Karl Popper and the Iraq War

"It is difficult enough to be critical of our own mistakes, but it must be nearly impossible for us to persist in a critical attitude towards those of our actions which involve the lives of many men. To put it differently, it is very hard to learn from very big mistakes."

When I read this quote, from Karl Popper's The Poverty of Historicism, I immediately thought of Tony Blair's recent appearance before the Chilcot inquiry on the Iraq war, where he said he had no regrets for leading Britain into the war in Iraq. Of course Bush's lack of regret - on any issue, let alone ordering the invasion of Iraq - is infamous. Even John Kerry, having caved to political pressure to support the war in 2003, couldn't bring himself in 2004 to say he had made a mistake in voting to authorize military action.

Interestingly, the quote comes from a discussion of social engineering in which Popper mentions, as an example, "the question of how to export democracy to the Middle East." Popper was not opposed to social engineering per se. He believed in "piecemeal social engineering," which he contrasted with Utopianism: the violent remaking of entire societies in one big push. Utopianism, Popper argued, is based on an unscientific attitude. Utopians eschew self-criticism, believing their ideology gives them all the answers. And when their plans go disastrously wrong, they don't learn from their mistakes - they lash out at their critics.

The case of regime change in Iraq, and its protagonists' continued refusal to learn from their catastrophic mistake, is a painful testament to Popper's observation. At the inquiry, Blair went so far as to say that his policy on Iraq should now be applied to Iran. But if the politicians who precipitated the Iraq war are unrepentant, it is heartening that the lessons of that fiasco have not been lost on their citizens. (I believe the British public was ahead of the curve in rejecting the war, but Americans eventually came around too. More than half believed the war was a mistake by June 2004.) Bush and Blair may refuse to criticize themselves, but they hardly escaped criticism from others. And the criticism has had political consequences, such as the Republican loss of Congress and the White House between 2006 and 2008. That silver lining underscores another of Popper's themes: that the primary virtue of liberal societies is their openness to critical debate, and thus to self-correction.

What next for Obama?

The Democrats are pretty much screwed, right? On January 19, the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, elected Republican Scott Brown to the Senate, taking away the Dems’ sweet filibuster-proof super-majority. Democrats couldn’t get much of anything done with the super-majority, so how are they going to get anything done without it?

Well hang on a mo. Most presidents have managed to get by just fine without the kind of total Congressional hegemony the Democrats enjoyed during President Obama’s first year in office. In fact, Reagan and Clinton achieved oodles of legislative wins with one or both chambers of Congress in opposition hands for most of their respective terms in office.

So should Obama tack to the right, like Clinton did after 1994? Or should he emulate Reagan’s steely ideological approach and play to his base?

None of the above.

Obama’s State of the Union address – and his recent appearance at the House Republicans’ conference in Baltimore – suggest he’s going a different direction altogether. And I like his instincts.

First, let’s remember the context. This is not 1994. So far at least, the Democrats have not lost control of either chamber of Congress. They lost one seat. The repercussions of losing that seat are admittedly significant, but Brown’s victory is not evidence of a massive national backlash against Obama. The president’s approval ratings have dipped from their initially high levels, but they are still slightly higher than his disapproval ratings. So a dramatic shift to the right seems a tad premature. Thankfully Obama is playing it cool as usual. [Sadly this link does not work in the U.K. and possibly other exotic locales.] Obama’s steady-handed State of the Union address – in which he pointedly noted that his party still has large majorities in both houses – tells me that he hasn’t lost his perspective.

Secondly, in both the SOTU and Baltimore, the president emphasized an old theme of his: eschewing ideology. Being non-ideological or pragmatic is not the same thing as being centrist, a point that Democrats have often forgotten since Bill Clinton first took office. (Knee-jerk centrism is an ideological position too.) It means, as Obama often says, a willingness to embrace good ideas from either side of the political spectrum so long as they work. As he said in New Hampshire on Tuesday: “You got a better idea, bring it on.” A non-ideological approach is likely to appeal to independent voters, and that in turn would put pressure on Republican legislators in swing districts to occasionally work with the Democrats.

Lastly, to get much done, Obama needs to bring greater civility to Washington. No easy task. But if Democrats can avoid the temptation to demonize the other side, and a few Republicans can be persuaded to put solving national problems ahead of scoring political points, it could mean the difference between a year of major accomplishments and another year like 2009.

When he dropped in on the House Republicans’ conference the other day, President Obama showed what an ethic of civility looks like in action. The last clip is a brilliant case study. (It's the one called "I'll go through it with you line by line." Don't worry, he doesn't actually go through anything line by line.) Obama contrasts examples of destructive and constructive ways the Republicans could engage in debate while exemplifying civility himself in the way he recognizes Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) for his “legitimate” ideas. And the president shows that civility does not equal weakness: he sets the factual record straight concerning the deficit, and explains why he mostly disagrees with Ryan's proposal.

At the very least, if Congressional Democrats follow the president’s lead and head for the moral high ground, they’ll probably strengthen public support for their legislative goals. And who knows, maybe some Republican legislators would even be moved to reciprocate the civility. It would be sort of like when The Grinch heard all the little Whos in Whoville singing Christmas songs and decided to give back their Christmas presents.

Sorry, is that uncivil to compare Republicans to The Grinch? I’m not saying that Republicans are heartless. Just that they hate Christmas.