CATO paper

[W. Kiernan]

Henry C.K. Liu wrote:
> 
> "W. Kiernan" wrote:
> 
> > C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> > >
> > > A distressingly cogent analysis from the soi-disant Right...
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Jim_Jatras at rpc.senate.gov (Jim Jatras)
> > > >
> > > > ...and harmed our relationship with Russia, which should be
> > > > among our first priorities -- having vindicated every lie the
> > > > Soviet Union ever told about NATO's aggressive intentions...
> >
> > I hate to sound like a Commie or something awful like that,
> > especially this morning after Memorial Day when, as a U.S. citizen,
> > I ought to be be blur-eyed hung over with patriotism, but how
> > annoying the idea in that sentence.  Mr. Jatras's essay was
> > otherwise pretty reasonable, so I wonder if he was conscious of the
> > illogic there.  What does the word "lie" mean?  If "every" one of
> > them has now been "vindicated," then they were not "lies."
>
> There is no inconsistency or lack of logic in the Cato paper.  The
> American rightwing regards Russia (because of it socialist history
> and potential rebirth) and socialist China as America's fundamental
> enemies.  US policy toward Russia and US "constructive engagement"
> policy on China are merely attempts to moderate hostile trends in
> these countries. Cato's anti-war position over Kosovo is based on the
> logic of effectiveness.  Cato is not against an eventual war with
> these "threatening" nations.  It is only opposed to the wrong battles,
> in the wrong places and at the wrong times, within the definition of
> which Kosovo falls.  As Cato fears, the failure of American policy on
> Kosovo has damaged NATO, enhanced isolationism in the US and
> discouraged future interventionism in cases that really "matter".
> 
> The Left, while opposed to the war, can take comfort that the
> long-term impact of Kosovo may in fact contribute to world peace, not
> because of the success of the moral interventionist policy behind
> it but because of the failure.

I suppose I agree in a logical sense, though it is difficult in an
emotional sense to see the long-term bright side of blowing up nursing
homes, refugee caravans and apartment blocks.

What I objected to was Mr. Jatras's misuse of the word "lie."  Long time
ago, the Soviets accused NATO of intending to overrun the Warsaw Pact
nations by armed force.  Cato & Co. ("Carthago esse delendam") say that
the Soviets were lying when they made that accusation; yet in the same
breath they also say that that accusation has now been vindicated in
every detail.

That's a blatant slip of logic.  The only excuse, and a sorry one it is
at that, is that Mr. Jatras was not thinking carefully and literally
when he described the Soviets as "liars," but instead he was just
passing on an unexamined received idea, a fact-free epithet, as though
he had called them "thugs" or "rats."  Suppose I tell you, for example,
"Saddam Hussein is a stinking dirty rat."  I am not saying anything
material about Saddam, so you can't really accuse me of factual
inaccuracy; I am telling you about the state of my feelings.  But
suppose instead I say "Saddam is a liar."  That would be a testable
assertion of fact, he either is or he isn't.  Now suppose I continue:
"Saddam is a liar; everything he said has now turned out to be true." 
You'd probably conclude that I'm stupid or at least very confused.

Yours WDK - WKiernan at concentric.net