Kaplan: Morality a Threat to National Security

by Will Wilkinson on June 18, 2007

Robert D. Kaplan, well, sort of disgusts me:  

Never-say-die faith, accompanied by old-fashioned nationalism, is alive in America. It is a match for the most fanatical suicide bombers anywhere, but with few exceptions, that faith is confined to our finest combat infantry units—and to specific sections of the country and socio-economic strata from which these “warriors” (as they like to call themselves) hail. They are not characteristic of a country in many ways hurtling rapidly in the opposite direction. This is not the 1950s, when Americans felt a certain relief in possessing “the bomb.” Fifty years later, most Americans feel a certain relief in never having to even hear about “the bomb.”

Faith is about struggle, about having confidence precisely when the odds are the worst. Faith is the capacity to believe in what is simultaneously necessary but improbable. That kind of faith is receding in America among a social and economic class increasingly motivated by universal values: caring, for example, about the suffering of famine victims abroad as much as for hurricane victims at home. Universal values are a good in and of themselves, and they are not the opposite of faith. But they should never be confused with it. You may care to the point of tears about suffering humankind without having the will to actually fight (let alone inconvenience yourself) for those concerns. Thus, universal values may pose an existential challenge to national security when accompanied by a loss of faith in one’s own political values and projects.

In other words, if you care about the well-being of poor people in other countries more than restoring ROTC to Princeton, you’re flirting with treason. You would think that if “our political values and projects” are in competition with universal values, then that’s a problem with our political values and projects. Perhaps we may wish to reconsider projects like unjustly invading and occupying foreign lands, since it does not seem that this kind of thing makes us less likely to be a target of foreign aggression. Yet Kaplan genuinely seems to believe that truculent fanatic nationalism makes us safer. I fear this kind of mad emotive commitment to America uber alles, this “faith” of which he speaks, almost certainly makes us worse as a people and a culture, and therefore less worth believing in, and fighting for. And more worth hating. 

Are Robert Kaplan essays an existential threat to national security?      

  • ArtD0dger
    Will, If you have such a problem with "political values and projects" that might be in competition with "universal values," do you likewise disdain economic interests and projects in competition with universal economic interests?
  • Mark,

    That is, this is evidence that such classes no longer consider themselves part of the same political corpus as their fellow citizens but view both the starving African and the flood-swept Louisianan as “other.”

    Well then I guess that makes me part of that class, since I kinda see things that way. I've never been to either place, and the people there are roughly on the same moral footing for me. And why *shouldn't* I feel this way? I think this is the missing nationalist argument that Will is looking for like some Rawlsian frickin' Diogenes.
  • Will,

    I don't think you are being fair to Kaplan here. If the political and opinion-making classes care just as much for famine victims in Africa as fellow citizens struck by tragedy nearby, it is almost certainly because they care for their fellow citizens less than they should. That is, this is evidence that such classes no longer consider themselves part of the same political corpus as their fellow citizens but view both the starving African and the flood-swept Louisianan as "other."

    With respect to the Kaplan quote, you should have highlighted the *entire* sentence because the ending fundamentally alters that which you find objectionable. It ends with "when accompanied by a loss of faith in one's own political values and projects." Taken with what is found above, it is clear that Kaplan is not arguing against universal values; he is arguing against a 'morality' that finds nothing really worth defending. Universalist ethics is decried only to the extent that it is used as the crutch the lets such moral cowardice walk.

    Are you seriously arguing that you are *disgusted* by the idea that caring for one's fellow citizens requires action and even personal sacrifice?? Are you really going to argue that it is quite enough to lay claim to universalist moral sentiments while doing nothing to inconvenience yourself...that being a poseur with a big heart is morally superior to getting down in the dirt to help a specific individual in need because that individual is a fellow American (or New Yorker, Brit, German or Iraqi)?

    While you may offer false dichotomies like caring for "poor people in other countries more than restoring ROTC" but you know that that isn't Kaplan's point. The point is that a vibrant political culture at home - one with shared ideals and a strong sense that all citizens are part of "our" people despite differences in ethnicity, creed or color - makes us stronger and better able to deal with the needs and challenges of the outside world. Building such a shared culture, however, takes work and commitment and it may even require a sacrifice.

    I feel sorry for you in a way: it is just sad that you feel 'disgusted' by the 'inconveniences' placed on you by your fellow citizens and that you are so quick to pass them off as "mad emotive commitments" to "truculent fanatic nationalism" when they are nothing of the sort.
  • TGGP
    I would say both universal values and Kaplan are threats to American national security. Both types of thinking converge in the person of George W Bush.
  • Will Wilkinson
    Matt, Thanks, I meant, "unjustifiably".
  • Will, could you explain/justify your use of the word "unjustly" in the above (because it sounds like a category error to my ear)? Or alternatively, you can just repeat after me: "Not all bad policies are unjust policies."

    As far as being "more worth hating" . . . perhaps, but that hate would be hypocritical because by and large be people who it'd be coming from would be behaving much the same way were the shoe on the other foot. The world is largely full of truculent tribalists of one stripe or another.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: