I think I have too many susbstantive points to make about your thoughts here, so I'm going to have to pick some of them almost at random. But I can respond to the basis and core of your theory. This is what you highlighted and evidently thought was the deepest of your insights:



"This is a perfect example of why you should not make decisions based on politics instead of principle. It is easier to fight for your principles vs. fighting for a bad political decision"



From your boldfacing, you seem to think this was the greatest of your insights here. I find the idea petty and puerile in any discussion of democratic politics for the simple and obvious point that all practical politics, even principle politics, involves vast amounts of compromise and what is now referred to as "triangulation" to refer to the process of targeted caving in on issues.

There is virtually no such thing as a sucesful politician who does not most of the time engage in both various dilutions of or backtracks on core principles.



Actually, that's not true. There are some political people who run mainly on principle politics. They're called losers. Because compromise and political reversals are a simple fact of life for any politician. All of them. Name one on the big stage, any one. All of them. Compromise/cave-in guys.



This is not to say you can't have politicians who have their eye on the principles they came in with. That isn't what I said. But you made the crucial lack of distinction between a politician's overall principles and his voting on any particular issue based on principle. Principled man versus principled particular: Those are two entirely different universes.



This makes your observation silly on the one hand or irrelevant on the other, depending on how literally we take you. It ain't good that things have to be this way, but what the fuck, eh? That's the world.



And that's why so many politicians get so lost: this is a tough world constantly filled with juggling acts that make you need your best judgment on what battles are the best to fight and which ones are selling out your larger goals. It's tough as shit to figure all that out and that's why so many people fail. A general principle is the last place to apply to a technical question. It simply has to be looked at in cost benefit.



I make a lot of these two sentences because they are important in understanding the essential difficulty in the basic structure of democracy. In fact, I would say the call of principle is the single greatest inner conflict facing all statesmen, and I think statements like the one you made are



It is not easier to fight from conviction. Often, it's the hardest thing. Just as often, it's something that will work against your largest goals, and set you back even further.



You and I can both afford our convictions. We're not in office. I think I need to write the rest in another letter.

By the by- I did not mean that as an attack on you. I was attacking your idea alone. I'm normally one who loves vituperation and spoils for a good fight, but in this rare instance I did not mean anything except an attack on an idea alone. Please don't take it that way. I'm rather excited to find someone as articulate as you are, to tell the truth.

To quote you:



"I would also point out that I don’t mind countries trying to influence other nations as long as they do so openly...I have no problems with them using the tools at their disposal"



Here we clearly disagree. Sanctions are tools to be used at disposal, to that point we agree. This is doubly true if it gets the other guy to do the right thing.



However, this was not a simple use of sanctions. The hypocrisy of the sanction situation is not the problem. It's the fact that sanctions were used to influence an internal election. Just fifty years ago, this would have been an act of war. Internal elections are not where you're allowed to go, and it doesn't take much imagination to figure out why that is so.



To use an obviously extreme counter example, but one that is just as legitimate logically, our F-15 bombers are a very effective way to get the Norwegians to back down off the WTO ruling, but let's just say there are other issues at stake, yes?



There is a large superpower that is acting unilaterally and agressively and attacking countries that are not a threat. And dammit, Europe should cut it out. The EU is telling people who they should vote for in other countries, telling people what they can put as far as political content on the net (France told several sellers they could not "produce hate literature" or sell Nazi memorabilia over the net: let me be clear on that. They said Americans couldn't sell this to Americans or say it to Americans in America. That is an act of war). This is more important than all the other issues here.



"Using the tools at their disposal" is another one of those very dangerous answers.

James,

Thank you for your comments. I did not take offence; I enjoy differing opinions so long as they are backed up by reasoning (as yours are). And I appreciate the compliment. I also find the juxtaposition of our two disagreements amusing.



In the second case, you are arguing Europe should be more principled in their actions, while I think that naïve. Europe has no other way to affect most foreign policy than by economic policies and words. Most of the European nations have small militaries, and even those with strong forces lack the logistics to project their force over a significant distance. So I think it natural that Europe would use economic threats if they think it will gain their objectives while you find it wrong. The only thing I find unprincipled about the EU policy is their hypocrisy, not their desire to influence American policy. I think we both clearly understand the other’s perspective on this – we simply disagree about whether this is wrong.



In the first case, I am arguing President Bush should have been more principled and you think I am being naïve (or “petty and puerile” in your words). Interesting contrast with the second case, no?



I strongly disagree with your assertion that major politicians cannot run by principle. George Washington is perhaps the best example of a principled president. Of course, Washington may have been a special case. I am currently reading a book about Gouverneur Morris (http://search.barnesandnobl...), one of the more obscure founding fathers, and the author opines that Washington set too high a bar for others to emulate. This may be true, virtually every historical account of Washington shows him to have been one of the most ethical leaders in history. In more recent times, Ronald Reagan set a pretty good example. I am not claiming he was perfect, but he was guided by several core principles, he ran on these principles, and he did not betray these principles.



It is possible, we are not far apart in truth. You seem to be confusing my point that leaders should be principled with a belief that I said leaders should never compromise. These are two distinct issues. Yes, politicians sometimes need to compromise to accomplish things. Not always, but many times. As the old cliché has it, half a loaf is better than none. An example of this would be Reagan accepting increased spending in return for a major tax cut. Allowing Americans to keep more of their money was a core belief for Reagan and while he wasn’t happy with the increased spending, he was willing to compromise on this to ensure Americans were relieved of some of their tax burden.



However, upon what principle did President Bush stand when he enacted the steel tariffs? Protectionism? The man ran as a free trader and positioned free trade as one of his principles. The decision to implement the tariffs was not a compromise of his principles, it was a betrayal of them. I trust you see the difference between a compromise that obtains something for your core principles and a politically motivated decision that betrays a core principle in an attempt to gain votes for reelection.



Thus, I stand by my statement. It is far easier (and more likely) for one to stand and fight for a core principle than for a decision that was made for political expediency. Core principles remain constant and are always worth the fight. Politically expedient decisions may no longer remain expedient with the passage of time, thus they may not be worth a fight.

James,

My previous comment addressed the issues where I thought a dialogue would be productive. However, since you feel that the fact that the threatened retaliatory tariffs “were used to influence an internal election” is “more important than all the other issues here”, I will briefly comment on this too.



All sanctions and retaliatory tariffs exist to achieve one or more political goals. They are a legitimate tool of governments that falls well short of war. I think they should actually be used more than they are – Clausewitz stated "War is the continuation of politics by other means". If nations used their existing tools more effectively, there would be less need for war. For every level of disagreement, the leaders of each nation has to measure what is at stake, the cost of pursuing a change in policy, and the cost of not pursing a change.



I do not see why you believe “Internal elections are not where you're allowed to go, and it doesn't take much imagination to figure out why that is so.” We interfere in the internal reign of nations all the time. When countries started to break away from the Soviet Union, we strongly supported those seeking independence. When we place sanctions on Iraq, it was with the stated goal of encouraging regime change (it was ineffective, but that is another issue). Do you the principle behind this was wrong? In a less dramatic fashion, this is what the EU threatened to do to us. In this particular case, the EU was very wise in their choice of items with which to pressure President Bush. It remains to be seen if they will pay a high cost for this, but if this were an isolated incident, I do not think they would. If this is just one incident of many, they will eventual reap what they sow.



Ignoring the ethics of your F-15 scenario, this would indeed be a political option. However, the cost to the US would be extremely high for this and it would never be considered.



I will point out that President Bush is certainly intervening in the internal affairs of Germany. Schroeder, who has done more to sabotage German-American relations than any German leader since WWII, is on Bush’s black list and Bush has taken many steps to greatly reduce Schroeder’s chances of being reelected in 2006 (http://www.solport.com/roun...). This is one of the areas where I support Bush. But it sounds like you would disagree with our President. Is this accurate?



