In light of your last few posts, IL, I would have to agree with Falk: you’re anti-democratic, at least on these points. But I don’t think that will trouble you. So, let me try to point out some difficulties in your reasoning.
First off, the problem is your conception of democracy. In particular,
@Imperious:
The overall point im making is that the political leadership should follow a path independant of any sentiment coming from its constituents, because after all its empowered with its own authority. To cower at the very idea of the ignorant masses sees as the truth deludes the prime role of Leadership.
points to your main contention. Now, try to operationalize that sentiment in a democracy. Yes, you can have vetting of information, etc. But you forget that in advanced democracies like the US, there are independent sources of power and information. Of course, they are manipulated at times, but it is an extraordinarily hard argument to say that they are manipulated often. If they were, you wouldn’t have the conservative backlash against large media corporations that you see today, for example. Frankly, with modern media, information comes out independent official sources. Media reports of Iraq, for example, are far from any ideal that the Pentagon would promote. The most glaring example of this is Abu Ghraib, as well as the recent body burnings in Afghanistan and the reports of extra-legal prisons in Eastern Europe.
Another operational point: voting and elections. Democracies institutionalize responsibility to the public. Do something your constituencies don’t like, and you get voted out. Just look at the Harriet Miers debacle, and now the Alito nomination. If that isn’t appeal to a certain constituency, I’m not sure what is. For international affairs, consider the inevitable drumming up of support before any military action. That sort of behavior would not exist if accountability were not there. And when I said, “Lies to appeal to a domestic audience might hurt you in an international one, making this a bad policy.” you misunderstood me. I meant appeal in a neutral sense, in whatever propaganda is used to bolster public support for undertaking an action, not to synchronize the justification for an action with broad public sentiment. (in the former, the government is the proactive actor) And consider what happens if you don’t consider constituency, like in Vietnam. We still live in the fallout of that conflict, with which huge implications for the way Americans saw themselves, the use of military force, the system and relationship of civilian control over the military, etc. With the advances in information technology, can you reasonably expect the current war in Iraq not to have even greater information feedback and therefore questioning?
Now, you are correct in that military clearance of news (and its civilian counterpart) does occur. But I think you’ll have a harder arguing that it happens for all news the public receives, or that that situation is a good thing. Which leads me to your last, and arguably most important, point. True leadership is not simply forging one’s own way without care or regard for anyone else. Churchill eventually lost because he couldn’t adapt his methods for radically different circumstances. Inflexibility also seems to be plaguing the current US administration. Another form of leadership is to guide the public to what is part of the leader’s vision, but in guiding people, the leader must ultimately bend towards public opinion, at least in part. Consider Wilson and Roosevelt, who had to convince a reluctant nation to participate in awfully bloody wars. A different type of leadership, but no less valid than Churchill or Bush’s method.
Finally, I am naturally wary of “follow the leader” type arguments, in part because leaders are simply people, no more skilled or infallible than you or I. The access to certain information does not mean they have access to the right information, and as is amply shown, leaders are often just plain wrong. Saddam Hussein was a leader who miscalculated about invading Kuwait. Bush Senior was a leader who miscalculated about how much Iraq would take. Clinton screwed up on universal healthcare coverage and Monica Lewinsky. And Bush junior has screwed up on Katrina, Iraq, North Korea, and Iran, and is only now trying to pull himself out of those situations. The liberty you give to leaders appears to abrogate their responsibilities to the people they serve, approaching a divine right. However, you really can’t justify granting that right other than by recourse to some special ability that leaders have, which is manifestly not the case, or by arguing that judgment should be withheld until later (as you’ve argued before). Neither of these, however, are very good arguments, because they fail to acknowledge that elected officials can simply screw up. They’re not gods, they’re people, and as such, they can be scrunitized by people. And if they can make mistakes, that’s all the more reason for various organs within the public to keep a watch over their actions and influence them towards more socially acceptable ends.
There’s a larger debate in democratic theory about the public encouraging immoral (simply put) actions on the part of their leaders. But that’s a different argument and one which I think you’re reluctant to take up. But that’s for another time perhaps. Hope you found my thoughts interesting, and I’m looking forward to your comments.
