Trump's Pardon of Susan B Anthony a Deft Political Move

Miscellaneous Dyspeptic Mutterings:

I am loathe to mention these subjects but...

I have become convinced than in the lions share of cases, those espousing a particular position on masks would take the diametrically opposite view if they thought they could get a political benefit out of it. Meaning:

--Those #MAGA folks who publicly virtue signal about not wearing masks ever under any circumstance and take a "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" on reopening everything all at once would be the biggest mask nazis and wanting everything shuttered like a ghost town if Hillary Clinton was president right now. Why? To better hurt her politically.

--Those #NeverTrump folks who want to shut everything down everywhere and want people more masked than a Saudi wife are not the beacons of moral principle they purport to be. No, they are much more interested in crippling the economy to try and hurt the political standing of Orange Man this fall than they are for public safety. They would be the biggest "open it all up, we cannot be in fear" folks you can find and would probably be reprising FDR's famous slogan if someone more acceptable to them politically was in office.

It is no different here than with say the budget and debt. We now have folks who for eight years ignored and did not give a shit about ballooning deficits and skyrocketing debt under the prior administration who now suddenly are so concerned about these things? Yeah right!

Or those trusty Tea Party sorts who wailed and gnashed their teeth for eight years as the Obama administration stacked up debt but now say nary a thing when things under Orange Man continue as they did under his dusky-toned predecessor.

It even trickles down to the golf thing where those who gripe about Trump's golfing frequencies did not give a shit about the frequencies of Obama hitting the links while those who bitched often about how often Obama golfed suddenly are as quiet as whores in church when it comes to Trump's golfing.

THIS IS ALL POLITICS AND NOTHING MORE!

With the overwhelming majority of you all, stop pretending it is anything but this. The number of folks on any side who truly are taking stands of principle on these and other issues is very much in the minority. And that's the bottom line, cause Stone Cold said so!

Democrats are wasting America's time on impeachment

Scott: Trump tried to convey his intent in post-Charlottesville remarks

My latest contribution to the Jaded Politics project courtesy of the Musings From Exile website{1} can be read HERE.

Note:

{1} "I link to the Musings From Exile website version so I do not trigger a trackback to it on the main page; thereby ensuring that I keep Rerum Novarum separate from that project." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 8, 2017)]

All Falling Down (Victor Davis Hanson)

One problem with knowing history when most people do not is you can see when it is repeating itself and many people do not listen. VDH goes over recent and more ancient history and points to parallels that more people should be aware of. And of course his indictment of Obama's governing is one I would love to see an O-bot respond to but I am not holding my breath!!!

"One From the Vault" Dept.
(On Presidential Legacies)

[Prefatory Note: This was drafted on August 14, 2008 but for some reason it was never published. Having just re-discovered it when perusing various unpublished drafts and seeing as the principles underlying what I say in it are applicable to a variety of circumstances, I post it at this time. -ISM]

He is not even out of office yet...

The Bush legacy cannot be fairly judged when the person in question is still in office. It takes time and distance to attain a proper historical perspective. For example, in 1952 Harry Truman was viewed by most people in the same light as Bush is now. But now Truman is considered one of the best presidents of the twentieth century.

Then there is the "tax cuts for the rich" crap which others have commented on which tells me the unmentioned side of the story: these "historians" have agendas to push and cannot allow themselves to approach matters with even a pretense of objectivity.

I predict Bush will look a little bit better to posterity than Clinton for a variety of reasons but neither of them will be considered a great president. And neither of them was or is as completely incompetent as Jimmy Carter was. Apparently these "historians" to the tune of 98% have forgotten about the peanut farmer which tells us all we need to know about the integrity of their presumed "poll" on this matter.

Response to "Blackadder" on the Atomic Bombings:
(Part II of II)

Part I of this response can be viewed here. But without further ado...

On the Atomic Bombings of Japan Part II

Today is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. On the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, I posted the first part of what was going to be a debate last year between myself and Shawn of the blog Rerum Novarum on the morality of the bombings. Prior to the debate, Shawn and I agreed that the atomic bombings would be justified only if two conditions were met:

1) the bombings did not involve the intentional targeting of noncombatants; and

2) the bombings saved lives, that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life.

Though this was covered in the previous posting, readers who for some reason have not read the first part of this thread yet are advised to do so now to see the importance of my distinction between civilians and non-combatants. (Again, credit to "Blackadder" for making this correction as he did when apprised of it.)

In my previous post, I argued that the first condition was not met.

And I countered with an explanation of why the first condition was sustained.

In this post, I argue that the second condition also was not met. Prior to the debate, Shawn had argued that the second condition, proportionality, had been met by the bombings, and had cited in support some figures on the high number of casualties (both American and Japanese) that could have resulted from a land invasion of Japan. I responded as follows:

As to the second condition, even if we assume that your figures on the likely deaths from an invasion are correct, this does not establish that the second condition is met, as it is not the case that the only two options the U.S. had at the time were to bomb Hiroshima or to invade.

There were three options actually but I will allow "Blackadder" to lay out his argument before saying more on this matter.

On this, a couple of points.

First, the Japanese were already prepared to surrender prior to the bombings. Once the Tojo government fell in July 1944, the Japanese strategy was to sue for peace once they had won one decisive battle so as to guarantee better terms.

While all of this sounds good on the surface, familiarizing oneself with some of the expected "terms" would help contextualize this strategy. But before dealing with that point, it helps the reader to remember something about the methods of the Japanese during the Second World War including the facade of the Japanese had played with regards to pretending to want peace before. After he left office, the former president Harry Truman in a several page letter to the chairman of the Hiroshima city council{1}, reminded that council of the duplicity of the Japanese government prior to the United States' entry into the Second World War:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Your courteous letter, enclosing the resolution of the Hiroshima City Council, was highly appreciated. The feeling of the people of your city is easily understood, and I am not in any way offended by the resolution which their city council passed. However, it becomes necessary for me to remind the City Council, and perhaps you also, of some historical events.

In 1941, while a peace conference was in progress in Washington between representatives of the Emperor of Japan and the Secretary of State of the United States, representing the President and the Government of the United States, a naval expedition of the Japanese Government approached the Hawaiian Islands, a territorial part of the United States, and bombed our Pearl Harbor Naval Base. It was done without provocation, without warning and without a declaration of war. [President Harry S. Truman: Letter to the Chairman of the Hiroshima City Council (circa March 12, 1958)]

This was hardly the only example of duplicity on the part of the Japanese government during and prior to the Second World War. And this factor is of no small importance even if we exclude the Nanking Massacre and the Japanese genocide against the Chinese and numerous other peoples to the tune of millions and millions of deaths in the war of genuine civilians as well as brutal treatment of prisoners of war by the Japanese. The war crimes of the Japanese made it a genuine toss up as to which regime (theirs or Nazi Germany's) was worse: for the record I would put my marker on Imperial Japan as the estimate of their slaughter total{2} is roughly the same as that of Nazi Germany{3} but the survival rate of POW's in Nazi Germany was eight and a half times higher than the POW's of Imperial Japan. For these reasons, the Japanese could hardly be taken at face value on such things even if their position was as cut and dried as "Blackadder" presumes. (I will tend to that presumption later in this posting.)

Originally this victory was going to occur in the Philippines, then in Okinawa, then in Kyushu.

What "Blackadder" does not seem to realize is that the aforementioned "better terms" the Japanese wanted in no way whatsoever approached the American terms. I will go over this in a moment.

The problem was that by the early summer of 1945 the Japanese military was in shambles. They were short of fuel, food, and even weapons. An effective Allied blockade had cut Japan off from virtually all supplies, and the country had been reduced to using the iron fragments from U.S. bombs to make shovels. A report delivered to the Emperor on June 9, 1945 indicated that by the end of the year Japan would no longer be able to continue fighting and would face as great a threat from civil unrest as from the U.S. On June 22, 1945, the Emperor told the Supreme War Council “I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them.”

However much the Emperor wanted to see an end to the war, there was still a rejection of surrender by anyone in a position to be able to affect one. Furthermore, those who claim that Japan merely wanted to hold onto the Emperor would do well to consider some of the information that the decision makers were privy to; namely the MAGIC transcripts from the period after the quote from Emperor Hirohito that "Blackadder" has presented to us:

Tokyo says no to unconditional surrender. On 17 July Foreign Minister Togo sent the following message to Ambassador Sato: "We have been fully aware from the outset that it would be difficult under existing circumstances either to strengthen the ties of friendship between Japan and Russia or to make effective use of Russia in ending the war... Although the directing powers, and the Government as well, are convinced that our strength can still deliver considerable blows to the enemy, we are unable to feel an absolutely secure peace of mind in the face of an enemy that will attack repeatedly. If today, when we are still maintaining our strength, the Anglo-Americans were to have regard for Japan's honor and existence, they could save humanity by bringing the war to an end. If, however, they insist unrelentingly upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese are unanimous in their resolve to wage a thorough-going war. [MAGIC Ultra Top Secret Intercept #1210 pgs. 1-3 (circa July 17, 1945)]

Now I realize this is the expected response of sorts: the idea that the Japanese would not accept "unconditional surrender." But notice what Ambassador Sato tries to do in his diplomatic role to try and facilitate in the next intercepted dispatch. With regards to the latter, the party speaking in the dispatch is Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo to Ambassador Naotake Sato but also includes both Togo's communique to Sato as well as Sato's request to Togo with regards to the issue of surrender. All underlined or italicized points of emphasis are mine:

With regards to unconditional surrender (I have been informed of your 18 July message*), we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatsoever. Even if the war drags on and it becomes clear it will take much more bloodshed, the entire country as one man will pit itself against the enemy in accordance with the Imperial Will so long as the enemy demands unconditional surrender...

Togo concluded by saying that he had read a long message of 20 July from Sato, but that the decision he was communicating had been made by the Cabinet and that Sato should proceed accordingly.

The long message of 20 July from Sato to which Togo was referring...constitutes an impassioned plea for the Japanese Government to surrender to the Allies with the sole reservation that Japan's "national structure" --i.e. ; the Imperial House-- be preserved... [MAGIC Ultra Top Secret Intercept #1214 pgs. 2-3; 4-5 (circa July 22, 1945)]

Here was the footnote at the bottom of page 2 of the intercept:

*In that message, Sato advocated unconditional surrender provided the Imperial House was preserved (DS 20 Jul 45).

In other words, what Sato was asking for was what those who opposed the use of the bombs often do: that if the Japanese merely were given their Emperor that they would accept that as a means of surrender. There is also the claim that we gave them what they wanted on this score anyway which is also not true but I want to avoid a tangent here before this point is reinforced.

Indeed not only did Togo tell Sato that his proposal --and the one commonly espoused by critics of the use of the bombs-- was a no-go but that Japan was "unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatsoever." This was the stance officially of Japan before the dropping of the bombs. Furthermore, that was not all that was considered "on the table" by the Japanese before agreeing to a policy of surrender.

I trust that "Blackadder" is not familiar with the ins and outs of the meeting of the Supreme War Council on August 9th about a half an hour before midnight-if he is not I will endeavour to inform him and other readers of it now. Even after the dropping of two atomic bombs and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union, the Council was deadlocked on whether to surrender or not. Among the demands being made were:

--The retention of the Emperor but also that the Emperor would have real sovereign authority.

--Retention of the military caste style of governance.

--That the issue of war criminals would be dealt with entirely by the Japanese government and not by the Allies.

--Japan was not to be occupied in the execution of the Potsdam Declaration terms.

Now these were the terms which were still being hashed out after the bomb drop on Hiroshima, the Soviets declared war on Japan, and the bomb drop on Nagasaki!!!

Certainly the Emperor on August 10th broke the deadlock and forced the hand of the Council in drafting the Imperial Rescript which the Emperor read aloud and was made into a recording.{4} But before that point, this was where the Supreme War Council was at on the subject of surrender. Even the aforementioned Foreign Minister Togo who rejected Ambassador Sato's recommendation of this course with one small provision{5} quickly changed his tune after the Hiroshima drop. He pleaded with the Supreme War Council for surrender in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, something he previously said was "unacceptable under any circumstances whatsoever." This goes to show just how entrenched the notion of not surrendering was in the Japanese Government.

For those who would claim that the surrender was not in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, the Emperor was retained but only with the understanding that supreme power would reside in the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers. For those who are familiar with the intention of the Japanese of retaining the "Imperial House" they would know that this did not meet with their previous condition and indeed did not detract from the Potsdam Declaration of unconditional surrender. The evidence of this is that the Emperor had no power to act of his own accord during the Occupation of Japan. It is true that General MacArthur used the Emperor as his tool to get obedience from the subjects which was a shrewd usage on MacArthur's part but the lack of the Emperor to function as a sovereign with any of the authority as outlined by the Meiji Constitution{6} shows the extent to which the Japanese wish for retaining the "Imperial House" actually existed in reality as opposed to pious fiction.

Thereafter Japan made a number of attempts to sue for peace through intermediaries, including most prominently the Soviet Union. The U.S. knew about these attempts, as they had broken Japanese codes early in the war. Examples of some of these intercepts can be found here.

Readers can judge the credibility of these attempts based on what I have gone over already in this posting.

Truman and other top officials even seem to have thought that the attempts to sue for peace were real. The notes for an August 3, 1945, conversation between Truman, Secretary of State Byrnes, and Admiral Leahy (Truman’s Chief of Staff) states that “President, Leahy and JFB agreed Japan looking for peace. President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden.”

The last thing the world would have needed was "Uncle Joe" (cf. FDR) being in put into a position of moral credibility on the world stage. Stalin was a murderer of an even worse degree than Hitler. The difference between them was that Stalin was at least rational whereas Hitler was not.

As my late father (God rest his soul) used to tell me when I was very young, if Hitler was not so stupid as to invade Russia in 1941 we would have been fighting the Germans possibly into the early 1950's. And considering that we just got the Germans out of the way before they could roll out their new jet fighters to any significant effect,{7} it was the good fortune of the Allies that Hitler was not a rational military planner.

That Japan was willing to surrender prior to the atomic bombings is, in my opinion, indisputable.

Japan was also willing to discuss terms of peace prior to December 7, 1941 -as President Truman reminded the Hiroshima city council in 1958- and we know what came about from those "terms of peace."

The only question is whether they would have been willing to surrender on approximately the same terms that they eventually did, or whether they would have only accepted somewhat better terms. Personally I think that even if Japan only would have surrendered on significantly more favorable terms than they ultimately did, such a surrender would have been worth it just to keep Russia out of the war.

Readers can consider what I covered above as to what Japan was willing to consider. From purely a rational standpoint and apart from the evidence I supplied, it would be absurd to presume that they would have settled for less than this prior to August 6th when they were insisting on this with thirty minutes to go on August 9th before the start of August 10th.{8}

Without Russia’s entering the war in August of 1945, Manchuria and the northern half of Korea would not have fallen under Communist domination, Mao would not have had a base of operations from which to launch attacks against the Kuomintang, and it’s quite possible China would have been spared 30 or 40 million deaths, half of Korea would have been spared the hell on earth that is life in North Korea, and more than 36 thousand U.S. solders would not have had to die to protect South Korea a few years later.

On these contingent points, I agree with "Blackadder." Something he is not considering though is that by August of 1945, Truman had gotten over his initial phase of being duped by Stalin: something his predecessor FDR never got over.

Second, even supposing you think that Japan’s surrender had to be (virtually) unconditional for some reason. Still, the bombings were not necessary.

