Balkinization: World Historical Incompetents

World Historical Incompetents

There is an amusing discussion over at Crooked Timber, based in turn on an article in Inside Higher Education by Scott McLemee, over whether George W. Bush should be considered a World Historical Individual in the Hegelian sense.

I think this discussion admirably shows the limitations of Hegel's theory of history as much as the limitations of George W. Bush.

I have a much more modest suggestion, or rather two suggestions. One concerns the effects of the lethal combination of great incompetence and great power; the other concerns the role of contingency in history (as opposed to Hegel's notion of the inevitable working out of the Idea in history).

The paradigm cases of Hegel's world historical individuals are people like Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander, or in our day, people like Mao or Stalin, who through force of will reshape history and then are destroyed by its forces. George Bush does not seem to fall into this camp. He seems, rather, to be among those many leaders who were simply over-matched by the situation they found themselves in, and squandered the great power they held at a moment in history to the long lasting detriment of their country and the interests they stood for. Bush is like the impetuous but ignorant monarch or tribal chieftain-- there are so many of them-- who attacks the wrong country at the wrong time, and whose empire is then weakened or, in some cases, destroyed. He is among history's losers, who drags his country down with him, and these losers are not world historical individuals. If the catastrophe they engender by their incompetence and bad judgment is really significant-- take the destruction of the world order produced by World War I as only one example-- then they are world historical losers. But no one should or would confuse the last monarchs of, say, Austria and Russia with world historical individuals.

Instead, I would call such leaders world historical incompetents-- people who, put in the wrong place at the wrong time, with skills unable to the task, manage to destroy a great deal that was once thought valuable or good, and thus, unwittingly, change the world in ways they had no intention of doing.

Whether George W. Bush is such a world historical incompetent, only time will tell. But right now it looks like he is doing everything he can to qualify.

My second point concerns contingency in history, a familiar theme. Just yesterday Al Gore announced that he was not going to run for President in 2008. I am sad to hear it, but I am even sadder that he was not permitted to enter the White House in 2000, even though he won more votes than George W. Bush, and in my opinion, won more votes in Florida as well. I have discussed these issues at great length elsewhere and won't repeat the reasons for my conclusions here.

In hindsight, however, it seems to me clear that the United States would very likely have been better off if Al Gore had taken office in 2000 rather than George W. Bush. He might have proved incompetent, but it is hard to believe that, given his experience in government and in foreign policy, he could have been much more incompetent than the stubborn and inexperienced George W. Bush. There is hardly any doubt, moreover, that he would not have attacked Iraq following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, if those attacks would have occurred on his watch. (Remember that both officials in the Clinton and Bush administrations could be charged with negligence here.) Moreover, if Gore had proved bad at the job, he might have served only one term, especially since, unlike Bush, he would have gotten little cooperation from Congress, which was of a different party and would have been doing everything it could to undermine him.

How did Bush become president in 2000? Part of it is due to superior skullduggery on behalf of the Republicans, and part of it is due to Gore's inability to win Tennessee, his home state, the limitations of his campaign, and his unwillingness to send Bill Clinton out to campaign for him until the very last moment. Part of it was due to Teresa La Pore's design of the butterfly ballot. In short, the catastrophe of the Bush Administration was caused by a host of contingencies that no one could have predicted, but which, in hindsight, put an ill-prepared, stubborn and ignorant man in the most powerful position in the world, and he, true to his nature, proceeded to screw things up royally.

Had George W. Bush stayed as governor of Texas, or commissioner of Baseball-- the job he really coveted, or even a gladhanding Texas businessman-- which he was for many years, he might have had much less chance to destroy anything so great. His incompetence would not have been so magnified, and the country would not have had to pay so great a price. But sometimes, by bad chance or dumb luck, the wrong person at the wrong time with the wrong set of skills is handed enormous power, that if, badly wielded, will change the world forever in ways no one desired. Then the world witnesses something that is as unfortunate as it is unnecessary: a World Historical Incompetent.

Posted 12:01 PM by JB [link]

Comments:

Sir, let me say, before the vandals swoop in, that it is nothing short of a delight to see the words "Bush" and "loser" juxtaposed in so correct a manner. Touche.

# posted by

Robert Link : 1:24 PM

Prof. Balkin [from the post]:

Instead, I would call such leaders world historical incompetents-- people who, put in the wrong place at the wrong time, with skills unable to the task, manage to destroy a great deal that was once thought valuable or good, and thus, unwittingly, change the world in ways they had no intention of doing.

When Dubya was "overmatched" in college, and in every subsequent business he started (Molly Ivins's remark that he's the only Texas oilman never to have found oil in Texas comes to mind), it's not surprising that he's over his head as preznit. Under more placid circumstances, this might not have made itself apparent (but his disregard of -- or antipathy to -- science would nonetheless have wreaked significant long-term damage). But under the circumstances, his incompetence has come to the forefront. One feature to note is not only that in trying times, the incompetence becomes apparent, but additionally, the incompetence becomes magnified when the situation deteriorates due to earlier incompetency, resulting in more dire circumstances and further and more significant errors.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 1:24 PM

Just yesterday Al Gore announced that he was not going to run for President in 2008.

There's some doubt about the accuracy of this report. Link.

# posted by

Mark Field : 1:35 PM

I'm not sure that one incompetent individual is the most useful way of characterizing the situation. The entire situation is strikingly similar to the years just prior to Caeser's rise to power with the passing of the Lex Gabinia and the Lex Manilia. Of course the big difference is that Pompey actually defeated the pirate threat, instead of spreading it around with ill considered strategies and half-efforts. Still, to defeat a borderless foe they they passed laws that led to the end of their democracy. We may end up with the worst of both worlds.

# posted by

John : 2:21 PM

Regarding Stalin and the forces of history: Stalin's empire was destroyed between 1989 and 1991, but at the time of his death in 1953 it was very much intact and about to test its first thermonuclear weapon. If one defines his primary goal as expanding Soviet power in the crudest sense, Stalin died a success, though his immense crimes and follies did much to doom Soviet power in the decades after his death.

# posted by

Anonymous : 5:25 PM

Professor Balkin:

My second point concerns contingency in history, a familiar theme. Just yesterday Al Gore announced that he was not going to run for President in 2008. I am sad to hear it...In hindsight, however, it seems to me clear that the United States would very likely have been better off if Al Gore had taken office in 2000 rather than George W. Bush. He might have proved incompetent, but it is hard to believe that, given his experience in government and in foreign policy, he could have been much more incompetent than the stubborn and inexperienced George W. Bush.

Would you care to expand on this argument of the superior competence of a Gore Administration? I am having a hard time seeing it.

If a Gore Administration continued the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration, we could have expected a continuation of the legal walls erected between the domestic and international intelligence agencies which prevented them from sharing information on the enemy, no intelligence gathering on telecommunications into the United States originating from overseas enemy sources like the kind which coordinated the attacks on 9/11, no messy ground wars against the enemy which entail actual casualties, ineffective air strikes against al Qeada targets in Afghanistan and elsewhere just like in the 90s, treating the enemy as criminal defendants which may not be acted against without warrant and indictments, waiting on the UN to authorize military action against the enemy, and allowing rogue nations to continue to develop WMD and support enemy terror groups who are attacking Americans.

Perhaps it would be useful to remember that the enemy attacked our citizens around the world and in this country repeatedly during the last administration and has not successfully done so outside of the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones since 9/11. This is my measure of competence for any national defense policy.

I would argue that history in 50 years is far more likely to apply the term "world historical incompetent" to the previous administration's foreign policy than that of the current administration.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 6:19 PM

"Bart" DePalma asks:

Would you care to expand on this argument of the superior competence of a Gore Administration? I am having a hard time seeing it.

