DT grab my red “No touchy the QB” jersey and I called TIME right then and there and read him the riot act. NO TOUCHIN’ THE QB! I got right in his face.”
Alp–
I recommend that you burn the affected shoes. DO NOT HANDLE THEM. Then go to Kohl’s and buy a replacement pair. If you apply for their charge card, you get an exta 10% discount.
Are you old enough to know about “The Peanutbutter Conspiracy”, was it just lucky coincidence, or were you making a point about how this John Kerry is actually more like a late 60’s bubblegum pseudo-psychedelic pop group?
Teafran–
He’s got his Stawberry Alarm Clock to prove it. It’s legit.
Cripes. What’s with the “r” key?
Then go to Kohl’s and buy a replacement pair.
No Kohl’s dude. I’m size 14. Easy ladies.
No. Now finish your dinner. Afterwards, we are going perform weapons maintenance. And then I will read you the latest PW post.
14, huh? Well, my size has a 1/2 in it!
Well, my size has a 1/2 in it!
It wouldn’t be Kerry’s hat size would it?
10 1/2
Who cares? Helen Thomas is the one who has to listen to it…
If I may say, the “ends don’t justify the means” thing is one I hear rather often from clueless leftists. Usually, it is deployed to excuse themselves from any need to confront the actual facts or think for themselves. Example:
Me: We invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, one of the worst tyrants of the twentieth century.
Passionate Moonbat: But that’s like saying the ends justify the means!
Me: Precisely.
It is really pretty much a meaningless cliche, no matter who uses it, I think.
Depending on what the desired end is, some means may be justified to achieve it, and others not.
So rather than trying to apply an some morally blind general principle, the argument should focus on the specifics: what was accomplished, and were the means used to justified.
Leaking secret information to the press could be, under some hypothetically contrived circumstances, justifiable (which is not say it would necessarily be *legal*).
In McCarthy’s case, I have no doubt it was both unjustifiable AND illegal, but my judgment is based on looking at the specifics of her particular case, not some vacuous axiom that “the ends don’t justify the means”.
“The ends justify the means” is an interesting phrase.
Looked at from an engineering point of view, the statement is true, verging on tautological. If it works, clearly the means were sufficient. The result validates the means used to accomplish it.
The way it’s usually used by Leftists can be properly translated as “good intentions allow any means whatever to be used to accomplish them.” It goes with “I have a plan”.
In the beginning was the Plan, and the Plan was with the Left, and the Plan was the Left. The same was in the beginning with the Left. All things were interpreted by the Left; and without the Left was not any thing explained. In the Left was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
It is, of course, complete bullshit. “Intentions”, like “desires” and “needs”, are completely ignored by the Universe. Do, or not do. There is no “try”.
Regards,
Ric
Did you know that John Kerry was in VietNam?
He was in the Navy.
Truer words have never appeared.
Or they don’t. Like, the end of the winning the war on terror don’t justify the means of giving the executive the ability to detain people without judicial review
What ever became of that actus guy? Remember him?
No. Who proposed that?
Regards,
Ric
I wonder if he would feel that way if someone were to leak his complete military file.
Remember that the Bush administration’s attempts to save American lives don’t justify the power to detain without judicial review … even though the power to do so goes back two centuries and was exercised by such tyrants and Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt.
Shame about not passing that Con Law class, Actus.
.
bwah ha haaaaaa. i got an email notice yesterday that y’all can do that online now.(fill out and submit the proper forms for record release, that is)
The left proposes that as an argument where the end don’t justify the means.
That’s nothing new:
And on the subject of pretzel logic:
Who gets to tell Kerry that Plame did work for the CIA, and did suggest hubby Joe for that Niger trip? And that the Sen. Intell Cmte unanimously concluded that Joe’s report suggested Saddam did look into a uranium deal there?
I expect his response would be that he was for truth-telling leaks before he was against them.
actus ~
I’ll be damned, I thought I was the only foo – er – idi – er – well, I actually have their first album sitting in the “Well of Lost Albums” box over by the door in my office. I have no idea what that says about me.
I was hoping it was a reference to Kerry being the acid-pop version of what a Senator should be.
Amen. “Try” is what precedes “fail”. It’s an excuse waiting to happen.
