Krauthammer's psychopathic utilitarianism

This started as an update to today's intended post, but grew long enough to justify breaking up. You should probably read that post first, before you come back to this one.

---

Charles Krauthammer addresses some of these points in an op-ed piece in the Washington Post today, and unsurprisingly seems to draw the wrong conclusion. But what really makes his piece rich is the following bit of amoral Machiavellian posturing:

Some people, however, believe you never torture. Ever. They are akin to conscientious objectors who will never fight in any war under any circumstances, and for whom we correctly show respect by exempting them from war duty. But we would never make one of them Centcom commander. Private principles are fine, but you don't entrust such a person with the military decisions upon which hinges the safety of the nation. It is similarly imprudent to have a person who would abjure torture in all circumstances making national security decisions upon which depends the protection of 300 million countrymen.

(emphasis added)

It's that mentality, which is simply, plainly cretinous, that explains why America has frequently gotten the leaders we deserve and not the leaders we've needed. "Private principles are fine, but...." Yes, clearly: why would you want a President or Congressman to have scruples? Never mind the irony of the specific fact that the central theme of Mr. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign was that he would restore honor and character to the White House--there's no need to tar Mr. Bush with Mr. Krauthammer's blatant assholery, even he doesn't deserve it and it's only fair to consider that Mr. Bush may, like Lyndon Johnson decades before him, have agonized over the moral consequences of his bad decisions (I am trying to be even-handed, here, and give Mr. Bush some small benefit-of-doubt that may be unearned). No, consider what Mr. Krauthammer is saying as a matter of general principle: it's okay for moral people to exist as marginal characters, like conscientious objectors, just don't give them any actual responsibilities because they'll only mess everything up. (Actually, maybe he's onto something: Richard Nixon was raised a Quaker, and we all know how that turned out; then again, there's no evidence Mr. Nixon actually learned anything from his spiritual upbringing, so nevermind.)

In essence, Mr. Krauthammer's specious argument is a rationale for electing psychopaths to office. After all, if the safety of the nation at the expense of its soul is the only consideration, then where do you draw the line in Mr. Krauthammer's ends-based (a)moral calculus? A psychopathic President and Congress will not merely be willing to order torture and send men and women in uniform to their possible deaths without flinching, but together are presumably capable of taking all other steps necessary for national security: spying on citizens, rounding up undesirables, establishing work camps where the counterproductive efforts of dissenters and minorities can be channeled into useful production of matériel for the mother state, and mass executions if necessary for the general welfare. Mr. Krauthammer isn't defending George Bush, he's defending fascism, making an argument with unplumbed depths that even former Vice-President Cheney wouldn't have contemplated.

Leaving aside the point that Mr. Krauthammer's "facts" are largely wrong--e.g. there's no reason to think establishing a rapport with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would have failed, since it doesn't appear to have been tried at all before the CIA turned to waterboarding Mr. Mohammed one-hundred and eighty-three times in March, 2003 (i.e. a year-and-a-half after Mr. Krauthammer's "aftermath of 9/11")--the bigger issue is really that his entire apologetic for torture is immoral and wrong, wrong, wrong. And it's baffling that seemingly-moral people will make similar arguments as if they're self-evident: I know few (if any) people who will claim that the end justifies the means in any other context, but as soon as one raises the "ticking time bomb" canard, otherwise empathic, rational and generally decent human beings will totally lose their shit. Utilitarianism has never been so in, but one doubts John Stuart Mill would find any comfort there.

Krauthammer is just as galling when he writes:

(To call some of the other "enhanced interrogation" techniques -- face slap, sleep interruption, a caterpillar in a small space -- torture is to empty the word of any meaning.)

To which one can only reply with the uncivil, "What a total asshole." Mr. Krauthammer disingenuously ignores the fact that torture involves a methodology and routine, and is not merely one simple small act administered once. Indeed, here are other things that are not torture, per Krauthammer's moronic attempt at duplicity: pinpricks, tiny little shocks from a battery, having to hold your arms at an awkward angle, leaky faucets, and the inconvenience of being a little chilly. Accordingly, the iron maiden, electrocution, stress positions and being hung by the arms, the water torture (name notwithstanding), and being hosed down while naked and left in a dungeon are not torture and calling them that is to empty the word of any meaning. Thank you, Mr. K.; where were you when the Ceauşescus needed you the most?

One reason that bit of blather might get more attention from me than it deserves: as I've written in this space before, the thing that gets me most about the caterpillar business is how downright Orwellian it is, echoing the climactic scenes of 1984 in Room 101, in which Winston is presented with the "worst thing in the world." In his case, it's rats; in Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's case it was bugs. The horror in 1984--and the scene is truly a horrific scene--is not that Winston is ever in any real physical danger: Orwell's description makes it quite clear that the small cage into which Winston's head is bound is gated so the rodents can't get anywhere near Winston's face, and anyway it certainly wasn't Oceania's point to have a dissident's face ripped to shreds. No, the horror that Orwell understood and conveyed to a forgetful posterity is the horror of getting inside another person's head and using it to break their soul (Winston betrays the woman he loves within seconds; that's only a spoiler if you're too innocent to be reading the novel in the first place--there's no room for a happy ending in 1984). Orwell's state is a dehumanized one, and Room 101 is the singular, iconic, beyond-all-redemption symbol of the how and why of Oceania's fundamental, nightmarish inhumanity. Is that really what Krauthammer would have us become?

Krauthammer gets one thing right, wrongly: he closes with an indictment of Congressional leaders like Representative Nancy Pelosi for knowing about torture, saying nothing then, and being outraged now. He says Pelosi et al. should have said something then, by which he clearly really means they should shut up now. He's right that they should have said something then, he's right that there's some shallowness or hypocrisy in only laying claim to a conscience now. And that is a national shame and that's a reason Congressional leaders who stood idly by should be investigated and, if merited, censured by their respective legislative body or criminally prosecuted if their actions or inaction rose to such a level as to incur criminal culpability. I suspect that Mr. Krauthammer, being a jackass, mistakes outcry for partisanship; on the contrary, if Democrats behaved unethically or committed crimes, they should be held as accountable as anyone. And if the nation sinned by ignoring what was done allegedly for our sakes and in our names, our sins must be expiated, not buried.