It depends I suppose on how "necessary" is defined. It was not "necessary" to go to war with Japan either in 1941 but we did. One has to assess with any action not only what is necessary but also what the results from non-action involves. I am not arguing for consequentialism{9} here, only stating that decisions are made oftentimes without focusing on what strictly speaking is "necessary." But just because something is not "necessary" does not mean it should not be done. One has to weigh a variety of factors on these matter as I said earlier including what would result in the fewest lives being lost to one's own side primarily and to the opposing side secondarily.

Once Russia entered the war, any hope Japan had of gaining more favorable terms was completely destroyed. They would now be facing threats from two fronts, and could not simply concentrate their forces in Kyushu in anticipation of an American attack. Over 600,000 Japanese solders in Manchuria were forced to surrender to the Soviets within a week of the Russian attack, despite being better trained and better equipped that most of the solders on the mainland.

Actually, the soldiers in Manchuria were far less trained and equipped than the soldiers on the mainland by that point of the war. This is admitted to in the Wikipedia article on the Soviet Invasion of Manchuria (all links removed and all emphasis in the quote is mine):

The Kwantung Army had over six hundred thousand men in twenty-five divisions (including two tank divisions) and six Independent Mixed Brigades. These contained over 1,215 armored vehicles (mostly armored cars and light tanks), 6,700 artillery pieces (mostly light), and 1,800 aircraft (mostly trainers and obsolete types; they only had 50 first line aircraft). The Imperial Japanese Navy contributed nothing to the defense of Manchuria, the occupation of which it had always opposed on strategic grounds.

On economic grounds, Manchuria was worth defending since it had the bulk of usable industry and raw materials outside of Japan and still under Japanese control in 1945. However, the Japanese forces were far below authorized strength, and most of their heavy military equipment and best military units had been transferred to the Pacific front over previous three years. As of 1945, the Japanese army in Manchuria contained a large number of raw recruits. As a result, the Kwantung Army had essentially been reduced to a light infantry counter-insurgency force with limited mobility and experience. In the event, Japanese forces were no match for the mechanized Red Army, with its vastly superior tanks, artillery, officers, experience and tactics. [Wikipedia: Excerpt from the Article Soviet Invasion of Manchuria]

Japan had moved their best military units and equipment to reinforce the Pacific effort over a period of time which had made the front in Manchuria very poorly defended. You can point to the 600,000 troops but mere numbers is deceptive because a significantly smaller core of higher quality troops with better equipment can do damage far in excess of their numbers. The Mexicans learned this in the mid nineteenth century when their 35,000 force of troops was decimated by the better trained and equipped army of General Zachery Taylor of whom then Lieutenant{10} Ulysses Grant would say (I paraphrase) "a finer army had never faced an enemy." They numbered roughly 2300 by the way which was less than 10% of the total of the Mexican regulars but as I do not want to get off on a tangent here, that is all I will say except to summarize the point of the analogy; namely, raw military numbers do not ipso facto constitute a competent or powerful military force.

The Soviets already had plans to invade Hokkaido prior to the planned U.S. invasion of November 1, 1945. Once Russia entered the war, then, Japan faced a choice between unconditional surrender and occupation by the U.S. and unconditional surrender and occupation by the Soviets. Given the Japanese fear of the Soviets, I have no doubt what they would have chosen.

This is speculation and besides, in the Imperial Rescript of Emperor Hirohito{11} the entry of the Soviets into the war was not even listed as the reason for their surrender. This is not to say that Hirohito and company would not have had reason for some concern of course but the latter had nowhere near the number of troops and munitions in the area that we did. The Soviets to use a baseball analogy had "crushed batting practice pitching" in Manchuria -nothing like what an invasion of the homeland would have gotten them if they had attempted it. And there is good reason to doubt that Stalin would have been interested enough to invest much manpower and treasure on Japan when he was busy sucking Eastern Europe into the Soviet orbit.

Finally, even if we assume, contrary to all this, that an atomic bombing was necessary, it still was not necessary to bomb cities full of civilians.

This is a rehashing of what was covered in part one which I have already responded to.

The U.S. could have used the bomb on purely military targets (such as the Japanese troops in Kyushu) or otherwise taken steps to minimize civilian deaths.

I have dealt already with the (doubtlessly unintentional in the case of "Blackadder") misleading application of the word "civilian" to the lions share of the population of those cities in the previous posting.

This was advocated by General Marshall, who said that “these [atomic] weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave - telling the Japanese that we intended to destroy such centers.” See Memorandum of Conversation with General Marshall, May 29, 1945.

The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned of what was coming -both with the Potsdam Declaration but also with flyers telling them to evacuate their cities. The idea that the bombs would be "tested first" as if we had no shortage of stock was not feasible. And as I said in the first part of this response, I have on file what was delivered to Hiroshima. Though technically not necessary in justification of the use of the bomb there, it nonetheless is additional evidence against the view that the cities (particularly Hiroshima) were bombed without adequate warning.

The idea that the bombings were military unnecessary is not simply a piece of “ivory tower” revisionism, but was the view of some of the greatest military minds of the time, which are documented here.

I never said that the bombings were militarily necessary as in there were no other options and equated that with "ivory tower revisionism." But that point aside for a moment, I trust that "Blackadder" does not know that I have interacted with those proposed "experts" in detail in years past. There was also some disagreement on the use of the bombs due to agenda conflicts; namely some of them wanted their own branch of the service or some particular method of their own to be used. There is a lot more to it than one might casually presume which is all I will say on it for the present time.

Since the U.S. could have achieved the same outcome without the bombings as it did with them, the bombings cannot be said to have saved lives, and in fact represent needless loss of life on a grand scale.

If Japan had held out even until November 1, 1945, there were by estimates from some sources roughly 400,000 deaths that would occur per month by not only the Japanese people but also those who were under the yoke of the Japanese empire. Even the so-called "Strategic Bombing Survey" which itself was Air Force propaganda{12} opined that the Japanese might be able to hold out for the rest of the year. So if we pro-rate the death figure to account for a week of the month, that would mean between August 15th and November 1st, there would be a million deaths. The ending of the war just by those six weeks{13} -assuming for a moment that the Japanese would have even surrendered before that point which is controvertible at best{14} saved more lives than were lost in the use of the two atomic bombs.

The second condition is therefore not met either.

I do not see how based on what has been covered thus far that the second condition is not met; ergo that is all I will say on that matter for now except for a final word on the nature of the subject we are discussing here.

I would be remiss in not noting that this is a very gruesome subject matter to discuss as we are doing. But just as judges are supposed to leave their private opinions at the door when they enter the courtroom, we should act in like fashion in seeking to dialogue on these kinds of delicate issues to insure that we do proper justice to all sides involved. Thank you again for the civility of your treatment of this matter.

Notes:

{1} The letter from Truman was issued in response to a resolution the Hiroshima city council had passed protesting comments made by the former president on the use of the atomic bombs.

{2} The estimates I am aware of with the Japanese in this area is 30 million.

{3} The estimate I am aware of with the Germans in this area is also 30 million.

{4} A recording I might add which some fanatics who were still opposed to surrender at all costs tried to steal before it was played to the nation five days later.

{5} A point I covered in the above referenced MAGIC summaries from late July 1945.

{6} The Meiji Constitution was the primary document of Japanese governance at the time.

{7} Japan was also working on their own versions of a jet fighter in 1945 -the first prototype of which was flown on August 7, 1945 the day after Hiroshima was bombed. They were designed to be built quickly and on the cheap and would have been faster than any of the American planes which were all prop jobs at the time. How many of these they could have rolled out prior to November 1, 1945 (presuming Operation Downfall happened on schedule of course) we will never know but our planes would have been no match for them any more than the American planes were in Europe of the German jet fighters. (Again, Germany surrendered before those weapons or other ones which would have complicated matters for the Allied forces had time to have any significant effect.)

{8} Which was also five days before they actually surrendered in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration.

{9} I will explain the proper application of the concept of "consequentialism" apart from the countless misapplications I have observed in a future posting. (It was written months ago but this subject seems to make discussing those concepts timely; ergo I will do it shortly.)

{10} If memory serves at the moment, Grant had this rank during the Mexican War but I may be wrong on this point.

{11} A translation of the text of which can be read here.

{12} I do not intend to go into this point at the present time.

{13} And that is assuming the Japanese would have surrendered prior to the start of Operation Downfall of course: a proposition which itself is tenuous since there was so much uncertainty on a uniform proposal for surrender on the part of the Supreme War Council even after the bombs were dropped. Without them the likelihood of the Emperor forcing the Council's hand towards anything substantial in the area of a unified will (if we assess this based on the contents of the Imperial Rescript linked to in footnote eleven) would not have been probable.

{14} This has been touched on by logical extension in what was covered in just the present posting. Furthermore, by no means has all the evidence to sustain the controvertible nature of this proposition been dealt with either lest anyone wonder.

Response to "Blackadder" on the Atomic Bombings:
(Part I of II)

[Update: I made a few revisions to the originally posted material including the addition of a footnote. -ISM 8/15/08 1:00pm]

As a prefatory sequence of sorts, here are the threads preceding this one which are applicable in some form or another:

On the Atomic Bombings of Japan--Part I by "Blackadder" (circa August 6, 2008)

My Preliminary Musings on the Anniversary of Hiroshima, on Revisiting This Subject, and on "Blackadder" (circa August 6, 2008)

Some Additional Musings on the Subject of the Atomic Bombings Subject and the Importance of Doing My Part to Facilitate Potentially Fruitful Dialogue (circa August 7, 2007)

Principles of Proper Dialogue -Part of a 2007 Joint Declaration by Shawn and "Blackadder" (circa August 10, 2008)

There is also the second part of the response "Blackadder" which he posted on the anniversary of Nagasaki (August 9, 2008) which I will link to soon. But first is my response to his posting from August 6th in its entirety. The words of "Blackadder" words will be in dark green font with any quoted sources in that same font italicized. My sources will be in dark blue font. Without further ado...

A little over a year ago, Shawn of the blog Rerum Novarum issued a challenge to Catholics to debate him on the morality of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the close of WWII (he was pro). I accepted the challenge, and we emailed back and forth about logistics, and I prepared an initial post setting out the against side of the question. Unfortunately the proposed debate never ended up happening, for reasons that I won’t go into now.

It is not so much that I am "pro" atomic bombing but in terms of dialogual or debate positions, in the situation so noted I do take a position of advocacy for their usage. Nor will I go into the reasons at the present time for why the original dialogue did not pan except to note that the challenge was a dialogue not a debate but that is neither here nor there as long as the same principles are adhered to in either format; namely, those set down in the posting from August 10, 2008 as linked to in the preamble of this response.

Since today is the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, I thought I would post what would have been my initial contribution to the debate. As it is rather long, I have broken it up into two parts.

I will endeavour if at all possible to respond in two parts for the sake of uniformity.

During our email exchange, Shawn and I had agreed that, in order for the bombings to be justified from a Catholic perspective, it had to be the case both that:

1) the bombings did not involve the intentional targeting of civilians; and

2) the bombings saved lives, that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life.

I was willing to approach it from these two points this is true but these are not the only points on which I view this action as having some justification. Nor I might add did I exhaust or fully develop all the arguments that can be advanced for my position either in 2005 or in 2006. However, as "Blackadder" was willing to meet the criteria I set down for public dialogue on these matters and was least willing to present some fixed points of reference rather than a bunch of unsubstantiated emotionalist laden assertions and blatant fallacious attempts at appealing to authority (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam){1}, I agreed to approach the subject through those prisms for the sake of seeing a productive dialogue on these matters coalesce.

I should also note that I actually did not agree with the wording of one of the above points of reference and suggested an alternative at the time. When apprised of what we agreed upon in the precise wording thereof, "Blackadder" graciously made a public correction in the following clarification posted at the end of the note which I will quote at this time:

UPDATE: References in the above post to “civilians” should refer to “noncombatants.” My apologies. Shawn, who was originally to be my interlocutor, offers responses here.

I appreciate this clarification being made when it was brought to his attention. I believed when I did so that the misrepresentation was unintentional and therefore gladly accept his apology on the matter. I will endeavour to explain a bit about why I use this distinction which to some may appear to be a matter of semantics when indeed it is anything but. But first the intentions of this part of "Blackadder's" response needs to be considered...

This post addresses the first condition, and argues that the bombings did, in fact, involve the intentional targeting of civilians. In the second part, I will argue that the second condition, proportionality, was also not met.

One of the points that I made repeatedly in 2005 and 2006 but which none of my critics wanted to deal with is the issue of military conscription. I will note in a footnote some of the bits from that point where the matter was covered in 2005{2} and 2006{3} before dealing with this factor as I decided to reinforce it further in a posting from 2007 -the latter of which I will now quote at length:

[T]here is a mistake when discussing the subject of warfare with classifying people simply as "military" and "civilian." I will admit to having done this at times in the past but I also did so under the assumption that people would properly understand the murky nature of how these categories really existed in wartime Japan. However, since this has not happened as I had hoped, it seems appropriate in lieu of a recent dialogue challenge on the subject in question to tend to this key point; ergo the reason for the post you are now reading.

There is not in many circumstances the fine line in this area that people may like. For example, there is the talk about the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as "civilians" when in fact most of them were conscripted{1} and thus properly recognized as "military." But even with those who were not conscripted, does that make them immediately a "civilian" which by its very usage implies non-combatant status??? For those who are familiar with the situation of wartime Japan, the answer to this obviously is no.

Indeed I use and have used the following principle as an acid test of sorts to know if a person I am discussing these matters with should or should not be taken seriously:

--Is a little child with bombs strapped to it who is instructed by their parents to walk up to a soldier and detonate the bomb a "civilian"??? How about if they are trained to roll under and try and blow up a tank???{2}

The brief answer to these questions is "no", the long answer to them is "hell no." The proper distinction to be made here is not "military" and "civilian" but "combatant" and "non-combatant." And the examples above as well as others which could be noted{3} coalesce to paint a reality about the situation there which the overwhelming majority of commentators on this subject do not get. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa July 31, 2007)]

Here are the footnotes from that text:

{1} All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.”

This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate –a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa September 6, 2005)]

{2} See footnote one.

{3} See this link which was appended to a footnote in my August 17, 2005 posting on Hiroshima. (It is in footnote six and reviewing my accompanying commentary on it for the context in which it was used would also be advised.)

I will for the sake of keeping this response reasonably short not unpack all the factors involved in the above referenced material. Suffice to say, this matter is one involving a lot of factors and is not done justice by the simplistic approaches so many would apply to it. (And which "Blackadder" to his credit has not done.)

It’s true that there were military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but this fact alone does not establish that the bombings did not target civilians. Suppose that we are in battle and you are taken captive by an enemy solder who is using you as a human shield. Unfortunately for him, I really dislike you and have been plotting your death for some time. I think to myself “Ah, here’s my chance to get rid of Shawn!” So I throw my hand grenade at you and kill you both. In this scenario, I have intentionally killed you. The fact that I also intentionally killed an enemy solder might provide a pretext for my action, but it doesn’t change the fact that I really did intend your death. Likewise, if the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the purpose of killing civilians as well as enemy solders, then the fact that there was a military base in Hiroshima does not alter this fact, and will not serve to justify the bombing.

However well his analogy works for the first example, it does not for the second because of the precise nature of the point in which I took issue with the first of "Blackadder" theses initially: the use of the term "civilian." The readers can peruse the parts referenced in the material of my last comments to understand that this was not as simple as "targeting civilians" as "Blackadder" has (undoubtedly in good faith) presumed.

To start with, the lions share of the population (basically everyone between roughly fifteen and forty-five) were conscripted. Furthermore, even those not falling under this classification were trained to attack soldiers with anything they can get their hands on. Even small children were taught to strap bombs on themselves and roll under tanks. This is why I insisted at the outset on the distinction between "combatants" and "non-combatants" and thus be properly viewed as unlawful combatants and not "civilians" in the proper sense of the latter term.

If we look at the minutes of the Target Committee meeting where the initial list of targets for the bombing were drawn up we see that Hiroshima was selected as a bombing site not despite the civilian deaths that the bombing would cause, but specifically because of those deaths.

Here is what the report said about Hiroshima:

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

There is a lot in that paragraph but I will try to avoid excessive post length and unnecessary tangents by unpacking it at this time.

The meeting minutes state that “for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb.” The minutes also cite Hiroshima as being a particularly good target because it “has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed.” Likewise, the Interim Committee, headed by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and created by President Truman to deal with the bomb planning, agreed in its May 1945 meeting that “the bomb be used without prior warning against Japan at earliest opportunity, the targets to be a military target surrounded by workers houses.”

"Blackadder" quotes the minutes of the meeting accurately but I want to briefly touch on this to contextualize them. The concern with regards to the bomb drop was insuring that it would not be wasted -this is what the report meant when it set down the principle that "for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb." As Hiroshima was the initial usage of the weapon, this explains why it was used as it was in that respect.

Another reason it was important to inflict as much damage as possible with the weapon was that there was not a proliferation of supply of these things yet the impression needed to be given that there was. This was not only the case as far as attempting to break the will of the Japanese and hasten an end to the war but also to make a statement to the Soviet Union: yes there was more than one message being sent with the usage of the bomb.

As for not giving notice of the bombing, I will deal with this as well later on.

Far from being an unintended side effect, then, the death of a large number of civilians was part of the reason that Hiroshima was selected as a target site.

There were a variety of reasons for the selection of Hiroshima as a target site. As far as the status of the population there, again, I point the reader to the distinction on this made earlier as when the terms are properly understood.

Now it’s true that President Truman did indicate in his diary entry for July 25, 1945 that the bomb was going to be used against a “purely military” target. It’s not clear to me whether this was a rationalization on Truman’s part, or whether he was duped or just didn’t comprehend what it was that the people who planned the bombing were telling him, but the entry is clearly not an accurate reflection of how the bombing occurred.

Readers can consider a city fortified with significant military installations{4} not counting the building of various munitions which was taking place in private residences throughout Hiroshima{5}, the presence of a quarter of a million soldiers{6}, an overwhelmingly conscripted population{7}, and what was noted earlier in this thread about the training and mentality of even those who did not fall under the status of conscription{8} as to whether what was being dealt with could be rationally styled as a "purely military" target or not.

Truman says that the target was “purely military” (which it wasn’t)

This is at a minimum a controvertible proposition for reasons I noted in the previous paragraph.

[A]nd that the U.S. was going to “issue a warning statement” prior to the bombing (which it didn’t).

But indeed a warning statement was issued. If "Blackadder" would like, I will track down the pamphlet text and present it to him. I point the readers at this time to what President Truman noted in a December 1945 letter to a Dr. Compton on an article written for The Atlantic Monthly on the use of the bombs. Here is the relevant part of that correspondence:

"The Japanese were given fair warning..."

And in the case of Hiroshima, they were warned. While the evidence itself may not change his overall view on the subject, I trust at the very least "Blackadder" would revise the statement he made about there being no warning given upon being made privy to it.

Personally, I’m inclined towards the dupe scenario. When Truman saw the photographs of the Hiroshima aftermath on August 10 (the day after Nagasaki), he ordered a halt to any further bombing, saying that he couldn’t bear the thought of killing “all those kids.” And in 1948, he discussed the matter with Atomic Energy Commission Chairman David Lilienthal, who quoted him as follows:

I don’t think we ought to use this thing [the A-Bomb] unless we absolutely have to. It is a terrible thing to order the use of something that (here he looked down at his desk, rather reflectively) that is so terribly destructive, destructive beyond anything we have ever had. You have got to understand that this isn’t a military weapon. (I shall never forget this particular expression). It is used to wipe out women and children and unarmed people, and not for military uses.

The problem with this quote is it is after the fact and at a point where it is possible that President Truman was having some issues of conscience due to what happened. Who in his position would not have in the immediate aftermath of such an event??? However, Truman with the passing of time did not change his mind on what he viewed was the correctness of his action even if in the final years of his presidency he did at times lament some of the effects of the choice he made.

It appears that Truman went from a position of certainty in the heat of the war which (after it was over) he had some struggles of conscience about pertaining to the derivative effects of those events. The certainty of 1945 and 1946 was replaced by 1948 of some regret as to the effects of the bomb -a view that carried through the remainder of his presidency in 1953.

However, it is similarly evident if you review the statements and correspondence after Truman left office that he had after time and reflection ceased to have such waverings on the matter -review his writings after 1955 to see precisely what I am referring to.

In any event, since Hiroshima was selected as a bombing target specifically because of the high number of civilian deaths that the bombing would cause, the first condition is not met.

As I have demonstrated that the classification of much of the Japanese population of Hiroshima as "civilian" does not meet the proper understanding of this term, the first condition "Blackadder" presented far from not being met is actually sustained. Before moving onto part two in the coming days, I want to thank "Blackadder" for his refreshingly rational and charitable approach to this delicate and often emotionally-charged subject matter.

Notes:

{1} Essentially, I realized through experience on the issue in question the Pandora's Box that is involved in discussing it. Part of the reason for this is the emotions that an issue such as this can have. With the overall lack of anything resembling rational thought and logical analysis of issues in society at large, I should have realized that such a situation could have occurred which did but alas, I was naive in trusting friends to act as friends. And when considering the number of times this subject has been on the verge of being rehashed in the past year -and how I have managed to skirt it through a proper appeal to principled rationale[...] the time has come in my mind for a careful reappraisal of my normative approach to this matter.

As much as I tire of hearing about this issue[...] from the usual suspects[...], it also stands to reason that no subject can be shut off from being discussed indefinitely. For those reasons, and to insure that the subject is neither (i) completely neglected or (ii) handled in the embarrassing fashions to which I have unfortunately witnessed on not a few occasions, I will despite my reluctance agree to discuss it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 22, 2007)]

{2} Again readers, I have not merely made assertions as to Hiroshima being a military target (as [XXXX] has in saying it was not) but I have actually set forth arguments and stated evidences that anyone can verify. And while I could draw out this post with yet further reinforcements of my assertions, I will remember my readers and their patience and stick to one for now: Wikipedia. This is generally a source I do not like for various and sundry reasons but I will use it as a lawyer uses a “hostile witness” in court to point out some facts on this matter that seem to elude my good (but misinformed) friend [XXXX]:

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable industrial and military significance. Some military camps were located nearby such as the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was chosen as a target because it had not suffered damage from previous bombing raids, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. The city was mobilized for "all-out" war, with thousands of conscripted women, children and Koreans working in military offices, military factories and building demolition and with women and children training to resist any invading force. [Wikipedia: Entry on Hiroshima]

I will return to these points later on when delving into my copy of American Caesar and pointing out where Doug Long is deceptive in quoting the source. But before doing that, let us deal with the subject of conscription since it also changes the landscape of this issue and is a detriment to [XXXX's] argument:

The opposite of voluntary enrollment is conscription, carried out by the nation-state. The resulting military force lacks the moral characteristics of a volunteer army; it is essentially a machine requiring severe discipline, its cohesion being maintained by the threat of punishment. Its great problems, desertion and slackness among the troops, can be kept within bounds only by strong organization and leadership…

