Neoconservatives and the Fallacy of Pascal's Wager
Straussian intellectual and foreign affairs columnist Robert Kagan published an article in The New York Times on Saturday adapted from his latest book.
Kagan argues that there is a crisis in US-European relations, because the two sides do not share the same perception of the relative global threat of "nonliberal" and "nondemocratic" forces to the West. The international legitimacy and very success of the "war on terror" depends on European endorsement, but since they do not share America's urgency about the gathering threat, they are not inclined to give it.
Kagan concludes with an appeal to Pascal's Wager:
Right now many Europeans are betting that the risks from the “axis of evil,” from terrorism and tyrants, will never be as great as the risk of an American Leviathan unbound. Perhaps it is in the nature of a postmodern Europe to make such a judgment. But now may be the time for the wisest heads in Europe, including those living in the birthplace of Pascal, to begin asking what will result if that wager proves wrong.
His appeal to Pascal’s Wager here captures the perverse nature of neoconservative thinking on the war on terror and on government policy in general.
Pascal argued that it is rational, and that you therefore ought, to believe in God roughly on the following grounds. Either God exists or He does not. If He does not exist, then whether you believe in Him or not, the consequences are the same (a normal life, followed by eternal death). But if He does exist, your belief will be rewarded with eternal bliss in heaven, while your non-belief will be punished with eternal death or worse. Therefore, you ought to believe in God.
Similarly, Kagan argues that Europeans ought to believe the gathering threat of global nonliberal and nondemocratic forces -- let's call them "demons"-- is as dire as the U.S. believes.
For either demons exist or they do not. If demons don't exist, then whether Europe believes in them or not, the consequences are the same (the continued prosperity of Western liberal democracy). But if they do exist, then the consequences of not believing in them are dire (the downfall of Western liberal democracy), while the consequences of believing in them are strongly positive (American power, supported by international legitimacy, brought to bear on the demons).
There are many problems with the Wager argument, but I want to focus on one that captures what is especially troubling about the neoconservative mindset, namely that it fails to distinguish theoretical and practical rationality (and by extension, intelligence and policy).
One cannot believe anything one likes at will. Beliefs by nature aim at the truth. One cannot believe something without believing it to be true. Whether we ought to believe that God or Kagan's demons exist, therefore, depends on what we think is true.
Factual questions are properly settled by examining the available evidence. They can’t be properly settled by considering what’s beneficial for you to believe, because what’s beneficial for you to believe doesn’t necessarily correspond with what’s true.
This is why we traditionally have a firewall between the intelligence and policy-making spheres of government. Since the purpose of intelligence gathering is to determine the facts, it must be kept separate from the corrupting influence of policy-makers. Facts are not supposed to be responsive to policy; rather, policy is supposed to be responsive to the facts.
This traditional firewall has broken down, thanks to the influence of neoconservatives in the Bush administration. From the Iraq war to the Kyoto Accord, the neocons create “facts” to support their fixed, preestablished policy vision. Now Kagan wants the Europeans to “alter their perceptions” to match the neocons.
Kagan enjoys labeling the European viewpoint "postmodern" without saying what he means by it. But his view that everything in politics ultimately boils down to forces of will and his endorsement of the neoconservative creation of reality to support its goals has more in common with European postmodernism than he lets on.
No, there is a better label for the vision he is attacking. He doesn’t want to use it, because it is the principal philosophical source of Western political liberalism. It’s called "enlightenment."
Postscript: I do not wish to deny that there are genuine threats to liberal democracy in the world. My only point is that the question of the relative strength of these threats is a factual question that must be decided on the basis of the evidence, independently and prior to the formulation of policy.
Oh, my other point ... neoconservatism is also a legitimate threat to liberal democracy.
If you haven't read Straussian neconservatives before, take a look. The article has all the trappings: dark brooding over the decline and fall of the West, Trotskyist reinterpretation of the American revolution as a “vanguard of a worldwide liberal revolution,” the denial of a separation between domestic and foreign affairs ... it would be a hoot, except people like this are getting their way.
But don't mind me... I'm just a fool-mooner.
1:16:00 AM 
|
