JONATHAN CHAIT MARCH 21, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Matthew Yglesias concedes my point that the efficacy of other humanitarian interventions has nothing to do with the merits of intervening in Libya. But he argues... well, I'm not sure how to characterize his point:
Chait says: “Should we also spend more money to prevent malaria? Yes, we should. But I see zero reason to believe that not intervening in Libya would lead to an increase in in American assistance to prevent malaria.”...
I see no particular reason to think that Libya will have any impact on malaria funding, but I do think the level of malaria funding is impacted over the long term by the existence of a substantial number of people (of which Chait is one) who seem to advocate for humanitarian goals in Africa if and only if those goals can be advanced through the use of military force to kill other Africans.
I don't take this personally. In part that's because I subscribe to the Hyman Roth rule of punditry ("this is the business we've chosen.") In part it's because Yglesias has written before about his belief in the need for more highly charged moralistic language in politics, so I understand that his accusing me of harboring genocidal racist tendencies is just his way of trying to contribute to the public discourse.
To take his accusation at face value for a moment, here is what I take him to be saying: I am indifferent or perhaps mildly hostile to humanitarian goals, but I am positively enthusiastic about killing Africans. Therefore, I am willing to endorse a humanitarian proposal only if it comes added with the sweetener of killing Africans. I don't think that's an accurate description of my views. I do favor increased non-military humanitarian assistance. It's true I don't devote a lot of time to plunging into that issue, but, then, neither does Yglesias. Some writers like to push issues onto the agenda that aren't being discussed. I don't do that very well. I tend to jump into existing debates.
In any case, "killing Africans" is certainly not a condition for me to support a humanitarian intervention. Indeed, I had expressed the hope that possibly Qaddafi would back down on his plans to wipe out the opposition without shots being fired. Yglesias's argument would portray that scenario as being lose-lose for me, but I'm quite certain I would see it as win-win.
Second, Yglesias should really think more carefully about whether his policy of highly-charged moralistic language is helpful to his side of the debate. The situation is that ordinary Libyans grew tired of being governed by a borderline-insane kleptocratic dictator and started peacefully demonstrating against him. Then portions of the military defected. Then the borderline-insane dictator started using his vast store of plundered oil wealth to hire foreign mercenaries to kill his people. Then the people started pleading for foreign governments to help through arms shipments and a no-fly zone, while the borderline-insane dictator broadcast threats to commit mass slaughter.
There are various levels of commitment foreign governments might offer to these rebels -- a no-fly zone, a no-drive zone, arms shipments, or even (though nobody is advocating this) ground troops. Yglesias argues for watching them die, on the grounds that any help for the rebels could lead to a quagmire. I don't agree, though he does have good reasons for his position. But surely he understands that the emotional, moralistic pull of the arguments on my side are at least as strong. My side of the argument would probably lead to the killing of Qaddafi's mercenaries and loyal armed forces. His side would almost certainly lead to the massive slaughter of civilians and the ignoring of their pleas for even minimal support. I think he would do well to keep the argument focused on cold-blooded strategic grounds.
Third, it's more than a little odd that he's focusing on me, when the decision to intervene has been made by the U.S. government, the U.N. Security Council, and the Arab League. That's the position I'm endorsing. I'm not sure why Yglesias is so concerned with his belief that Jonathan Chait loves killing Africans when he's apparently faced with the more significant problem that Barack Obama loves killing Africans.
Sure, he could say that Obama is advocating for intervention in Libya but not stepped-up anti-malarial spending because he's merely working within the confines of the political system as it exists, and not making the perfect the enemy of the good. But that logic would apply to me as well, wouldn't it? I mean, clearly Obama has more influence over the shape of the U.S. political debate than I do.
15 comments
I'm not sure you really address his argument satisfactorily, particularly: "I do think the level of malaria funding is impacted over the long term". If he's right about this than it's a red herring whether or not you like Africans killing each other. He's obviously being snarky about people who favor military interventions over humanitarian aid, btw, not accusing you of wanting to commit African genocide. That's a silly strawman.
- Simon Greenwood
March 21, 2011 at 10:50am
That's one of the problems with calling people or arguments "moral" or "immoral". It's a slippery slope that shuts down reasoned debate and respect for the other person. You start raising immoral straw-men, and claiming that's what your opponent supports. And it's not real -- there's very few positions in the Libya situation that are entirely moral. Get involved, and there's the possibility of killing innocent unarmed bystanders while taking out anti-aircraft installations. Don't get involved, and there's the possibility of "atrocities" against Gaddafi's opponents. Get involved, and even if you "win", who will create the new government? Are they any more or less Democratic or Autocratic than Gaddafi? And America IS in the middle of a Recession, what will spending a few tens of billions of dollars in smart munitions and US military operations have on the "immoral" budget deficit? Will it take our eyes off our "moral" wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I appreciate in recent days, Jonathan has reduced using the "moral" issue as an argument. Keep up the good work.
- AllanL5
March 21, 2011 at 10:52am
Despite your perfunctory protestations to the contrary, Mr Chait, it seems to me as if you were extremely offended, in a very personal way, by Mr Yglesias' argument. I don't know if this is what led you to deliberately mischaracterize what Mr Yglesias wrote or if you just misunderstood him, rendering the rest of your post unintentionally non-sensical. [Hey, it happens to everyone.] Mr Yglesias was not accusing you of taking delight in the slaughter of Africans. He was asserting that you and others seem to consistently favor policies that will kill Africans, in pursuit of some greater goal which justifies the bloodshed. [I would add Arabs as the more prominent example than Africans. Also, African Arabs.] The suspicion many hold is that there are people who write/opine frequently about U.S. national security policy who do not consistently favor using force to achieve humanitarian goals in places like Burma or Ivory Coast, but do consistently argue that the U.S. should use substantial military force against Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, etc., often using the language of rescue and humanitarianism to justify attacks which would or have resulted in considerable "collateral damage." I think this not only bothers Mr Yglesias, it also offends him. I'm sure Mr Yglesias can and will defend himself on this point, but absent a reply from him at this early moment, that's my hunch.
- DC Spence
March 21, 2011 at 11:21am
What Simon said. I'd also add that the issue thus far has not been whether or not to attack Libya but when/how. While you and Obama may agree on attacking you disagreed pretty strongly over the when/how, so saying that you endorse his position is a little short of the truth. Also, it's just not the case that you and TNR have to work "within the confines of the political system as it exists" - you're a liberal magazine!
- NR851651
March 21, 2011 at 11:35am
Yglesias said this: "a substantial number of people (of which Chait is one) who seem to advocate for humanitarian goals in Africa if and only if those goals can be advanced through the use of military force to kill other Africans." DC says this: "Mr Yglesias was not accusing you of taking delight in the slaughter of Africans. He was asserting that you and others seem to consistently favor policies that will kill Africans, in pursuit of some greater goal which justifies the bloodshed." No he wasn't. There is an unmistakeable difference between "if and only if . . . kill other Africans" in Yglesias's formulation and "consistently favor," a watery revision by DC that dilutes the original comment. To that extent, JC was quite legitimate in reading it in the way he did and responding as follows: "In any case, 'killing Africans' is certainly not a condition for me to support a humanitarian intervention" because that is exactly what Yglesias had accused him of.
