New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Russian military leaders have expressed concern about US plans for a national missile defense system. Will defense technology be limited by possibilities for a strategic imbalance? Is this just SDI all over again?

rshowalter - 12:32pm Jun 10, 2001 EST (#4688 of 4695)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

Tom Daschle , the new Senate Majority Leader , pledges to try for workable patterns of discourse in A New Deal for a New Senate http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/10/opinion/10DASC.html

" I believe the only way forward is to embrace a spirit of principled compromise. What this requires is open debate, because it is only through debate that we can find new areas of agreement.

" Even in an increasingly partisan political environment, agreement is possible.

but it takes discourse in good faith. Daschle describes a case:

" . . . something unusual happened. People listened to each other. As a result, they sometimes changed their positions. Surprising coalitions formed. In the end, we were able to pass a bill that neither side would have written by itself but both sides agreed would help clean up the financing of campaigns and rebuild confidence in the integrity of the system.

. . . .

" Why was progress made on these fronts when on so many others we fell victim to gridlock and acrimony? There are at least two reasons.

" First, these issues were allowed real debates. Unlike the stage-managed debates on many other issues in recent years, they weren't merely theatrical exercises used to justify pre- ordained conclusions or score political points. Sham debates tend to reinforce divisions, while honest debate truly engages the participants, gives them a stake in the outcome and opens avenues for compromise that hadn't been considered before.

" Another reason is that on these issues public support is broad and deep. Principled compromise is easier to reach when we are addressing a national interest rather than a special interest.

. . . . .

" Our national political discussion is often polarized between those who see America as a land built solely on the strength of rugged individualism and others who ascribe our strength to collective action.

" The division between those two distinct values is not always fully reconcilable. But I come from a place where people understand that these ideas are not mutually exclusive, either.

For the world to make much progress, we need to realize that, in a complex world, ideas that, on oversimplified models, are mutually exclusive, are not mutually exclusive in the real, more complex world we live in, which offers both more challenges, and more opportunities.

Daschle goes on:

That point was impressed upon me by a former Senate majority leader I much admire, Howard Baker. Senator Baker advised us: Have a genuine and decent respect for differing points of view . . . remember that even members of the opposition party are susceptible to persuasion and redemption on a surprising number of issues.

I liked Bakers entirely practical use of the word redemption. It is the kind of secular redemption, of reframing, of reconciliation, that we need for much greater nuclear safety, and for greater peace.

But without decision making on the basis of facts that are true, and ideas that fit the real cases involved, the situation is beyond redemption.

Issues about "the culture of lying" much discussed on this thread, and of great concern to almast , are essential here. A more free, more responsible press than we now have is going to be essential for basic needs of world safety.

So that real honest debate will be possible, and so that the public can participate in, and watch, that debate.

rshowalter - 12:40pm Jun 10, 2001 EST (#4689 of 4695)
Robert Showalter showalte@macc.wisc.edu

MD4670 rshowalter 6/9/01 6:55pm
Trust" is essential, if workably defined, but the word can be used in treacherous ways.

Things have to be checked. That assumes that the functions of a free press that the founding fathers of the United States put such faith in work well.

Today, in some essential ways, they don't.

This is something that needs to be fixed if "trust" is going to be possible between nations. For us to get beyond a Hobbesian model of the world - a brutal "war of all against all" -- we need to be able to make decisions, and defend ourselves, on the basis of information that is true.

Because the world is so very complex -- many billions of times more complex than we can formally model -- the need for correct information is vital - because we need it for feedback as we make decisions.

Any model simple enough to fit in our heads is likely to be misleading - if we push it very far, unless we check how well it fits a world much more complex than our models.

(6 following messages)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense