Pragmatic Radical

The one anti-war argument that, in retrospect, I did not take seriously enough was a simple one. It was that this war was noble and defensible but that this administration was simply too incompetent and arrogant to carry it out effectively. I dismissed this as facile Bush-bashing at the time. I was wrong. I sensed the hubris of this administration after the fall of Baghdad, but I didn't sense how they would grotesquely under-man the post-war occupation, bungle the maintenance of security, short-change an absolutely vital mission, dismiss constructive criticism, ignore even their allies (like the Brits), and fail to shift swiftly enough when events span out of control.

- Andrew Sullivan; as usual, the time lag doesn't quite help the victims of the earlier f-ups. The "here we go again" nature of events also makes one question just how much we really learn.

The words radical and radish have similar origins. Both basically come from the word "root," and the former is ultimately concerned with root causes. This in some cases might imply a certain extremism because it brings to mind major changes as well as concerns that are not for the immediate or the small scale. All the same, I find that sometimes one must think like a radical, even though the realities of the day requires you be more pragmatic and (icky) centrist. It is a complex and rarely that easy balancing act, but it's one that I find myself compelled to take. If I don't, I realize that the ultimate truth of the matter will not be faced. Likewise, gains, even small scale in nature, often are hard to come by.

Lawrence O'Donnell made me reflect upon such things when he challenged the hosts of the O'Franken Factor on Air America today, arguing the prison abuse was not truly a "scandal." He did suggest how it was dealt with in a way was, such as the whole public relations disaster nature of the enterprise. [This might include the President saying Rumsfeld was doing a "superb job" or Cheney suggesting Rummy was the best Secretary of Defense we ever had, so everyone should just lay off the guy.]

All the same, this sort of abuse goes on in various ways in our own prisons, and internal investigations suggests the system is in effect working. (Not quite, but we should be guardedly proud of how it kinda worked, since without such partial victories, this bunch would be even more on the catbird seat these days. Thanks to also to whomever leaked the pics in part as a silent protest for how slow things were going.) Though the co-host challenged him a bit, he mostly got away with this misleading counterintuitive (from an administration critic) argument. As an aside, this lack of challenging follow-up questions (and the useful back and forth that might follow) poisons reporting all over the place these days. I do commend his cynical response to the "I'm just shocked" crowd.

As Andrew Sullivan's comments suggest, this administration takes the usual bad things in the world, and makes them that much worse. Seymour Hersh notes in his most recent article: "Secrecy and wishful thinking, the Pentagon official said, are defining characteristics of Rumsfeld's Pentagon, and shaped its response to the reports from Abu Ghraib." These are the serious adults that apparently, unlike the sissy Dems, know what the hell they are doing. Point is, if they do, they aren't doing a great job showing it. It is this fact, as well as the various particularly troubling aspects of the prison abuse matters, including the systematic corruption particularly endemic to this administration, that makes this a scandal. The Naderite, "the system itself is corrupt" line the MSNBC reporter took just doesn't hold up. It lets these people off too easily.

[The Hersh piece also has discuss our old pal, the American Taliban: "Some of the photographs later made their way to the American media. [John Walker] Lindh was later stripped naked, bound to a stretcher with duct tape, and placed in a windowless shipping container." The NYT Week in Review also excerpted a few passages from the enemy detainee orals. The "trust us" line as well as the statements basically equalizing citizen enemy combatants with noncitizens such as those currently getting so much press is particularly scary. The paper also had a piece suggesting torture just doesn't work. True or not, and I wonder, its victims might not really feel too much better.]

Anyway, you will see the mixture of these themes throughout my writings. For instance, I wrote about the National Day of Prayer a few days ago. The fact this President in particular has made the mixture of church and state an issue is well known. All the same, the mixture is surely not only an issue since 2001. The day in particular was around since the 1950s, and President Clinton can be seen as the true father of the faith based initiative program as well as other troubling matters such as the Patriot Act, welfare reform, and the like. Admitting the systematic problems but arguing that there can be degrees of harm helps attack the "but they did it too" brigade. One might think the infantile, little sibling crying to mommy nature of the complaint might be enough, but sadly it is not.

So, my discussion of particular more egregiouss examples of more systematic problems should not be seen as ignoring the importance of both. To coin a term, perhaps we all should be pragmatic radicals. Certain situations in practice are particular a concern, but root causes must not be ignored. A good understanding of current realities and bringing about change requires both. An old left hand (editor of New Left Review, or not) like Tariq Ali, to refer back to my current reading material, will tell you that reckless radicalism might make one feel pure, but the results can be equally damning. So, be radical if you must, but a healthy knowledge of history will show you that successful radicals also knew the value of reasoned pragmatism.