Now if I were in charge of the US, I would be using our markets as an immense carrot and stick. Any country that had zero tariffs for our goods could trade here. All others could not. Period. The EU, China, Japan, and many others would scream. But since we have the largest market in the world, they would eventually comply. If they did not, their economies would suffer and there would be regime change (at least in the democracies). Economic pressure actually works bests against democratic governments as these leaders cannot afford to take the long view if they wish to remain in power – especially if their core constituency thinks their leaders got them into the mess. And this brings us back to our current situation, most Republicans blame Bush for signing the steel tariffs in the first place. Thus, Bush caved in because the steel tariffs were no longer politically expedient and were not a core value for his main constituency.

I spent rather some time making a distinction, because I was pretty sure you'd not make the distinction it ran on. I was right:



"I strongly disagree with your assertion that major politicians cannot run by principle."



I didn't say they couldn't run on principle. I said that making any single decision based on principle is in contravection of the larger game. So any particular decision needs to have a large question asked: does this help the larger principle or doesn't it? You can easily waste your time and political capital on making every small steel tarrif decision based on principle, but then you could lose an election or lose a vote on something closer to your heart, understand?



I'm saying that reality intrudes on simplistic forumula. Of all people, George Washington knew about the stratgegy of principled decision making, and was never one to waste

The difference between him and Bush was that, given a bit of historical guesswork, he probably would have made the better choice.



You make the point that he should have made the no-tarrif choice to begin with. Agreed. But that wasn't what I attacked. As I've said now four times, I agree that this particular choice was a bad one. What I attacked was your overarching idea of blanket based formula to make decisions. This is why we elect people and not party platforms.



I did not call the decision on tarrifs petty and puerile, I called your statement of vast generalization puerile. It is. It's one of those fluffy and airy statements that bears no relation to reality. On any one decision, a mandate to act based on principle or political platform is a dumb idea. It is.

James,

I think we both have such different mindsets on some issues that it clouds communications. I am sorry I missed the distinction on which you so labored, but your writing did not clearly communicate your point to me.



Let me try again with just your last post. If I follow your current thinking, you assert "that making any single decision based on principle is in contravection" [sic; contravention?] "of the larger game". And you still assert that my generalization that one should make decisions based upon principles instead of politics to be "puerile" and a "fluffy and airy statement that bears no relation to reality".



The contrast between our worldviews is much larger than I initially thought. Allow me to clarify a few misconceptions and then I will elaborate on the differences in our worldviews. I never advocated using a blanket formula to make decisions; rather, I stated that decisions should be based on principles. I hope you see the distinction. I agree a leader is needed to make decisions. For example, sometimes various principles run afoul of each other (e.g. property rights vs. the government’s right to tax) and a leader must fight for the best compromise he can obtain. Or in your words, "any particular decision needs to have a large question asked: does this help the larger principle or doesn't it?" I certainly agree with that sentiment, it was the implied point in my Ronald Reagan example.



However, this supports my initial statement. All decisions should be guided by principles. Political consideration are important, but should always be second to principle. Placing political considerations first is amoral -- at best -- and also results in bad decisions that are difficult to defend. We have already discussed the flawed steel tariff past the point of diminishing returns so I will use another example.



During the Cold War, American foreign policy supported virtually any nation that opposed the communists. This decision placed political consideration ahead of principled decisions as we found ourselves supporting third-world dictatorships just so they would not support the Soviet Union. In my opinion, this was a major mistake. It may have had short-term benefits, but our unprincipled support of dictators caused many long-term problems whose costs greatly outweighed the minor benefits gained by these politically expedient decisions.



We may never agree on this, but not only do I prefer the principled approach from an ethical basis, I prefer the principled approach from a logical basis. It results in better decisions.