It was yet another report of the U.S.
government’s participation in human-rights abuses. On Sunday,
60 Minutes reported
on the CIA’s practice of kidnapping terror suspects and
flying them to places of torture. According to CBS, more than 100
people have disappeared under a CIA practice called
“rendition.” Masked men in an unmarked jet seize their
target, cut off his clothes, put him in a blindfold and jumpsuit,
tranquilize him, and fly him away, often to a prison in Egypt or
Jordan infamous for torture. The tactic has been effective in
extracting information, a former CIA official says. But is it the
American way?
In this macho world of Donald Rumsfeld, I know
it’s unfashionable to be squeamish about tactics in the
global war against terror. The argument is that we, as good guys,
have to take out the bad guys before they get us. But how far will
the American people allow the government to go before becoming
disgusted with the use of immoral tactics in the name of freedom? Recent
polls report a low approval rating for George W. Bush and his conduct
of the war in Iraq. And polls show that many Americans are unconvinced
that the war in Iraq has reduced the threat of terrorism. Is the
growing disenchantment only about Bush’s lack of effectiveness?
Or are people beginning to wonder whether the United States is
forgetting who it is and what it stands for?
In the inaugural Paul Simon Essay, published
in the May edition of Illinois Issues, University of Chicago ethicist Jean Bethke
Elshtain argues persuasively that morality has always been at the
heart of Americans’ self-understanding and that religion
forms the soul of its politics. This was true when the colonists
opposed the English king for interfering with rights “endowed
by the Creator.” Slavery denied the moral equality of all
persons in the eyes of God, and so had to be rooted out. Denying
women the right to vote didn’t make heavenly sense, either,
and, because God is watching, suffrage was extended. “This is
not a matter of blurring church and state,” Elshtain
explains. “Church and state are not synonymous to religion
and politics. We keep the first pair separate; we put the second pair
together all of the time.”
Well, so what if America considers itself a
moral and religious nation? What difference does it make?
“The difference religiously derived morality makes,”
replies the essayist, “is that it is more likely to get us up
and out of the house and into civic life than the alternative of no
religious connection.” In other words, we care because God
cares. The second difference? “Those engaged in civic life on
the basis of moral imperatives are more likely to articulate
reasons for engagement that go beyond self-interest.” Care
and concern for others is essential to “forestall a slide
into isolating individualism and sustain the hope that, in turn,
nourishes civic life.”
I agree that in America a deep sense of
morality, derived largely from religion, drives politics and
policy. But we all know that it can drive them badly and that
politicians may exploit good intentions. In Elshtain’s 2003
book Just War Against Terror: The
Burden of American Power in a Violent World, she makes a moral case for military engagement against
the enemies of freedom. Sounding like a Bush clone, she writes,
“They loathe us because of who we are and what our society
represents. We must and will fight. . . to defend who we are and
what we, at our best, represent.”
Two years ago many Americans felt, like
Elshtain, that we were fighting for freedom and democracy out of
concern for oppressed people. By now, many good Americans are
beginning to think that morality was just a cover. We are becoming
more like the enemy, acting out of concern only for ourselves.
Abduction and torture are not proper ways to defend what we, at our
best, represent.
This article appears in Jul 28 – Aug 3, 2005.