[Most often], conscription is part of a program of universal military service accepted by the public and carried out in cooperation with it. [Encyclopedia Brittanica Fifteenth Edition: Excerpt from War, the Theory and Conduct of Macropaedia Volume XXIX, pg. 705 (c. 1985)]

Obviously, where you have conscription taking place of giant chunks of the population, that changes the dynamic of a key point of the argument altogether. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 6, 2005)]

There was also this addition to the above material:

The best and most obvious place from which to start this examination in my humble opinion is with the Supreme Commander of the Pacific himself one General Douglas MacArthur. Doug Long starts his quote-fest by quoting from American Caesar which was William Manchester’s well written biography on the man. As I happen to own the very same William Manchester biography of General MacArthur being cited, I will deal with that source first. Starting on page 510, the following is outlined after discussing the inter-service rivalry between MacArthur, Le May, and Nimitz, the following words from pages 510-511 of American Caesar set the stage for putting Doug Long’s quote into proper context:

Hirohito’s generals, grimly preparing for the invasion, had not abandoned hope of saving their homeland. Although a few strategic islands had been lost, they told each other, most of their conquests, including the Chinese heartland, were firmly in their hands, and the bulk of their army was undefeated. Even now they could scarcely believe that any foe would have the audacity to attempt landings in Japan itself. Allied troops, they boasted, would face the fiercest resistance in history. Over ten thousand kamikaze planes were readied for “Ketsu-Go,” Operation Decision. Behind the beaches, enormous connecting underground caves had been stocked with caches of food and thousands of tons of ammunition. Manning the nation’s ground defenses were 2,350,000 regular soldiers, 250,000 garrison troops, and 32,000,000 civilian militiamen –a total of 34,600,000, more than the combined armies of the United States, Great Britain, and Nazi Germany. All males aged fifteen to sixty, and all females ages seventeen to forty-five, had been conscripted. Their weapons included ancient bronze cannon, muzzle loaded muskets, bamboo spears, and bows and arrows. Even little children had been trained to strap explosives around their waists, roll under tank treads, and blow themselves up. They were called “Sherman’s carpets.”

This was the enemy the Pentagon had learned to fear and hate –a country of fanatics dedicated to hara-kiri, determined to slay as many invaders as possible as they went down fighting. [William Manchester: American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 510-511)]

I have already discussed the concept of military conscription in part I of this thread so readers need to account for what was noted there when reading the above words from Mr. Manchester's book. From there the book discusses a dovish contingent that was also present. According to the book (pg. 511) everyone MacArthur talked to in the War Department believed that Japan could hold out for at least two more years. From there, the book quotes some Japanese persons with retrospect statements about how “Japan was finished” all of that is towards the end of page 511 leading into page 512 where the citation from Long is made. I will interact with these quotes shortly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa September 6, 2005)]

{3} [I]t is not only arguable that more lives were saved than lost, it is an indisputable fact as anyone with a smidgen of knowledge of the war situation in Japan during WWII is well aware. Secondly, the idea that there were all of these "innocents" in Japan and that their deaths was a means to achieve the end (rather than a derivative effect of the action taken) is also misguided. All that is required is for the good effect to be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. And with most of the populace in Japan under conscription, there were very few who could be called "innocent" and even with those that were who died it does not get in the way of a proper understanding of the principle of double effect. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 23, 2006)]

{4} To note a couple of the earliest examples from these archives:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets as a result of the voluminous output of military equipment and munitions that was done in those cities. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

I already noted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military centers of wartime Japan where carriers, aircrafts, torpedoes, and other munitions were built; ergo they can be properly considered military targets. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

{5} As you may know, there [were] munitions being built in individual houses as well as in plants in the towns of greater military significance (such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki). I am unaware of any similar phenomenon in America during the war -I mean there were "victory gardens" as we know and the saving of resources for the war effort. However, there is a difference between food and the materials for potential munitions and machinery and the actual construction of such things from the materials themselves in housing units. However the conventional lines are blurred by the situation in wartime Japan, this is one line that I feel is of no small importance though (due to what else was covered in my own arguments) I did not raise this issue as yet another argument for my position. (There were a few arguments I either did not include or barely touched on as I only have so much time and when virtually no one wanted to have a civil dialogue on these matters, I saw no reason to expend the additional time on the matter delving into other matters.) [Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa July 5, 2008)]

{6} There were 10,000 military aircraft targeted for Kamikaze missions against the US military along with roughly a quarter million or more soldiers in Hiroshima alone. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa August 17, 2005)]

{7} See footnotes two and three.

{8} I noted this earlier in the present posting both in the text as well as in a footnote quoting something I wrote back in 2005. (See the quote from Manchester in footnote two.)

More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof:
(Part V of a Dialogue)

This is a continuation from the fourth part of this series which can be accessed here. To start from the beginning (if you have not read the previous parts) please go here.

And though I have noted it in every part of the series so far, a reminder of the colour schemata in this series (to cut down on confusion as to the sequence of arguments) still seems pertinent; ergo I reiterate for a final time what I noted in the first part of this series:

The orange font is from the emailer's original email while light blue font is my responses to the emailer's original note. The dark green font is from the emailer's follow-up to my first response while the regular blog font colour is my response to the emailer's follow-up note. Any sources I quote in this note will be in dark blue font and possibly smaller type as a result of the format this original text was taken from (I do not have time to change it). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 26, 2008)]

Without further ado...

Furthermore, the Reagan years were an aberration of sorts...in the past hundred ten odd years, there were only three non-establishment Republican candidates: Teddy Roosevelt, Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan. (The Democrats had only one -Harry Truman- in that same span of time if you exclude the thrice defeated William Jennings Bryan.) TR only became president because the establishment plan to shut him up by making him vice president backfired when McKinley was assassinated. He was able to get elected on his own in 1804 and if he had not died when he did, probably would have won in 1920...a story for another time altogether perhaps.

Goldwater broke the back of the establishment in 1964 along with the Democratic stronghold of the south though he lost in a landslide thanks to the establishment doing their part of not supporting him as they should have. But he made an important breakthrough because other than his home state of Arizona, all the states he won electorally were in the deep south: a break of the "solid south" which had been dominated by Democrat electoral power since 1856. This paved the way for Nixon to come through in 1968 and then even more spectacularly in 1972 but Nixon was an establishment candidate. He was replaced by Ford in 1974 and in 1976, the entire establishment supported Ford against Reagan -even Goldwater who basically brokered Nixon's resignation supported Ford over the candidate who was ideologically much closer to himself.

Well, Goldwater was actually closer to Rudy Guiliani that he was to Reagan. Once issues like abortion and homosexuality became issues Goldwater was both pro-gay and pro-abortion.

Sigh...more education is needed on this obviously.

I think it is more than safe to say that Reagan turned out to be a true conservative while Goldwater didn't.

Senator Goldwater did take the view that someone who was gay should not be disallowed in the military if they are competent soldiers. If you are going to oppose his view on that then at least familiarize yourself with it first. It is not a matter of being "pro gay" but instead pro military and recognizing that those who can shoot straight can make valuable contributions to the nation's defense even if they are not personally straight. There is also the recognition that there have been homosexuals in the military in every military since the days of the Roman empire and policies that involve pretending otherwise are both naive as well as stupid.

I happen to have not viewed the gays in the military issue as much of a big deal -ironically I differed from Goldwater on means though not the end if you will. I had no problem with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy when Clinton announced it (unlike Goldwater) and I do not now: it has nothing to do with being "pro gay" any more than defending someone's right to believe something makes me "pro" their view. And I am not going to anathematize Goldwater for disagreeing with me on this issue viz. the means.

As far as the abortion issue goes, to understand Goldwater's position it helps to consider some of his comments from The Congressional Record:

There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C," and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism." [Senator Barry M. Goldwater: From The Congressional Record (circa September 16, 1981)]

I can not only understand Senator Goldwater's anger on these matters but to some extent I have long shared it. On religious matters it embodies opposing those who would try to make others follow every jot and tittle of their personal opinion as if it was required dogma lest they be viewed as "heterodox" "anathematized", or whatever.{1} On political matters it encapsulates those who try to claim some unique franchise on the term "conservatism" by focusing on one or two issues and disregarding the rest; essentially, ignoring the underlying philosophy of a conservative outlook while uncritically parroting one or two talking points positions which are based on certain foundational presuppositions which they do not bother to question. To quote Goldwater, "just who do they think they are"???

Of course there are some areas where Reagan fared a bit better on the issue of conservatism. Neither man was supportive personally of abortion but they went about it differently. In Goldwater's case, his claim that women had a "right to abortion" late in his life was a recognition that RvW was "settled law" (cf. John Roberts) whether we like it or not. But just because something is "settled law" does not mean it cannot at some point be changed.

Goldwater according to his autobiography was personally was opposed to abortion -viewing it as a states right issue not a federal one. And while Reagan was better on balance than Goldwater on abortion perhaps;{2} nonetheless, on the plethora of what embodies conservative principles, Reagan did not fare as well overall as Goldwater.

For Goldwater was not only opposed to The Great Society as Reagan was but also to The New Deal which Reagan was in many respects not. (My view on this is somewhere between that of Reagan and Goldwater.) But the root difference between Conservatives and Liberals was one that Goldwater noted decades ago in the following fashion:

The root difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals of today is that Conservatives take account of the whole man, while the Liberals tend to look only at the material side of man's nature. The Conservative believes that man is, in part, an economic, an animal creature; but that he is also a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires. What is more, these needs and desires reflect the superior side of man's nature, and thus take precedence over his economic wants. Conservatism therefore looks upon the enhancement of man's spiritual nature as the primary concern of political philosophy. Liberals, on the other hand,—in the name of a concern for "human beings"—regard the satisfaction of economic wants as the dominant mission of society. They are, moreover, in a hurry. So that their characteristic approach is to harness the society's political and economic forces into a collective effort to compel "progress." In this approach, I believe they fight against Nature.

Senator Goldwater did not believe in trying to harness any governmental entity to try and "compel progress" regardless of what that proposed "progress" happened to be. He was in other words completely consistent on this matter. The same cannot be said of The Gipper who did not mind trying to use government at times to "compel progress" depending on the issue at hand.

The problem with judicial activism on one hand is it makes one lack credibility when they criticize the other side for doing the same thing: yet this is precisely what the religious right sorts want to try and do. The hallmark of conservatism is advocating the maximum of human liberty consonant with societal order: subsidiarity if you will. And part of subsidiarity is not involving the federal government in the attempt to compel societal virtue.

This is why Goldwater did not favour activist judges of any stripe and Reagan in this area was a bit inconsistent. They were both conservatives, believing in the same core principles but differing at times on how they viewed those principled to be best implemented. Neither was 100% perfect but Goldwater overall was better than Reagan was.

At bottom, your comments about Goldwater reveal to me that you do not really understand the heart of conservative philosophy despite (usually) having some good conservative instincts XXXXXXX. But that is a subject for another time perhaps...I have said all I intend to for now on it.

And if not for Carter being such a horrible president, Reagan would probably not have been elected in 1980. There was that and also because Carter and his advisers made the same mistake in 1980 that Governor Pat Brown and his advisers did in California in 1966: they presumed Reagan was easier to beat than the other major candidates so they sabotaged the front runner to get Reagan as an opponent. So Reagan got the nomination, resisted the attempts to paint him in demonic colours that the Democrats tried to do, and won in 1980 by significantly dominating the south -winning all but Georgia and West Virginia. He added those states in 1984 when he swept the south: the second time a Republican had ever done that. (Nixon was the first in the 1972 election to do it.) Bush Sr. ran as carrying Reagan's mantle the same way that Taft ran as carrying TR's mantle in 1912. And just as Taft was a huge disappointment, so too was Bush Sr. and both of them lost re-election in three party races. The Republicans in 1916 as in 1996 went with an establishment candidate and need I go on??? The bottom line is, what we saw this year is historically more probable than not.

1916, the year of the Bull Moose "It's all about Teddy" debacle.

You mean 1912. Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election in 1916 on the "he kept us out of war" platform winning narrowly.

TR's act of self-agranddizement was both embarrassing and destructive.

In a sense it was sure. But your claim that it was an act of "self-aggrandizement" shows me you do not know much about what actually happened. TR followed the Ben Franklin model and did not campaign for the presidency -noting that he would not seek the nomination but if there was a grass roots movement that supported him, he would not refuse out of a proper sense of duty on the matter. As it happens, there was such a movement from many who were pissed off at the Republican party bosses and the most visible person they could find to champion their cause was TR. I could note more on this but that you do not even realize that TR responded to a movement to draft him and did not lead such a charge himself tells me just how shallow your knowledge on this matter really is.

But you are right about this event having a destructive nature to it as it basically drove the Roosevelt element out of the Republican party and let the conservative oligarchy element to deservedly die on the vine in the general election. But it also opened a new vista in the form of the election primary contributing to the nomination of a candidate.

That election also was one of the first where primaries became a factor in nomination and it was the Roosevelt faction that favoured the primary system as a way of breaking the establishment hold on the party machinery. The problem is, the primaries were not viewed as binding back then but instead as voluntary; ergo Wisconsin Senator Robert LaFollette won two primaries out of the first four, President Taft won two out of the first four, and TR won nine of the last ten including Taft's home state of Ohio which he won by a large margin. The momentum had clearly shifted and Taft was losing where the party bosses were unable to keep a tight control on things. And at the convention, the conservative party bosses rigged the machinery to get a nomination victory for Taft. They did this not only in seating Taft delegates in Alabama and Arizona but also from California -a state that Roosevelt had won. As a result of the California shafting, TR and his delegates saw the screw job in the making and walked out of the convention hall and formed their own party.

Of course you think that TR was the "embarrassment" because he did not smile, lie back, and have "thoughts of England" while he was being screwed by party bosses. But then again, that is the difference between those who are party loyalists (like you) and those who are not (like me). Disgraceful actions are disgraceful in and of themselves, not okay or otherwise worth being quiet about when "our guys" do it but then shrieking like a banshee when "their guys" do.

One of the major differences between TR and Reagan was their post presidential years. Reagan was a true statesman when push come to shove and Roosevelt wasn't.

Reagan was an old man of 77 who did not have much else he could do when he left office whereas TR had just turned 50 and still had plenty of gas in the tank. That point aside what exactly did Reagan do of a "statesman-like nature" that you think was so compelling or otherwise accomplishing of something positive??? I cannot think of anything offhand -he gave a great speech at the 1992 convention and attended Republican functions on occasion but that is about it.

By contrast, TR was involved in a much-publicized African Safari in support of science in 1909-10{3}, fought the corruption in his own party in 1911-12, trekked through South America in 1913-14 again to aid in the advancement of science -though that time he was infected by malaria and the result was a loss of a massive amount of weight and health problems that plagued him for the rest of his life.

Despite that though, he campaigned energetically for Charles Evans Hughes in 1916, offered once President Wilson received his declaration of war to raise an all-volunteer infantry, and on party matters also through his efforts at campaigning for Republicans enabled them to regain control of the Congress in 1918 which put an important check on President Wilson's efforts. And besides these things, he was an energetic campaigner for physical fitness and hunting his entire life, supported the Boy Scouts, and wrote a number of books on a variety of subjects from foreign policy to history.

If I did not want to finish this thread as soon as possible, I would supply links in that paragraph to substantiate every point I made. The bottom line is this: the contributions of TR after he was president so dwarfed those of RR that your assertion is (with all due respect) absurd. I do not fault RR for this for a variety of reasons but your deprecation of TR's post-presidential record overall is frankly quite disturbing.

But McCain has repeatedly stuck the knife in the back of the GOP establishment (and it was not even to being a conservative dagger), whereas the other guys didn't. That's the major difference here.

As I said, I can sympathize with some of McCain's annoyance. I find myself embarrassed by the ahistorical and narrow-minded dogmatism of the self-anointed "true conservatives" a lot. The pro lifers particularly are at times embarrassing and I noted this not only recently but indeed in every election cycle since I have been blogging to some extent or another.{4} And I noted it in discussion forums long before anyone had heard of my apologetics stuff and in various conversations and formats prior to that as well. If not for having spent enough time on this response already, I would make quite a list -my position on this has been both ample as well as consistent over the years.

For what could be a response to Medved's Kool Aid drinking (although it isn't actually) Rush's little brother has this to say.

David is wrong: McCain is not "liberal lite." Compared to Obama (8%) and Clinton (9%), McCain's lifetime conservative rating is 82.3%. That is lower than the ratings of Tancredo (97.8%), Brownback (94%), Hunter (92%), Thompson (83%). I am not sure about Guiliani and Romney but if we consider the flop-flop of Romney and Guiliani's views on certain core conservative issues where he is seriously lacking (unlike McCain) it seems probable that both of them would finish lower than McCain on that score. (The American Conservative Union does not rank governors or mayors so this is a nebulous area.)

No, you are wrong. I hinted above that his voting record does not give us a true picture of the real John McCain. How many of John McCain's votes in the Senate were decisive?

Neither you nor I are in a position to know this without an exhaustive review of the Congressional Record.

I think it is undisputable that the legislation he has co-authored and sponsored tells us more about the real John McCain than his voting record. I can't think of any legislation McCain co-authored or sponsored that wasn't only leftist but to the far left.

So because you cannot think of any, that means none exists huh??? You realize presumably that finding just one piece would invalidate your whole presumption. However, I am not sure whether or not you would ignore whatever I would present as if it was non-existent. Certainly without a pledge to avoid such things I will not expend an ounce of time on the matter.{5}

Just the damage wrought by MF itself more than wipes out any positive effect of his voting record.

By whose assessment??? The intention was to (i) control soft money contributions in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees -in not only national but also state and local races-from raising or spending non-federally limited funds and (ii) utilizing issue ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election which named candidates along with any such ad paid for by corporations -be they non profit or unincorporated entities -one that stretches to both business entities as well as union ones.

The result so far is a significantly lessened influence of soft money on campaigns since MF was signed into law. It is a regrettable piece of legislation in several ways this is true and we will see clarifications on it coming from the courts which in my mind is just fine. But I doubt you have taken any time to look soberly at this piece of legislation -a presumption based on your track record thus far in what I have responded to.

Medved is lying through his teeth when he says that MF was only "useless" and has done no real harm, especially to the Right to Life cause. The Wisconsin Right to Life case soundly refutes him there.

One example doth note a definitive statement on this matter make. MF affects a variety of activist causes -among the organizations fined for failure to follow campaigning guidelines in the 2004 election were (according to Wikipedia) the liberal League of Conservation Voters ($180,000) and Moveon.org ($150,000) as well as the conservative Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ($299,500). I do not know the reasons for the fines so levied so am not in a position to say whether they should have been more or less in any given case.

Presumably Medved was referring to the effect of MF on balance as opposed to one particular issue or group. But then again, I am inclined towards giving a charitable interpretation whenever this is feasible to do where the party in question has not given me just cause to not do so. By contrast, you apparently are driven to presume the worst without sufficient cause to do so viz. Medved's statement on this matter. This shows the depth of who really has a "derangement syndrome" here XXXXXXX and I will give you a hint: it is not this little black duck, nosiree.

And MF is as brash a violation of the First Amendment as the criminalization of porn isn't.

You appear to take a Hugo Black approach to the first amendment and historically the courts have never sided with that interpretation -heck the 1919 Schenck vs. United States case{6} is the example that most readily comes to mind. That point being noted though, there is still a question as to the extent of MF in passing constitutional muster. And that being noted, I have no problem with the Supreme Court (in its current configuration under Chief Justice Roberts geared as it evidently is towards judicial restraint) hearing cases on MF.

But it doesn't stop there. You have McCain Leiberman, which is McCain's open vying for the Cardinal's red hat in Pope Algore I's church of the environmentally ill.

You realize presumably that variations of that bill have been introduced since at least 2003 and they have died every time right??? Even the one currently up (S. 280) is nowhere near being in danger of being made into law. But to know this would be to know the status of the bills and the percentage of bills that actually make it out of committee.{7}

I don't think I need to tell you how dangerous the radical evironmentalist agenda is to this country in terms of economics and national security.

I agree with you on that.

And yes there is the McCain Kennedy amnesty bill. This is the only area where the unconservative Bush is anywhere near as liberal as McCain.

Bush is a fiscally irresponsible "dime store new dealer" (cf. B. Goldwater) and McCain is not. There is another issue for you.

Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, McCain's voting record post-2000 is only in the low 60's to high 50's.

It varies from session to session but you are (as you have been thus far) quite spectacularly wrong. The average in that span of time excluding 2007 is...well...you do the math yourself. Here are the numbers:

2006: 65%
2005: 80%
2004: 72%
2003: 80%
2002: 78%
2001: 68%
2000: 81%

I trust you do not need a calculator to figure out that you are (yet again) quite mistaken.

Furthermore, the average numbers are even higher than that prior to 2000 on balance with only five years with a rating of less than 83% going all the way back to not only his first Senate year (1987) but even including his previous four years as a Representative from Arizona (1983-1987). I could say more but once again: the facts do not substantiate your presumption.

If you are going to say that McCain is going to govern more conservatively than Bush you need to bring something more substantive than "Bush has set the bar so low" to the table.

I have not said he would govern more conservatively.{8} What I said was simply that it would not be hard for him to since Bush set the bar so damned low.

Finally, you really have a lot of nerve engaging in the same kind of deadagenting and sophistry that you have railed against (and rightly so) these last few years. In the text of this letter I have pointed out where you have done that to the point of moonbattery.

Since so little of what you said is sustained under examination, you would be wise to not speak so brashly as you have been. I have engaged in no sophistry at all. What I have done is take a view on these matters which accounts for the diverse streams in the well of what is commonly called "conservatism" while you have shown an ahistorical understanding on these matters both wholly and in most of the significant parts. Conservative instincts are good to have (and on balance you have them) but instincts not informed by facts make for a dangerous combination.

I could get up in a twist about having my intelligence so carelessly insulted. But why? I have better things to do than to expend emotion on such nonsensical horseshit.

If anyone should feel their intelligence has been insulted on this, it is me. Kindly do your own homework next time and do not blindly and uncritically genuflect, bow three times, and incense the opinions of either of the Limbaugh boys.

Notes:

{1} Or someone's particular interpretation of an accepted dogma to the exclusion of other possible viewpoints.

{2} If we rule out his signing of the most liberal abortion law in the country when governor of California.

{3} Financed by both Andrew Carnegie and also sales of his own writings.

{4} I do not have time to look for them but the archives of this weblog contain several examples -the most recent one from January of this year:

On the Candidacy of Mike Huckabee and the Political Stupidity of Pro-Lifers (circa January 9, 2008)

{5} I spent enough time tracking down the sources on this note already.

{6} Which upheld the US Sedition Act of 1918.

{7} A hint: it is very small and I gave it to you already.

{8} I did not realize that in responding to the longer email the first time, I actually did say this though I intended more nuance than that. The emailer can consider this to be a victory for them if they want but it would be a pyrrhic victory if they do.