Prior to Sept. 11, it was widely believed among the members of the U.S. Government that it was favorable to compromise with dictators and terrorists in order to achieve some given end in the short-term and deal with the consequences of these actions later. This attitude, pragmatism, was prevalent in the principles (or rather, lack thereof) guiding U.S. Foreign Policy for the past 50 years. One example of this attitude in practice was the U.S. backing of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980’s. It was believed by the U.S. Government that it would be to our benefit to back this secular dictator in order to block the theocratic regime of Iran, Iraq’s neighbor, from gaining too much power. Another example of this was the U.S. backing of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan during the same time period in the attempt to block communism from spreading.
On the face of it, it would seem as though these two actions benefitted the United States. The theocratic regime of Iran was somewhat blocked from gaining further power, and communism was blocked from spreading further, right? But did the United States really benefit from these actions? What is beneficial to a nation and what is harmful to it? The only way to answer that question is to determine what is beneficial for a human being.
Determining the exact course of action beneficial to a human being is for the entire field of ethics in philosophy, and thus too long to cover here. However, one of the most crucial things for the benefit of every human being is…acting long range (over a long period of time), i.e. acting on principle. To use Ayn Rand’s famous example, imagine that you were on a deserted island. You would have to determine what is for your survival and what is against your survival and act accordingly. You would have to find food, determine what food is good for you and what is poisonous, make a shelter, etc.
But this is no easy task. It requires a constant process of scrupulous thought, of reasoning, in order to determine such things as what food is good for you, how to make a shelter, where to find food, etc. You would have to make numerous observations of the environmental conditions around you in order to determine what actions are necessary for your survival. What integrates these observations and helps you to formulate a proper course of action? Principles. According to Ayn Rand, “a principle is ‘a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other truths depend.’ Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great number of concretes. It is only by menas of principles that one can set one’s long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment. It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve it.”
But principles are not formed automatically by one’s brain. As a human being, one must constantly choose between two alternatives: actions which are beneficial towards one’s life and actions which are harmful to one’s life. It is only principles, the integration of numerous observations of reality, which can aid a human being in determing which actions are beneficial and which are harmful to one’s life.
But the philosophy of pragmatism explicity rejects the necessity of long-range principles. Instead of integrating numerous concretes into a principled course of action, pragmatism says that one should react to each concrete separately. In the case of the deserted island, according to pragmatism, one should never integrate all of your observations about what food is beneficial/harmful into a single whole but rather act immediately based on “what works.” But one could not determine if a certain piece of food was actually food or poison without reference to past observations, i.e., to principles. Thus, the pragmatist claim to reject principles ultimately leads to not acting based on reason but rather on whim.
Attempting to determine the proper course of action for living by whim is completely incompatible with man’s nature as a human being: a being which must constantly choose between two alternatives: actions which are beneficial towards one’s life and action which are harmful to one’s life. A human being can not feel like not eating and expect to live. A human being must properly identify facts of reality and integrate them into principles with the purpose of guiding their actions. This is the nature of a human being and no other means of survival are possible. Therefore, it is only long-range principles which can bring long-range benefit to a human being.
Full circle to the original question, did the United States really benefit from aiding dictators and terrorists? Did the United States really benefit from the philosophy of pragmatism? The obvious answer to this, is no. A nation is not a living entity but rather the culmination of a large group of individuals. Thus, what is required by the nature of every individual for long-range benefit is also required by a nation. The only way that a nation can benefit long-range is by deciding all of their actions based on long-range principles. This means determing what is the beneficial, what is the harmful, and acting accordingly over a long period of time. When the United States Government decided to aid the harmful (Saddam Hussein and the Taliban), they were rejecting the need for acting on long-range principles and embracing the idea that one can do what is harmful and escape the long-range consequences (9-11, the second Gulf War, etc).
After Sept. 11, our government seemed to reject pragmatism and created a new movement for our country. President George W. Bush asserted our moral right to self-defense, and our moral right to eliminate terrorism wherever it exists. As he said on Oct. 7, 2001, “Today we focus on Afghanistan, but the battle is broader. Every nation has a choice to make. In this conflict, there is no neutral ground. If any government sponsors the outlaws and killers of innocents, they have become outlaws and murderers themselves. And they will take that lonely path at their own peril.”
But now it seems our government has returned to the ways of pragmatism. Instead of following this long-range principle of eliminating terrorism across the globe, our government has decided to negotiate with terrorists. Our government is now working on the “road map” to achieving “peace” in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As I stated in my post, The Moral Hypocrisy of Our President, “In response to years of terrorist attacks against Israel and its people, President Bush has personally supported a “road map” with the intention of establishing a Palestinian state by 2005. This road map calls for numerous concessions on the part of Israel, and “promises” from the Palestinian government that they will increase their steps to stop terrorism. Terrorists attack America and kill roughly 3,000 people, and President Bush declares that there is no middle ground; any nation that harbors terrorists will be regarded as a hostile nation. Terrorists attack Israel for over 50 years and kill tens of thousands of people; President Bush declares that these terrorists have the right to their own state, at the expense of their victims. The failure to allow the Israeli army to completely eliminate the terrorist organizations of the Palestinians such as the PLO and Hamas and the failure to arrest and eliminate these organizations by the Palestinian leaders themselves qualifies as support of those organizations. By negotiating with the Palestinian leaders therefore, President Bush is negotiating with terrorists.”
Reject the philosophy of pragmatism. It is only the philosophy of acting on long-range principles, based on reason, which can benefit your lives, and can benefit this great nation of ours.
