The incipit of an article by Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute on the Afghan debacle (“Having Won, We Chose to Lose” (Wall Street Journal, August 21, 2021) reads:
We Americans like to deceive ourselves.
The meaning of this is obscure. Does it mean that we lie to ourselves and we believe it? But what would be the lesson? That we should not believe ourselves when we lie to ourselves?
The article conclusion repeats:
… once we won, we chose to lose.
Many economists and political scientists must wonder who is that “we” (and what he or she eats in the winter).
It is true that in a state built on a social contract à la James Buchanan, the government is both “us” and “non-us,” which can easily muddle the water. In a deep sense, the state is us only at an abstract “contractual stage,” where general (constitutional) rules are established; while the current government is non-us with hopefully 50%+1 of us. In a shallow sense, it is the opposite: the state is non-us as it enforces, even against temporary majorities, the general constitutional rules unanimously agreed to; while the current government is us because we elected it in the forms prescribed by the constitution. This tension, if not the contradiction, between us and non-us may be inherent in Buchanan’s contractarian view of the classical-liberal state. (In Jean-Jacques Rousseau‘s totalitarian view of contractarianism, the state is always us when each of us ignores his own personal interest in favor of the “general will.”)
Under a state à la David Hume, which is not conceived as the result of a unanimous social contract but instead as a product of history and conventions, neither the state nor the current government is conceived as us. They are always “they.” Going a bit farther than Hume, they are just another organization, sometimes useful, often dangerous. One might think that this approach is more conducive to controlling Leviathan through denying it collective legitimacy, but European history (and a fortiori non-European history) does not seem to concur: Leviathans have generally been worse in Europe than in America, if that is a relevant comparison.
In any event, it is methodologically and politically prudent, when speaking about the US government, to say “the U.S. government,” not “the US” or “we.” And in the case under discussion, here is a minimum conclusion: “we” did not wage and lose the war in Afghanistan because it is not clear who is we.
READER COMMENTS
Phil H
Aug 23 2021 at 10:11am
Here’s a case where I get to agree with PL for once. In the bad old days, when absolute kings claimed literal ownership of all the land and people who made up a country, the “we” was clearly defined. One strongman went to war with another strongman, and all of the assets owned by each strongman (including the people) were legitimate tools to use in that competition. But the advent of democratic government, and then the imposition of things like rules of war which distinguish between combatants and noncombatants have pried open distinctions between citizens and governments, just wars and unjust violence, and it is now not appropriate to simplistically identify all residents of a territory with the goals of its rulers.
Which leaves us wondering what the author of the editorial is doing. And I suggest that she is engaging in identification: actively assuming the identity of a USA fan, in a way that is very similar to being a fan of a sports team.
While it is a bit obnoxious to do that in a newspaper (treat a newspaper like a sports fan publication), I’m not sure it’s a terrible thing. If we all start treating national allegiances more like sports allegiances, we might ultimately settle into a more healthy relationship with the state.
Mark Brady
Aug 23 2021 at 9:17pm
Danielle Pletka is associated with the American Enterprise Institute, NOT the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Neither organization would be happy with your conflating these two public policy institutes!
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 23 2021 at 9:48pm
Thanks, Mark. Correction made.
Jose Pablo
Aug 23 2021 at 10:10pm
Hume went further than “product of history and conventions” to affirm that “nearly all governments are founded in usurpation and conquest”. In the case of the United States and its government, quoting Huemer, “the history is one of conquest. The present territory of the United States was stolen from the Native Americans and then placed under the control of the US government” (The Problem of Political Authority, pg. 22)
On the other hand, I still find inexplicable the attractiveness and use of the concept of “social contract” to explain the “State” or the “we”. The process can be summarized as follows:
1.- you take a very respectable and useful concept: a mutually accepted, legally binding contract
2.- you strip it down of all the characteristics that are meaningful: the contract DOES NOT exists, the contract has not been agreed, signed or even read by any of the contracting parties, one of the alleged signatories actually does not even exist since it is the signature of this very same contract what provides legitimacy to it and brings it into existence (a clear chicken and egg problem).
3.- despite having transformed the initial concept in an empty shell, pretend that all the relevant characteristics that provide legitimacy to the original concept are still there and keep elaborating based on this empty shell.
Using the same method, you could even justify “slavery” by simply bringing to the table than a “slavery contract” could have been signed (remember that the fact that the “contract” did not exist and was not signed is irrelevant).
But not, say Rawls and his friends, the consent is “hypothetical”, you are bound by this “hypothetical” contract because you should have agreed with it if you were a “reasonable” person. This is obviously a joke. Particularly so since it is one of the “contracting parties” the one judging the “reasonability” of the agreement to the other part.
Even the hideous “slavery contract” could be defended on this basis since it was, maybe reasonable, for at least some of the “contracting parties,” to significantly improve the lives of their descendants living in the USA instead of Côte d’Ivoire, Mozambique, or Congo.
That the concept of “social contract” can be seriously mentioned in any discussion is a puzzle to me.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 24 2021 at 4:29pm
Jose: I would have agreed with your last paragraph before I read Buchanan’s The Limits of Liberty. I am just reading Huemer and I find it a bit puzzling that he does not discuss Buchanan’s contractarianism.
stubydoo
Aug 24 2021 at 1:54pm
In the beginning it was George W. Bush. Wisely or foolishly, he did at least kinda-sorta attempt to “win” in Afghanistan. At the time, the general public more or less supported his efforts to “win” in Afghanistan.
Then there was Obama. Wisely or foolishly, he tried even harder to “win” in Afghanistan. At the time, the general public more or less supported his efforts to “win” in Afghanistan.
Then there was Trump. Wisely or foolishly, he completely discarded any kind of attempt to “win” in Afghanistan. I don’t recall there being significant resistance to this stance of his from the general public at the time.
Then there was Biden. Wisely or foolishly, he followed through on Trump’s complete absence of any attempt to “win” in Afghanistan. At this point, the general public’s response to Biden’s approach has been too full of contradictions to indicate any meaningful position on the matter.
Pierre Lemieux
Aug 24 2021 at 4:35pm
Stubydoo: Even assuming no change in any voter’s opinions, you would expect political processes to produce incoherent results. See my Regulation review of Riker’s Liberalism Against Populism and my Independent Review article “The Impossibility of Populism.” We is like crazy.
Comments are closed.