Ethical Realism

I've just finished reading a very good new book Ethical Realism. What I liked about it is that it shows a sensible way forward for both Republicans and Democrats in dealing together with the challenge raised to our way of life by folks like Osama Bin Laden.

The key insight of the book is that the challenge before us now is very much like the challenge that faced a previous generation of our leaders in dealing with the challenge of Communism. The authors of this book (one liberal and one conservative) suggest that a similar approach is what we need today in dealing with our current philosophical opponents. (I'm trying very hard not to use any code words here to describe them, so as not to drive either liberal or conservative readers into tuning out the book's message before understanding it.) On reflection, I think they are correct, and the post-World War II approach is our best way forward now.

To those who think the solution is to go it alone, us against the World, standing up for a pure American vision, the authors suggest that would have been like Churchill refusing to work with Russia against Hitler in 1939, which they assert would have resulted in England losing World War II in 1940. Much though we'd prefer not to ally with imperfect countries and leaders, the truth is, we are all imperfect, and must choose among various shades of grey rather than only between black and white ethically. This theme of humility is important. No matter how wonderful and generous we consider our nation, it is imperfect, just as each of us individually is imperfect. Our founders knew that, which is why they were so careful to set up checks and balances to limit the actions of our government, knowing it too would be imperfect.

A second great insight from the past was WHY we had a containment strategy against Russia beginning in the late 1940s - because it was already apparent that our relatively free system would eventually do better than the centralized Russian system, as indeed it eventually did. The only logical alternative would have been to follow fighting Germany and Japan by fighting Russia, and even if we'd won, how would we have then ruled such a large part of the world? More likely (especially once both sides had nuclear weapons) such a war would have ended with only losers. This insight has current application as we consider our current challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan - can any sensible person today advocate also picking a fight with Iran?

And to those fond of saying the U.S. is the worst nation in history, these authors would suggest "Get a grip!" Anyone who truly thinks that knows little or nothing of world history. The mere fact that one can have such an opinion yet still live and work here should be proof enough that ours is not the worst of all possible nations. Fashionable though it may be to pretend all cultures are equal in value, in the end some ideas and some behaviors are better than others, and ethics consists of making difficult choices between better and worse, not in some ideal world that never was, but in this clearly-imperfect world.

One of the great insights of the late 1940s, recently re-realized in our own day, is that it is not in our national iinterest to just let failed nations rot. Such swamps serve as breeding grounds for all sorts of dangers. Rather, it is in our interest to help citizens of all nations find a way forward toward a better life. Americans are a generous people, quick to help others in need. That is one of our best traits, and may in the end be more important in helping us survive this new century in peace than all our armed forces and advanced technology.

Finally, the authors usefully remind us that like it or not, and no matter who is elected President next year, we will be at this effort for a generation or more, making it foolish to proceed in a way acceptable to only a minority among us. Rather, we need an approach most Americans can support for such a long effort.

Update: I'm also just finishing the book World War IV, by Norman Podhoretz. It is mostly a history of how the war has gone thus far, starting back in the 70's when no one yet considered it a real war. Its most helpful feature is clear proof of mistakes by all of our Presidents and leading politicians of all parties ever since, except that He's a bit too kind to our current President. I find myself thinking two things:
1) Speaking clearly about this war is similar to when a therapist realizes what's wrong with a mental patient, but has to help the patient figure it out on his or her own rather than just handing them the answer, or else the patient will reject the truth and replace their current problem with an even less-well-adapted one. For that reason, titles like World War IV may be too direct to win majority support within our country today, even if factually accurate as the term is defined by the author.
2) Unlike Ethical Realism, this author doesn't seem to have a workable solution in mind, at least not one likely to gain bi-partisan support within my lifetime.

Update2: I received another interesting post this morning, of a grandfatherly talk on this issue just given by Newt Gingrich, of all people. Well worth a read here, no matter what you used to think of Gingrich. (Newt is a good historian too, but also seems to have this bi-partisan thing somewhat figured out -- he spent a lot of the past year dialogging about current issues with a friendly Democrat.)