- ironyroad
March 21, 2011 at 11:59am
Chait is a liberal hawk, right? Liberal hawks are more willing to spend the nation's resources (including lives) in what they believe are humanitarian causes in far off places, such as Libya. The quid pro quo, if I understand Matt's point, is that liberal hawks are more willing to support causes of economic and social liberals (such as malaria eradication) if the economic and social liberals support (or at least don't object too strongly) to the causes of the liberal hawks. Of course, that was the grand bargain that dominated American politics for, what, 30 years. Which achieves the greater good, the causes of the liberal hawks or the causes of the economic and social liberals, is an interesting question for a later day. I would return to Chait's original point, that intervention in Libya must stand on its own, without regard to Iraq, etc. Chait now seems to be saying in this post that intervention must also stand on its own without regard to malaria eradication (or other economic and social liberal causes). In that respect, both Matt and Chait seem to be in agreement: no grand bargain. If I correctly interpret Chait, then forget about a return to the liberal dominance (maintained by the old grand bargain) that, silly me, I thought was the heart and soul of TNR.
- rayward
March 21, 2011 at 12:10pm
I have written here before that Matthew Yglesias is a frequent purveyor of tripe. This goes beyond his usual effort. Jonathan Chait wants to prevent the wanton slaughter of Africans, contra Yglesias. The latter is a moralistic fool of the worst sort. Instead of honestly debating differences of policy, MY lashes out in his usual fashion. He is so like our own roid, except that when he isn't wearing his moralistic glasses, he can think and write at a far higher level than r. I propose a Roid Moralism Award and the first recipient ... envelope please ... is Matthew Yglesias. You say that KC seems extremely offended, DC. Well, no kidding, and I bet you would be too, if a similar post were directed at you. Despite your absurd characterization of MY's words, this was a sneaky ad hominen thrust at Jonathan.
- liberalref
March 21, 2011 at 12:21pm
One thing to add: if malaria were in a position like AIDS was in in the early 1980's, that is relatively confined but in a position to break out, then it would be justified to say pull out all stops to fight it now, now, now. That characterizes a key component of the Libya intervention, that if we don't intervene now, there would be nothing we can accomplish through intervention.
- sighthnd
March 21, 2011 at 12:23pm
IRONYROAD: I think Mr Chait [and yourself] are reading Mr Yglesias too literally. It is easy to make a reasonable statement unreasonable by interpreting every word in its most literal sense, which is what I think Mr Chait has done here. My interpretation of Mr Yglesias' words is a reasonable attack on Mr Chait's position. The interpretation offered by Mr Chait [and yourself] is that Mr Yglesias is accusing Mr Chait of taking delight in the slaughter of Africans for its own sake. That would be an unreasonable, not to mention offensive, attack on Mr Chait's position. My impression of Mr Yglesias from reading him for some time, is that his views are generally reasonable, whether I agree with them or not. Therefore, i interpreted his writing rather differently. As I noted above, hopefully Mr Yglesias will address the subject again and the matter can be settled to the satisfaction of everyone.
- DC Spence
March 21, 2011 at 12:52pm
Irony calls it. What Yglesias said was much more about his own weak argument (others made this cases better) against intervention than anything else. It was a hystercial offensive rant, period.
- WandreyCer
March 21, 2011 at 12:56pm
I meant to write "JC", for Jonathan Chait, and not KC, as I did in my post above.
- liberalref
March 21, 2011 at 1:09pm
"a substantial number of people (of which Chait is one) who seem to advocate for humanitarian goals in Africa if and only if those goals can be advanced through the use of military force to kill other Africans." I've read almost all of your posts for over a year. You've never said anything like I will only support humanitarian aid to Africans unless we get to kill some with our military too. This is just outright a lie, and a horrible lie.
- RHSerlin
March 21, 2011 at 3:07pm
Perhaps he was thinking he used the words, "seem to", but you flat out said, with no preconditions, "Should we also spend more money to prevent malaria? Yes, we should."
- RHSerlin
March 21, 2011 at 3:11pm
Maybe Yglesias would like to live, or die, under Gadhafi and have no one help him.
- RHSerlin
March 21, 2011 at 3:13pm
Maybe Yglesias would like to live, or die, under Gadhafi and have no one help him.
- RHSerlin
March 21, 2011 at 3:13pm