Torture and Idealism

So the whole Newsweek story has been done to death this week, but I feel like I should say something on the topic, at least obliquely. First of all, let me acknowledge that Newsweek made a serious journalistic error, and their retraction was necessary. Second, they should not be held responsible for the rioting and death that followed - that was the work of fanatics, and the news media shouldn't be in the business of censoring itself for fear of causing morons to overreact. Third, given what we know about what has occurred in U.S. prisons (free registration required), right-wing self-righteous anger at Newsweek is a little like a murderer getting angry that his indictment wrongly claims he ran a red-light during the crime.

The broader point about this topic, and what makes it so painful and frustrating for a hawkish liberal internationalist like myself, is that I believe in much of what President Bush says, but his inability to live up to his ideals is maddening. I supported the war in Iraq because, ultimately, it meant ridding the world of a brutal, sadistic, genocidal regime. I believe that all peoples deserve to live in democratic states, or more realistically, at least in moderately free republics. So Bush's declared aim of holding every state in the world to a democratic standard - something the United Nations has been astoundingly bad at - is one I wholeheartedly agree with.

But whether or not President Bush believes in one standard for all, his actions belie this believe. He is rightly horrified by torture, but he makes excuses, covers up, and refuses to hold anyone accountable when it is practiced by our own troops (not just torture - murder, too). He even absurdly claimed in his latest press conference that we never knowingly render suspected terrorists to regimes that practice torture - as if Egyptian, Syrian, and Uzbek prisons were best known for their lengthy massages and world-class spa facilities. Bush also campaigns against nuclear proliferation while our military engages in research on smaller and more useful nukes (as if we could even use such a thing without all sorts of legal, diplomatic, military, and economic fallout, in addition to the, y'know, radioactive fallout).

In short, George Bush is, at times and on certain foreign policy issues, a hypocrite (note: I did not call him, nor do I believe that he is, a liar). So why do I support him on some issues? Well, because while I can imagine my ideal President, that's not the guy we've got (nor will we ever have him). So I support Bush at times, knowing that I'll be disappointed, but that some good may come of it, too. Besides, better a half-hearted democratizer like Bush than someone who doesn't believe in democratizing at all, like Cheney or Rumsfeld (that, by the way, is why they cannot reasonably be considered neo-conservatives - they're just plain conservatives).