I have been reading more and more of and about J. R. R. Tolkien these days, and it is becoming clear that the man is exactly the role model I want to move toward for the rest of my life. There is little else that needs to be said about the man other than the fact that he was the guru of C. S. Lewis (though they had a falling out in later years due to C. S. Lewis’ insistence on marrying a divorced woman, something Tolkien, as an incredibly strong Catholic, could not reconcile with The Way Things Are Supposed to Be).
The more I read into the themes and tones of The Silmarillion and The Lord of the Rings, the more I see that power is a very dangerous thing. Spiritually, the implications are still resounding, but for now, I would like to take the obvious route up the mountain, and start with the political realm of man.
In my story Sauron represents as near an approach to the wholly evil will as is possible. He had gone the way of all tyrants: beginning well, at least on the level that while desiring to order all things according to his own wisdom he still at first considered the well-being of other inhabitants of Earth. But he went further than human tyrants in pride and the lust for domination, being in origin an immortal (angelic) spirit
– Tolkien, in his letters.
Lord Acton’s principle is vindicated, and Catholics are waking up by the day to the fact that earthly power does nothing but destroy – no matter who wields it. Tolkien was as near an anarchist as any good Catholic can be, not because he thought men were inherently good, devoid of Original Sin, or even able to control themselves fully; but rather because he realized that Original Sin would entwine itself into any power a man could gain over his fellows, and the results, as Tolkien observed in The War to End All Wars, was blood, destruction, and evil. Many times it is stated in his books – we cannot take up evil means to good ends. Power is a means that one can argue is inherently evil – or at least the most dangerous of all things pursued for the sake of some other end…
Getting to the point, our president today is a self-styled Sauron, and there are a few reasons why – though power is the most obvious. This drone war is a terrifying thing. The way technology unpacks to the corners of the earth when it is produced en masse means that these weapons will someday surely be used against us, by men whose caprice is even less arbitrary than Obama’s. We cannot wield these evil machines that offer no solution to collateral damage except our poor excuses for moral purpose…
Ah, but therein lies the latest development in this ideological war. Collateral damage has become “acceptable targets.” In Obama’s memos and through the media, “militant” has been re-defined to mean “any military-aged men in a strike zone.” And with every kill or thought of a dead Yemeni/Syrian/Iranian/[Insert Enemy-Nationality-of-the-Month Here], the media sings uncritical praise for us having won something. The question is, what have we won? How is the average American better off now that unnamed men are being assassinated in our name? The answer to what we have won, (TL;DR) is nothing except more evil, which power seems to inevitably beget:
I must, at last, admit defeat. I simply have no words, no rhetorical ammunition, no conceptual frameworks that could adequately address the total moral nullity exposed in Monday’s New York Times article on the death squad that Barack Obama is personally directing from the White House. [See above.]
It is not so much a newspaper story as a love letter — a love letter to death, to the awe-inspiring and fear-inducing power of death, as personified by Barack Obama in his temporary role as the manager of a ruthless, lawless imperial state. In the cringing obsequiousness of the multitude of insiders and sycophants who march in goose-step through the story, we can see the awe and fear — indeed, the worship — of death-dealing power. This enthrallment permeates the story, both in the words of the cringers and in the giddy thrill the writers display in gaining such delicious access to the inner sanctum.
In any other age — including the last administration — this story would have been presented as a scandalous exposé. The genuinely creepy scenes of the “nominating process” alone would have been seen as horrific revelations. Imagine the revulsion at the sight of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld sifting through PowerPoint slides on “suspected terrorists” all over the world, and giving their Neronic thumbs up or down as each swarthy face pops up on a screen in front of them. Imagine the tidal wave of moral outrage from the “Netroots Nation” and other progressive champions directed at Bush not only for operating a death squad (which he did), but then trotting out Condi and Colin and Bob Gates to brag about it openly, and to paint Bush as some kind of moral avatar for the careful consideration and philosophical rigor he applied to blowing human beings to bits in sneak attacks on faraway villages.
But the NYT piece is billed as just another “process story” about an interesting aspect of Obama’s presidency, part of an election-year series assessing his record. It is based entirely on the viewpoints of Beltway insiders. The very few dollops of mild criticism of the murder program are voiced by figures from deep within the imperial machine. And even these caveats are mostly tactical in nature, based on one question: “Does the program work, is it effective?” There is not a single line that ever suggests, even slightly, that the program might be morally wrong. There is not a single line in the story suggesting that such a program should up for debate or even examination by Congress. Nor is there even a perfunctory quote from mainstream organizations such as the ACLU or Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch — or from anyone in Pakistan or Yemen or the other main targets of Obama’s proudly proclaimed and personally approved death squad.
In other words, this portrait of an American president signing off — week after week after week after week — on the extrajudicial murder of people all over the world is presented as something completely uncontroversial. Indeed, the main thrust of the story is not the fact that human beings — including many women, children and men who have no connection whatsoever to “terrorism,” alleged or otherwise — are being regularly killed by the United States government; no, the main focus is how this program illustrates Barack Obama’s “evolving” style of leadership during the course of his presidency. That’s what’s really important. The murders — the eviscerated bodies, the children with their skulls bashed in, the pregnant women burned alive in their own homes — are just background. Unimportant. Non-controversial.