Oh, I'll have a go at it. Trained chipmunks would have had a superior competence to the Dubya maladministration. They would not have gotten 3000+ (and counting) U.S. soldiers killed -- not even "for nothing", but far worse -- to make a situation much more dangerous and unstable. And they wouldn't have eaten half a trillion dollars of our kids' money in seeds....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 7:39 PM

"Bart" DePalma says:

If a Gore Administration continued the policies of the Clinton/Gore administration, we could have expected a continuation of the legal walls erected between the domestic and international intelligence agencies which prevented them from sharing information on the enemy, ....

Lies and unsupported speculation. Straight out of the RNC/Hannity/Freeperville "talking points" files.

... no intelligence gathering on telecommunications into the United States originating from overseas enemy sources like the kind which coordinated the attacks on 9/11, ...

Plenty of people have pointed out that no one is arguing against intelligence gathering; the only request is that it be done following the law. FWIW, I've probably done more since 9/11 in fighting terrorism than "Bart" has. But I see no reason to do anything against the law; if the laws are not working, "mend it, don't end-run it". The trope about Democrats not wanting to listen to al Qaeda is simply not true. It's been pointed out to "Bart" numerous times that surveillance of al Qaeda overseas (for instance, "telecommunications into the United States originating from overseas enemy sources") doesn't even require a FISA warrant, and that even where they are required, FISA warrants are essentially never turned down. All people have been asking is that the requirements of FISA be followed, but that prevents no surveillance of import, nor do the people asking for such want no such surveillances. More lies.

... no messy ground wars against the enemy which entail actual casualties, ineffective air strikes against al Qeada targets in Afghanistan ...

Ummm, the Afghan war was fought "on the cheap", with mostly U.S. air power and lots of mercenaries/locals doing the actual fighting. In fact, as some have suggested, this may account for the fact that Dubya didn't manage to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive". Whether Dubya thought this a good idea to keep down annoying "casualties" or just thought it wise for other reasons, we don't know. But it seems in retrospect to have been a poor decision, particularly when the U.S. population would have been far more willing to accept casualties in an actual hunt for bin Laden than in that quagmire we call Iraq....

.. and elsewhere just like in the 90s, treating the enemy as criminal defendants which may not be acted against without warrant and indictments, ....

The question is whether the "enemy" is in fact the "enemy". Make the case, and they're all yours.

... waiting on the UN to authorize military action against the enemy, ....

In retrospect, perhaps a good idea. Iraq might have gone better if Dubya had waited until there was sufficient proof to justify and invasion, and gotten more than just a "Coalition of the Billing". But in this case, it would have played out that the war was unnecessary, and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved.

... and allowing rogue nations to continue to develop WMD...

Ummm, like North Korea?

... and support enemy terror groups who are attacking Americans.

Iraq wasn't supporting groups "who [were] attackng Americans.

A string of complete drivel and slander from Harold "Bart" DePalma, Esq., of the Colorado bar.

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:03 PM

To what extent are world historical leaders (not "incompetents") necessarily authoritarian, i.e., not really hemmed in by a strong sense of institutional limits? Do any Americans really compare to the list of "Hegelian" world historical figures. FDR is very important, but it's hard to argue that he transformed the world in a way that Napoleon or Hitler did. Ditto Lincoln. I should note that this "limitation" is a compliment to the American system and not a criticism. We will have lost a "republican form of government" if we ever do have genuinely world-historical leaders.

# posted by

Sandy Levinson : 8:30 PM

Prof. Levinson:

I should note that this "limitation" is a compliment to the American system and not a criticism. We will have lost a "republican form of government" if we ever do have genuinely world-historical leaders.

Don't look now but ....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 8:43 PM

To Bart:

I think it safe to assume that if Al Gore had been President at the time of the 9/11 attack, the scale of the attack would have changed at least something. It just would not have changed things to the degree Bush and is followers favor. Just as well, if you ask me.

