|
By Ira Sharkansky
 JERUSALEM—
Seventy years ago, a distinguished scholar documented one of the keystones of politics: politicians have abnormally large egos. (Harold Lasswell, Psychopathology and Politics)
His finding is worth remembering in the context of emerging issues. Policy failures continue to hurt because people of big egos have trouble admitting mistakes.
American history, wealth, and military power may contribute to unusual egos in a field where even the leaders of small and pathetic states think of themselves in grand terms. It is certain that the mistakes of American leaders touch directly more people than the mistakes of national leaders elsewhere. There are more Americans than residents of most other countries to feel the problems associated with errors of domestic variety. The world spread of American aspirations means that poor judgment in the White House has greater impact that errors coming out of other national capitals.
There is no shortage of examples.
Vietnam would be prominent on many peoples' list of flawed activities. It also illustrates the continuation of a policy beyond the time when many perceived it was hopeless. It is reasonable to date that point with Lyndon Johnson's decision not to run for re-election in 1968. Lots of Americans, including ranking officials, had decided earlier that there was no hope to maintaining a decent South Vietnamese government that could resist the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese. The war continued for another five years beyond Johnson, and 40 percent of American military deaths occurred after his admission of failure.
Vietnam also illustrates that political loyalty as well as ego get in the way of rational assessment. Individuals committed to the memory of John Kennedy say that he would have pulled out of Vietnam. No one can verify the claim. Supporters rely on Kennedy's pondering withdrawal options, but Johnson and Nixon also pondered the possibilities. What the claims tell us is that friends and enemies mark political lineups, and get in the way of deciding who could have done what.
Yet another example of policy failure appears in the war on drugs. Enforcement is a key element, and shows up in an American prison population five times higher (per 100,000 population) than the average among countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data from the OECD also show that the United States ranks close the highest among affiliated countries in the use of cannabis, amphetamines, and ecstasy.
Insofar as the war on drugs dates to the first Nixon administration, one might conclude that it has not worked.
Stopping the flow of drugs from source to market illustrates another failing. Not only do policymakers have problems in admitting that they are not successful, but they find themselves deeply involved in the drug economy thanks to another policy that is failing. Afghanistan is the opium super
Go to the top of next column
|
|
power. Efforts to remake that miserable place are stumbling on the involvement of America's friends in the mother lode of the Afghan economy.
Drugs are not the only explanation for failure in Afghanistan, and they may not be the principle reason. Another is the folly of trying to create government in a place that never was a united country. The United States started to go wrong when it sought to bolster Afghans and other Muslims as proxies in the Cold War against the Soviet Union, instead of relying on the morass of Afghanistan to frustrate the Soviets all by itself. Somewhat down that twisted road came 9-11. Since then the Americans have added to Islamic extremism in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States continues to fumble as aspiring manager of world order. It is threatening by its good intentions the one strong democracy in the Middle East. Where have the president and his advisors learned more about the region than individuals who have spent their lives in it? The pieces of failure appear in efforts to extract movement from Arab governments, the Palestinians and Israelis, seeming to overlook decades of failure going back to when the British tried some of the same things in the 1930s, when Bill Clinton tried along with Ehud Barak, and Ehud Olmert tried again under the prodding of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice.
Extremists say it is all Israel's fault. Moderates claim that Israel holds a key in a settlement freeze that could unlock Arab rejectionism. Both should be embarrassed by the report issued by Richard Goldstone. Especially bizarre is a quotation from his daughter. Claiming from a home in Canada that she "love(s) Israel more than my family and friends and anything else," she adds no credibility to her father.
Goldstone may have hardened the position of the Palestinians as well as angering Israelis. Senator Mitchell is returning home with little or nothing to show for his recent efforts.
We should no more expect Barack Obama to admit that he has been wrong about the Middle East or Afghanistan than we should expect John Kennedy to come back from the dead and admit that he was wrong about Vietnam, or Richard Nixon to declare failure for the war on drugs.
Politics is the most civilized way of dealing with disputes. If done well, it allows for reasoned dispute, and settles disagreement by voting. It does not work without party loyalty in anything larger than a tiny town. Slogans are part of the game. Americans screeching "socialism," "rationing," and "death committees" about a health initiative demonstrate the limits of reason.
Wisdom and good luck are essential in avoiding the personal costs of failed policies. Stay away from drugs, and try to avoid the cross fire between those involved in the trade. Do not volunteer for foolish military adventures, and urge the same to children and grandchildren. Israelis hope that their national leaders are wise enough to resist threats, blandishments, and faux judicial pronouncements.
It might help to vote for candidates with modest aspirations, assuming that any can be found.
Good smells from the kitchen. No policy failure there. Shana tova.
|
|
