"The Mendacity of Hope" Richard Cohen

"You can appreciate the usefulness of this false claim. It says something compelling about the plight of young, black males that is essentially true -- their condition amounts to a calamity and something has to be done. But this particular comparison is wrong, and Obama must know it by now. Ought to be true is not the same as true. "  Cohen

"After all, it ought to be true that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It ought to be true that he had ties with Osama bin Laden. It ought to be true that aluminum tubes were intended for a nuclear weapons program, and it ought to be true, really, that none of this mattered since what mattered most of all was a larger truth: Hussein had to go and the Middle East had to be urban-renewed for the sake of democracy."  Cohen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Cohen wrote this column for the Washington Post a couple of days ago.  I have been thinking it over, amidst the hubbub of the holiday season.

The profound truth of the line in red is impressive.  One of the things that I claim to have learned is that humans are prone by their very nature to believe whatever they wish to believe. 

This feature of the human mind is endlessly repeated in the pages of the history of intelligence analysis.  People often misinterpret or ignore the obvious conclusions that available data lead to.  Instead of applying Occam's Razor to a problem they (often collectively) believe something that satisfies their inner desires and needs.  This frequently leads to disastrous results.  The failure of allied military intelligence to see the possibilities for a German offensive in the Ardennes in 1944 and the earlier American failure to anticipate the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are good examples.  In the Ardennes, the command wanted to "thin" the line somewhere and convinced itself that the terrain in the Ardennes made that a good place to do that and also a good place to place inexperienced units for "seasoning."  They chose to believe that in spite of the fact that the Germans had attacked across that terrain in 1940.  At Pearl Harbor the command convinced itself that the Japanese would first strike at US possessions in the Far East and that this would provide "warning" and time for the Pacific Fleet to sortie from Pearl Harbor.  There are many, many examples of similar behavior.  I have lived through a few of them, not least the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Now Cohen is telling us to remember that there is a danger of doing the same thing in choosing a president.  There is a danger of seeing what you want to see in someone, of accepting the crude image building that modern political campaigns depend on for shaping our weak minds.  In the case of Obama the danger is increased by the desire we all have to feel good about ourselves, to believe that he and we are now better and purer than we were.

This danger is not limited to Obama and his campaign.  It is everywhere.  Take care and think sceptically.  pl 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/31/AR2007123101662.html

Comments

[Martin K]

It is interesting to see that so many of Clintons foreign policy-team are supporting Obama. Robert Malley, Dennis B. Ross, Sarah Sewall, Phillip Gordon, Mona Suthpen. Many new names. (For full lists of advisers on all sides, see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html)

I have just picked up "Fear and loathing on the Campaign Trail 72" by H.S. Thompson. Again. I miss Hunter.

[Martin K]

John in the boro: I think the mood of the land is that they would rather have a "defective weapon" than homicidal maniacs. The coming president will be one who must do a hell of a lot of cleaning up after the final days of "Apres moi, le deluge"-theme partying Bush will do.

I think one of the main parameter shifts the US could benefit from as a nation is to shift focus away from weapon and towards tool. Practical solutions, UN, lots of staterun engineering-projects towards enviromentalism in poor countries, full steam ahead and no more missiles for a while. A settling down and an offering for peace and pashtuni selfrule in Afghanistan, gradual withdrawal from Iraq. Wouldnt that be someting?

I think China might go very green very soon. The watertable is sinking fast over there.

[john in the boro]

Martin K.

“John in the boro: I think the mood of the land is that they would rather have a "defective weapon" than homicidal maniacs. The coming president will be one who must do a hell of a lot of cleaning up after the final days of "Apres moi, le deluge"-theme partying Bush will do.”

Yes, I’m with you. I used weapon as a metaphor. When a weapon system misfires, the round fails to go downrange: in the metaphor, the executive branch fails to achieve its goal. In such an event, the operator waits a bit, ejects the round, and inspects for deficiencies. If none noted, he reloads and fires again. This appears to be what the Bush administration is doing. It refuses to see a faulty round—policy. Is this solely because of the administration, or, is there an institutional defect in the executive branch? In other words, maybe it’s another type of malfunction as well.

Yes, the next president is going to have a mess to clean up. But, is changing the operator in 2009 sufficient to prevent homicidal maniacs at some future date from running amuck? We are looking at this in two different ways: you appear to see a “defective weapon” as preventative, I see it as facilitating. Or, my metaphor just sucked. Otherwise, I am all for more talk and less war.

[martin K]

john in the boro: My problem with mrs. Clinton is that I dont trust her to clean up properly. I think mr. Obama might actually burn a few folks who deserve it, and so I fear for his safety. I hope the SS is serious.

[Maxx]

Just getting back to this fine blog after the holdays, hence I'm a bit behind...

And it ought to be true that Gore was Pre'z in 2000; that the USSC more readily demur from expedient 'potentially necessary' political judgments to vitally necessary, inescapable judgments. Or it ought to be true that GWB be held accountable for ignoring the laws; that the national press be more beholding to principles than profits.

Obviously two wrongs can't make right, but can anything be worse that eight years of GWB, including the inexperience of Obama?

Not that much is needed to find what is lacking, or to realize that the best candidate is a mix of what's available, and something more. The difficult trick, however, is to account for unforeseen consequences and their influence on the office-holder.

Bush is a failure of a particularly undesirable sort, and perhaps Obama will be a failure as well; but maybe we'd benefit such a change in failures, if for no greater purpose than to spark again the notion of striving for something better collectively.

When all is said and done, we don't know the future and the future we fear is not the future that will be, all in all.

[taters]

I'm curious as to why Obama's camp decries experience as the same old same old - all the while touting former Clintonites Susan Rice, Tony Lake and the others. Some of his supporters seem to be blissfully unaware that Zbig did not work in the Clinton admin.
Also, Obama bragged that he actually had more former Clinton folks than HRC. However, when proven wrong (Is there another word for deliberate misstatement?) Camp Obama stated that they simply couldn't give out all the names.
In the lefty blogosphere, many of them come across as rather rude, ill informed and might have spent a lot of time voting for American Idol picks. It reminds me of a jr. editor at the Boston Globe where I had posted something that they wanted to print (Nothing of consequence, mind you)- my signature there had an Omar Bradley quote attributed to Gen. Bradley. When I was emailed. the jr editor thought my name was Omar Bradley.