# posted by

Essayist-Laywer : 9:28 PM

Enlightened Layperson said...

To Bart: I think it safe to assume that if Al Gore had been President at the time of the 9/11 attack, the scale of the attack would have changed at least something. It just would not have changed things to the degree Bush and is followers favor. Just as well, if you ask me.

Perhaps. However, the folks at the time did not think so. I believe it was the NYT which ran the article reporting that even Dem supporters of Gore were glad that Bush was in charge after 9/11.

Do not misunderstand me. My reply to Professor Balkin was aimed to the policies of Clinton / Gore and not in any way to argue that Mr. Bush is perfect. Bush has made plenty of mistakes in his war.

The key difference between the two administrations is that Mr. Bush was willing to wage war against an enemy which had been waging war against us for years while the prior administration and I dare say a hypothetical Gore administration would not.

Until I see a post Vietnam Dem administration actually suggest nevertheless engage in a ground war against an enemy of this country, I simply do not have the basis to believe that a future Dem administration will do so. Indeed, the current Dem calls (including those of Mr. Gore) for a withdrawal and surrender in Iraq and the Dem attempts to run Joe Lieberman out of the party do not exactly change my opinion in this regard.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 8:42 AM

"Bart" DePalma:

The key difference between the two administrations is that Mr. Bush was willing to wage war against an enemy which had been waging war against us for years while the prior administration and I dare say a hypothetical Gore administration would not.

I think "Bart" is sadly mistaken. Pretty much any administration would have taken on al Qaeda in Afghanistan (and likely the Taleban if they didn't give al Qaeda up). He's probably right that Gore may well not have attacked Iraq, but that seems to be a bit of a feather in Gore's cap, at least comparatively (since in fact, Iraq had not been "waging war against us for years" and was no threat .. not to mention invading that country would be a complete bollix).

But I note that, under different circumstances, the Republican apologists trot out a mile long quotes from Democrats against Iraq in support of Dubya's invasion of Iraq (including one from Gore, I believe). Can't have it both ways....

Cheers,

# posted by

Anonymous : 11:10 AM

IT'S HAGEL, NOT HEGEL

This is an interesting and paradox idea. The Straussian rhetoric frequently used by Administration spokesmen, including Bush himself, would make him out to be a world-historical figure. I think for instance of the umpteen times that he used the word "decider" and "decision" in his recent 60 Minutes interview. But for Bush to be a world-historical figure in Hegel's sense, his conduct would have to reflect the spirit of the age, as in this passage of the Lectures on the Philosophy of History of 1837, in which he concludes that a world-historical figure's dealings, his speeches must be the best of the era.

"Dies sind die großen Menschen in der Geschichte, deren eigne partikulare Zwecke das Substantielle enthalten, welches Wille des Weltgeistes ist. [...] Solche Individuen hatten in diesen ihren Zwecken nicht das Bewußtsein der Idee überhaupt, sondern sie waren praktische und politische Menschen. Aber zugleich waren sie denkende, die die Einsicht hatten von dem, was not und was an der Zeit ist. Das ist eben die Wahrheit ihrer Zeit und ihrer Welt, sozusagen die nächste Gattung, die im Innern bereits vorhanden war. Ihre Sache war es, dies Allgemeine, die notwendige nächste Stufe ihrer Welt zu wissen, diese sich zum Zwecke zu machen und ihre Energie in dieselbe zu legen. Die welthistorischen Menschen, die Heroen einer Zeit, sind darum als die Einsichtigen anzuerkennen; ihre Handlungen, ihre Reden, sind das Beste der Zeit."

And on this point, surely the decisive word lies not with Hegel, but with Hagel, who made this observation the day after "surge" speech:

"I think this speech given last night by this president represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."

# posted by

Scott Horton : 2:16 PM