Here’s how it works:
“Every week or so, more than 100 members of the government’s sprawling national security apparatus gather, by secure video teleconference, to pore over terrorist suspects’ biographies and recommend to the president who should be the next to die.
“This secret “nominations” process is an invention of the Obama administration, a grim debating society that vets the PowerPoint slides bearing the names, aliases and life stories of suspected members of Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen or its allies in Somalia’s Shabab militia. … A parallel, more cloistered selection process at the C.I.A. focuses largely on Pakistan, where that agency conducts strikes.
“The nominations go to the White House, where by his own insistence and guided by Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama must approve any name. He signs off on every strike in Yemen and Somalia and also on the more complex and risky strikes in Pakistan — about a third of the total.
“Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counterterrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions.
“He realizes this isn’t science, this is judgments made off of, most of the time, human intelligence,” said Mr. Daley, the former chief of staff. “The president accepts as a fact that a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen, and to him, that calls for a more judicious process.”
Again, words fail. Aides pumping reporters with stories about the wise, judicious philosopher-king consulting Aquinas and Augustine before sending a drone missile on a “signature strike” on a group of picnickers in Yemen or farmers in Pakistan. The philosopher-king himself nobly taking on the “moral responsibility” for mass murder. And the cavalier assertion that “a certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen” — a bland, blithe acceptance that you are in fact going to slaughter innocent human beings on a regular basis — precisely as if you walked up to an innocent man on the street, put a gun to his head and blew his brains out all over the sidewalk …. then walked away, absolved, unconcerned, and free to kill again. And again. And again. This psychopathic serial killing is, evidently, what Augustine meant by “moral responsibility.” Who knew?
Obama’s deep concern for “moral responsibility” is also reflected in his decision to kill according to “signature strikes” — that is, to kill people you don’t know, who haven’t even popped up on your PowerPoint slides, if you think they might possibly look or act like alleged potential “terrorists.” (Or if you receive some “human intelligence” from an agent or an informer or someone with a grudge or someone seeking payment that a group of people doing something somewhere might be terrorists.) This “moral responsibility” is also seen in Obama’s decision to count “all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants … unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”
Guilty until proven posthumously innocent! How’s that for “moral responsibility”? Here Obama has surpassed Augustine and Aquinas — yea, even great Aristotle himself — in this bold extension of the parameters of moral responsibility.
It is, I confess, beyond all my imagining that a national leader so deeply immersed in murdering people would trumpet his atrocity so openly, so gleefully — and so deliberately, sending his top aides out to collude in a major story in the nation’s leading newspaper, to ensure maximum exposure of his killing spree. Although many leaders have wielded such powers, they almost always seek to hide or obscure the reality of the operation. Even the Nazis took enormous pains to hide the true nature of their murder programs from the public. And one can scarcely conceive of Stalin inviting reporters from Pravda into the Politburo meetings where he and Molotov and Beria debated the lists of counterrevolutionary “terrorists” given to them by the KGB and ticked off those who would live and those who would die. Of course, those lists too were based on “intelligence reports,” often gathered through “strenuous interrogation techniques” or the reports of informers. No doubt these reports were every bit as credible as the PowerPoint presentations reviewed each week by Obama and his team.
And no doubt Stalin and his team were just as sincerely concerned about “national security” as the Aquinas acolyte in the White House today — and just as determined to do “whatever it takes” to preserve that security. As Stalin liked to say of the innocent people caught up in his national security efforts: “When wood is chopped, chips fly.”
Of course, he was an evil man without any sense of moral responsibility at all. In our much more enlightened times, under the guidance of a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate in the White House, we are so much wiser, so much better. We say: “A certain amount of screw-ups are going to happen.” Isn’t that much more nuanced? Isn’t that much more moral?
There is more, much more of this nullity — and rotting hypocrisy and vapid sycophancy — in the story. But I don’t have the strength or the stomach to wade any further through this swamp. It stinks of death. It taints and stains us all.
Amen. There is nothing left to say. Here we see the banality of evil Hannah Arendt talked so eloquently about – how everyday events by powerful men contribute to suffering and sin worldwide. The ideology of “moral” self-righteousness, when fully socially adopted, cannot be stopped or even tempered. As Americans and therefore the writers of history, it is likely to me that Obama will be remembered as a great president, of upstanding moral worth and wisdom (a very plausible theory of U.S. history notes that it is those presidents that killed the most people who are usually remembered most fondly by nostalgic Americans – Lincoln, Truman, FDR, Wilson, etc.). American legal positivism (the idea that the law is legally and correct based on if it is truly enacted law) is the culmination of will-to-power in a way only Frederic Nietzsche or Arthur Schopenhauer could have fully understood. Morality be damned. We will write our own, and it will include killing people halfway around the world whose only danger to us is if we are within rock-throwing distance.
As a practical matter, there is always the economics of our machines of war and the development of our leaders into War Pigs. We are in a world where Sauron has his Ring back and we can do nothing to stop it, except use our words. When is enough really enough? Where will our refuge be when our participation in the system itself becomes evil? What will be left to take when Sauron takes the whole world with his drones?
Edit: Hope Burning – and not with the Secret Fire of Tolkien’s world or this one…