The American public and Afghanistan
Political judgement
With Shalev Roisman, I published an op-ed in the Christian Science Monitor on the role domestic support should play in Pres. Obama’s pending decision on whether to escalate in Afghanistan.
The main argument raises questions about the obligations of democratically elected leaders:
Ideally, when leaders deliberate over a proposed foreign policy, they consider whether it furthers the national interest, not whether the public supports it at the moment. A paradox of US democracy is that people expect their officials to ignore them from time to time.
Leaders generally depend on two assumptions when making foreign-policy decisions: (1) that the public will support what emerges as good policy over the long term, and (2) that a foreign policy’s effectiveness is divorced from domestic public support.
Under normal circumstances, the public could expect Mr. Obama to focus only on the question of whether the war’s goals are worth its costs, ignoring the transitory polls.
The situation in Afghanistan, however, throws this model out the window. Today, the American public is the newest front in winning the conflict in Afghanistan.
Obama’s consideration of public opinion shows that the administration recognizes that the public might not support even a successful long-term effort, and this lack of support might doom an otherwise effective mission.
This raises the subsidiary issue about what it would mean for a policy to be good, but for the public to disprove of it over the long-term. The reply requires yet two more assumptions. First, that the public is sufficiently reasonable and rational, a necessary assumption for the viability and legitimacy of a democratic system. And second, that standards of justice and good policy exist independent of what the public believes at the moment; good policy is justified on grounds of reason that are true regardless of what the public thinks at a given time. The reply is thus that over the long-long-term, the public must support whatever emerges as good policy. What makes it good policy is justified on reasoned grounds and the sufficiently reasonable, rational public will come to see the argument eventually. One caveat to this is that there exist questions of pure taste–such as who to build a public statue of or possibly whether to build an opera house–the answers to which are entirely dependant upon what the public wants.
One problem with the general case, however, is that if a leader takes on serious public opposition, he may not be vindicated in time to save his job. I imagine most people would believe that in that case–where the politician will lose his job–it would be virtuous for the him to do what he thought was right. If that holds, then it reveals a little bit about the definition of ”judgment”, as in “people elect leaders to use their judgment, not to follow polls.” Judgment means something distinct only if it entails the possibility of ignoring the people.
Judgment in this way is democratically legitimate only on the above grounds, that public opinion will be different over the long-long-term.
-Jake
Related posts:
- Is Afghanistan a just war?
- Obama and Afghanistan
- The American Dream and self-resect
- Guest post: Majority rules?
- History helps
ShareComments
2 Responses to “The American public and Afghanistan”
Leave a Reply
di read the article by Jacob Bronsther and Shalev Roisman titled “NATO moves toward more troops for Afghan war” and, in my humble opinion, is not in the interests of the United States to remain in Afghanistan.
First, the mission of our soldiers has been poorly defined. Second, we are not winning. Third, Afghanistan is a paychwrk of tribal loyalties: there are Pashtoons, Uzbeks, Tadjiks, Hazaras who owe no loyalty to the natin.
And finally, there is the matter that Afghanistan is unconquerable, as exemplified by the experiences of the British, the Russians and now, us.
Of course, there is no satisfactory exit strategy when yhou are not winning, but it is mperative that our troops leave Afghanistan as soon as possible.
I read with interest your article. I was born during WWII. All I have ever known is that I live in a country that constantly finds reason to war.A war NEVER solves problems. It is a feat of insanity that the people put up with them.War is a game that the rich play with the poor as pawns.
The empire is imploding with poor schools, inferior health system, homelessness on the rise, and much poverty. Stan M. needs to pick up his big boy toys and go home.
Let Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck runs these countries for all I care. We have NO busines there. US GET OUT OF EVERYWHERE