Will or Faith?

Matthew Yglesias has a new theory on the conservative approach to war. He calls it "The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics". It's worth taking the time to read.* He's noticed that hawkish conservatives continually emphasize willpower, resolve, and thinking positively, even in the face of negative data. Matt points out the similarity to the legendary comic book hero, the Green Lantern, who could achieve whatever he wanted, so long as he willed it strongly enough. I too, have noticed a contingent who believe that a failure in Iraq would not indicate a failure of planning, nor even a failure of execution, but rather failure to be confident and strong enough enough in our beliefs to achieve victory. On the surface, it's a strange view to hold.

Reading the various blogs and watching as war cheerleaders alternately praise Operation Today's Big Strike, or bemoan the negativity of the media's war coverage, it does seem like a lot of effort is placed into the management of the national will. And yes, I do see a lot of "tough talk" about resolve, strength, and greatness. But I don't think it's fair to talk about this without contextualizing two themes.

First, we have morale. Morale is a vital component of war and many hawkish statements are made purely to support the war effort itself. I use the word "cheerleader" pejoratively, as someone who continually drums up support, without attention to the bigger picture, but I don't deny them their station. The purpose of cheerleaders is to increase morale and inspire great deeds. They're rooting as hard as they can and trying to inspire a victory. It makes them a little biased and maybe not the best judges of reality, but I think they do help morale. I'd like to think there's a threshold, certain conditions in which we all become cheerleaders. In fact, we came close to that with Afghanistan. The whole world did. Collective will doesn't get stronger than that, and morale doesn't either. The only issue with cheerleaders, is some of them aren't paying attention to what's really important. And they never stop raising morale, even when it's past time to leave the field.

Second, sometimes what is being promoted is not "will", but rather "Faith". A large component of the hawkish crowd simply have faith in the war. Some believe that God means for there to be a democratic Iraq, and that God has chosen us to give it to them. Some have faith in George Bush or faith in democracy. Others have faith that we are a great nation and therefore can win any war under any conditions. A few even just have faith that liberal hippies are inevitably wrong, and thus they must be right. Blind adherence to disfunctional policies, denial of atrocities, and determination not to even hear dissent: these are hallmarks of a dogmatic faith. And, as with many faiths, it must be shared and spread. You either carry the faith, or you're a bad person (Godless, unpatriotic, etc...). I could go into a long characterization of our president as a man of faith, whether it's faith in God, or the faith in himself to quit drinking. But I'll spare you that, and just offer that faith too can be a double-edged sword, it can see people through hard times, but doesn't guarantee you'll win a crusade.

So while I give credit to Matt for highlighting a phenomenology (and in a pretty creative way), I think there is a lot more to be said than: These arguments are comic-book stupid. [update: removed quotes and italicized instead. The preceeding sentence is my interpretation of Matt's post, not an actual quotation.] Rather, I think it could be used to talk about specifics. Under which conditions is it appropriate to cheerlead, and under which to dissent? And how well do people interpret those conditions, biased as we all are by our faith or lack of faith?


*On the surface, Matt's post looks like a stupid allegory, not too dissimilar from the ones I whined about last post. The big difference is Matt doesn't actually ascribe to this mindset, or even propose it seriously. I'd say it's more of a hyperbolic scarecrow argument, not a sophomoric false allegory.