Questions of character and political philosophy

Edward D. Mansfield and Jack Snyder have a good article, Prone to Violence, in The National Interest. Article via Arts & Letters Daily.

THE BUSH Administration has argued that promoting democracy in the Islamic world, rogue states and China will enhance America's security, because tyranny breeds violence and democracies co-exist peacefully. But recent experience in Iraq and elsewhere reveals that the early stages of transitions to electoral politics have often been rife with violence.

These episodes are not just a speed bump on the road to the democratic peace. Instead, they reflect a fundamental problem with the Bush Administration's strategy of forced-pace democratization in countries that lack the political institutions needed to manage political competition. Without a coherent state grounded in a consensus on which citizens will exercise self-determination, unfettered electoral politics often gives rise to nationalism and violence at home and abroad.

Absent these preconditions, democracy is deformed, and transitions toward democracy revert to autocracy or generate chaos. Pushing countries too soon into competitive electoral politics not only risks stoking war, sectarianism and terrorism, but it also makes the future consolidation of democracy more difficult.

This sort of instability was predicted before the war. The ability and willingness to reflect upon history is not one of President Bush's strong suits. The article leads one to reflect on broader issues related to the Bush Administration's ability to perform theoretical analysis and exercise practical reason.

Plato and Aristotle linked qestions of character and virtue with those of justice and the just state. That mode of inquiry has fallen out of favor in modern in political philosophy even though the characters of leaders are much discussed in the everyday political arena. There are interesting questions in this area though.

Does the current conservative ideology promote leaders such as President Bush? One must first inquire into what conservatism amounts to in 2005. The Bush Administration has shredded most of the ideas of traditional conservatism: protection of the Constitution, fiscal restraint, smaller government, prudence in the conduct of international relations, promotion of fair competition and trade, and an enlightened interpretation of Christianity.

It is difficult to determine what is left over after that. Let's call it a me-first attitude in all matters. If President Bush wants it, then he feels it within his right to take it regardless of consequences and accountability. Egoism at it its most elementary.

The Cult of President Bush does not mind. Conservatives keep hoping the coalition will survive the hubris and mistakes so that the Conservative Revolution will live to fight another day. Others to left of that group can't help but comment on the character and virtue of the man. It is just too easy to point out his cynical and hypocritical morals and those of his cronies.

To the extent that the conservative cause has degenerated into a pure and pristine egoism, it appears that modern American Conservatism does and will continue to promote the kind of leadership traits we see in President Bush.

Questions of character and virtue do count in politcal philosophy even though we strive to mute the bad leader's most egoistic tendencies through democratic institutions with checks and balances. Remarking on the character flaws of leaders is relevant when discussing Presidents and members of Congress particularly when the characters of the leaders are served by subverting democratic institutions, laws, and adminstrative policies.