|
 Provocations
Michael
LaBossiere
Number
Ten: Closing Ranks
An
interesting political phenomenon occurred when American and British
forces set out to liberate Iraq: people who had opposed the idea
of the invasion said that they were now closing ranks behind their
leaders and supporting the invasion. Commentators in the American
press also endorsed this practice and emphasized the importance
of getting behind President Bush and supporting the war. In general,
there seemed to be two lines of reasoning behind such views. First,
some commentators and citizens made it quite clear that the invasion
they had previously regarded as wrong was now something they supported
simply because it was now underway. The second is as follows. It
was acceptable to oppose the invasion prior to the actual decision
to invade. Once the decision had been reached, citizens were obliged
to get behind their leaders and support (or at least not oppose)
the invasion.
The
first line of reasoning is flawed. If, prior to doing X, doing X
is wrong, then it follows that doing X is wrong while X is being
done. There does not appear to be any reason to believe that what
is wrong becomes right simply in virtue of its being done. If this
sort of reasoning was legitimate, there would be no wrong actions
- what was wrong would become right in virtue of its implementation.
Given that this is absurd, the reasoning must be flawed. Further,
this sort of "reasoning" is not accepted outside of politics.
People do not say, for example, that they believed that selling
tainted food was wrong, but it is acceptable now because they learned
a company is actually selling tainted food. If there is a difference
between these cases and the political situation, then the burden
of proof is on those who would claim such a difference. Thus, if
the invasion was wrong before it was underway, rolling the troops
in did not make it right.
People
can, of course, change their moral views and be justified in doing
so. But, as has been shown, the mere fact that an action is underway
does not justify such a change on rational grounds.
The
second line of reasoning has a certain legitimacy. It is an accepted
principle that within a democracy the citizens are obligated to
follow the decision of the majority. The basis for this principle
is found in the work of John Locke. He argues that when an individual
consents to be part of the political body she obligates herself
to accept the will of the majority. Without such an obligation there
could be no state - the minority would split away from the majority,
destroying the state and returning the people to the state of nature.
Since this is undesirable, it is best to preserve the state by going
along with the majority.
Given
this principle, the citizens who opposed the invasion had a right
to express this view and to attempt to get others to agree with
them. However, once the decision was made to invade Iraq, the citizens
were then obligated to graciously submit to the will of the majority
as they would have expected others to submit had they proven victorious.
Thus, once the invasion was underway, the citizens who opposed it
would now be obligated to support it.
While
this principle is part of what makes the democratic state possible,
it must also be noted that throughout history the majority has accepted
terrible policies and procedures involving such things as slavery
and genocide. It seems intuitively wrong to obligate individuals
to support such things simply because the majority has decided in
their favor. Thus, it might be tempting to accept that individuals
have a right to oppose the decision of the majority.
Before
giving into this temptation, it must be noted that majorities have
established justice, freedom and equality against the wishes of
minorities. The right of women to vote, the end of slavery, and
school desegregation were all brought about over the opposition
of political minorities. It might be argued that the minorities
had no right to oppose such noble purposes. The underlying principle
is that when the majority is correct and the minority is wrong,
then the minority lacks the right to oppose the majority. The problem
is that the majority will almost certainly regard itself as morally
correct and as justified in forcing the minority to go along. The
principle that the minority can oppose the majority when the majority
is in the wrong raises a similar problem - the minority will almost
always regard the majority as being wrong, otherwise there would
be no disagreement.
While
the disagreement creates the problem, it also presents the solution.
The minority is obligated to cooperate with the majority to preserve
the state but also because the majority could be right. The majority
is obligated to allow the minority to oppose the decision because
the minority could be in the right. The state, as Socrates would
agree, needs its gadfly. Thus, those who opposed the war still have
the right to oppose it even after the majority has decided to go
to war. In fact, if Socrates is right, they are being good citizens.
Provocations
will next be updated early June 2003
Join
Our Café mailing list
To
receive *very* short messages, letting you know when the Café
has been updated, just fill in your email address below - and press
submit.
[If
you wish to unsubscribe from the mailing list, simply fill in your
subscriber email address, select "Unsubscribe", and press Submit.]
Previous
Provocations
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
|
