Moral Red Lines

In a recent podcast (Common Sense 303) Dan Carlin spoke of moral red lines.  They are those proverbial lines in the sand that we cannot cross without running the danger of becoming something else.  He spoke extensively of torture -- not the isolated incident, not of the ticking time bomb variety, but of programmatic and state sanctioned torture -- as one of those red lines.  He was specifically referring to those statements made during the candidacy of the donald -- that, if elected, he would use "water boarding and more" to get the information he needed to prevent future terrorist attacks.  He also seemed to sanction the killing of innocents -- e.g. the families of terrorists -- as a preventative or deterrent measure.  He believes, and I would agree, that both programmatic torture and the deliberate targeting of innocents cross a moral line that cannot be uncrossed.

Let me set aside a couple of things.  Carlin talks about these as well, but it's worth repeating.  We are not talking about the isolated incident perpetrated by the so-called lone wolf.  We have seen this type popularized time and again in the popular media.  The archeype is typically a cop, but it could easily be and has been an intelligence operative, and he is the one that doesn't "go by the book," using methods that are not sanctioned within departmental regulations.  Often these methods include a form of torture, or "police brutality."  While there is friction with the "brass," and occasionally the "unorthodox" methods are called out for sanction, they are nevertheless the one's called upon in difficult situations "to get results."   There are, of course, infinite variations on the archetype, and it seems to have enduring popularity.   We empathize with the "lone wolf," particularly within American culture, and particularly here in the west, where he is a staple of the western -- the gunfighter, for example, called out of "retirement" to deal with a particularly onerous situation.

We normally empathize with the "lone wolf," in part because "their heart is in the right place."  They direct their "methods" only at the bad guys, those who are themselves morally reprehensible, and they don't do it for selfish reasons in the narrow pecuniary or bureaucratic sense.  They're not looking for reward or promotion -- indeed, their "methods" prevent either (too many "brutality" complaints have been lodged).  They are, rather, concerned with "justice," typically conceived as "revenge" against someone who has wrongs someone they "care about," or someone that they come to "care about."  The line goes something like "we'll get the ones who did this," and of course when they do, the "ones who did this" normally give sufficient cause to settle the matter immediately, bang bang, without the slogging process of a court procedure.

OK, we've seen the movie a hundred times.  There are several questions we need to ask, the first of which is this: if their methods are so successful, why aren't they officially sanctioned?  At one level, a purely pragmatic or utilitarian level, we should.  If they do indeed work, the good achieved for the many innocents outweighs the bad perpetrated against the less than innocent bad guys.  Carlin sees it as "personality types," and this type he labels the "ends justify the means" sorts.  He assigned Dick Cheney to this category, and apparently the donald belongs there as well.  His repeated insistence on "success" gives moral sanction only to those who are "successful," to the point where people like John McCain, the "loser" who allowed himself to be captured and as a consequence who endured torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese, are not to be considered "war heroes."  By definition, he was not "successful."  If he didn't want to be tortured, he shouldn't have allowed himself to be captured.  If the donald were to elevate his stature to "war hero," if he were to object to his torture and the torture of others on purely moral grounds, he would put constraints on his own actions and  for the donald such constraints would impede his pursuit of "success."  At least the donald is consistent in recognizing that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If we torture, we cannot object their torture, and the question Carlin asks is simply this:  do we want to live in a world where torture is "unobjectionable?"

Probably not, but what would insure that we do not?  In the movie, however, the lone wolf doesn't bump up against a morally outraged bureaucracy.  He bumps up against a bureaucracy that is at best cynical, at worst corrupt.  Typically, if the bureaucracy is simply cynical, it doesn't call upon the lone wolf until the pressure to solve the crime is so great that he doesn't have a choice.  The mayor is getting too much bad press, and continued failure to solve the crime jeopardizes his chances of re-election, or the lieutenants chances of promotion, or the like, and the lone wolf becomes the "necessary evil."  If the bureaucracy is corrupt, well, typically, they make the fatal assumption that they can deal with the lone wolf once he has served his purpose.  I say "fatal mistake" because, in the movie, of course, their corruption is always brought to light coincident with the fall of the bad guys.   They all get their comeuppance.  

In the movie, that is, bureaucracy is never portrayed as a force for "justice," or even "ethical consistency," but as an impediment to the success of the "lone wolf," and his success is the only driving imperative.  He must achieve justice for the wronged, or rescue the child, or ...  and time is running out, the bomb is ticking ...  We have seen the movie.  It shouldn't surprise us that the donald taps into these archetypes, or that his media soaked followers cheer him on when he does so.  Indeed, as several have noted, the conservatives themselves have created the likelihood of a trump when they rail against "big government," which is assumed to be at best a cynical, at worst a corrupt impediment to "success."   The donald is simply the gunslinger who is answering the call to run for sheriff, and he is the successful one to save the good citizens of Deadwood.  So, back to the question:  do we want to live in a world where, for example, torture is "unobjectionable?"

Probably not, and unfortunately it is bureaucracy, government, that insures we do not.  It is the bureaucracy that insists, ultimately, that these means, -- violations of the geneva convention and torture, violations of 4th amendment, and so on -- will never be used, and if used, the perpetrator will themselves be subject to sanction.  If our bureaucracies turn out to be too cynical, or too corrupt, or just an impediment to "success," the answer is not necessarily LESS bureaucracy, but a BETTER more consistent, more efficient bureaucracy.  In my world, that means one more responsive to the people, but not so responsive that it bends to the will of the lynch mob.   It must be a force for ethical consistency, and if we do elect a Donald Trump, it is the bureaucracy that will save us from the putative savior.