Does anyone else find it slightly bizarre that in the opinion of some, that if the executive commits an act, such as detaining enemy fighters during a war, it is committing a crime, but if the judiciary commits the same act, it is not a crime? There is a hubris exhibited by men who wear robes to which they appear to be oblivious. I have a feeling that as the judiciary becomes more conservative, this attitude by the judicial supremacists will change. Then, when called out on it, they will remind us that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
Was it not in ancient Israel that judges ruled the people; philosopher kings, as it were? Oh, for the good old days.
Money,
I think the quote is “foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.â€Â
“Foolish†being the operative word.
A good example is the Leftoid question-begging about why we aren’t attacking N. Korea or Saudi Arabia. Not that they would support that, of course, but the implication is clear.
Now I didn’t pass. funny how truth hurts, i mean, works, on the internets.
Hey—wasn’t The Great Peanut Butter Conspiracy an old Jimmy Buffett song?
FWIW, the phrase “the ends justify the means” has a long and dismal pedigree. While associated primarily with Machiavelli, such stalwart enemies of liberal ideas of freedom and democracy as Lenin have taken it as their own and paraphrased it thusly, “You’ve got to break a few eggs to make an omelette.”
IMHO, in a definitional sense, I am quite comfortable with someone who states that his means are his ends, but not with someone who states his ends are his means. Generally speaking, the emphasis on process and process improvement these days makes the latter rather silly, while pushing the former to the forefront. As others have said, “life is a journey, not a destination.” That is, of course, just another way to say that your means are what is most important, rather than any utopian ends. This is, I believe, consistent with the Golden Rule and liberal ideas of freedom and democracy.
As someone else once said, “we cannot reach the stars, but we should always set our course by them.” Having an ideal to strive for is important—almost as important as knowing that it is probably unattainable in practice. To borrow yet another cliched aphorism, “the perfect remains the enemy of the good.” Recall that Phaedrus asked, “What is good?”, not “What is perfect?”. Nonsense, such as the No Child Left Behind Act, is predicated on an unattainable utopian perfection, which is one of many reasons why it is bound to fail.
Anyway, I’m not sure this is entirely consistent with Yoda’s catchphrase, unless one redefines the goal along the lines of emphasizing the means rather than the ends. In that case, it seems perfectly acceptable to me to move the goalposts a bit and suggest that concurrent fidelity to a process and a process improvement program would contitute a “do” without having to weasel out of the responsibility of one’s actions by claiming that one’s heart was in the right place once the bill for fallacious assumptions and unintended consequences comes due.
Turing Word: still, as in, “Actus, be still.”
You’re missing the point: its meant to fail. The Ends are are numbers of ‘failing schools.’
Actus – do you ever not impugn the motives of people with whom you are not in agreement?
Turing Word: large, as in, well, large one.
Impugn the motives? I think that is their goal: hurting ‘government schools.’
A rather telling sentiment. To liberals, it is the schools that are the focus of the goal of educating children and adults. A focus on means as opposed to ends. To intelligent people, it seems that the objective should be measured by the education of the child.
If the child could be educated without schools, it would be perfectly fine with intelligent people since the end goal is achieved. In the Liberal world, the goal and the means cannot be separated because, for whatever reason, there is either an atavistic attachment to previous pedagogical means or there is an ideological investment in the brainwashing power of the educational system from which Liberals do not wish children to be liberated.
In either case, it is sad, and disappointing, to see a part of the next generation remaining wedded to the technology and ideological blinders of a discredited system.
I swear, there is an echo of “keep them barefoot and pregnant†in the voices that I hear.
As shown by standardized tests where failure to achieve 100% means you are failing.
Again, Actus, I’m really not sure what you are trying to say here because if your statement is taken literally it appears to be singularly stupid.
Is this meant to be a pithy comment, a snarky comment or just a self destructive comment by someone impersonating you?
How old are you, really?
Dude! If I’m doing the whole “one-hit wonders from late-60s acid-rock” thing, I gotta have the BubblePuppy!
TW: “corps”– as in “People who actually like Strawberry Alarm Clock probably also joined the Peace Corps? :o)
P.S.– BTW, I am not lying… Really! How in the hell does this “spambuster” decide to use the word “corps”?
I hit “enter” on that post, and the screen reloads…
And, I see my next “spambuster”.
T/W: “think”– as in, ”Think about it…”
“Thirty-five years later…I see history repeating itself”
So any day now Kerry will compare Osama and/or Saddam to George Washington.