Friday, October 9, 2009
Not Entirely Ethical but Defiantly Sensible
This rule of answering the question that you wish was asked carries with it many implications that need to be considered before it is taken into practice. McNamara, in his term as Secretary of Defense, was expected to work on two entirely different fronts. A leader of military operations, and an official ambassador to the people of the U.S. of the military's status. While not directly answering the question that is posed as a student is defiantly less than ideal, for a man of significant status such as McNamara, nobody will force him to clarify out of respect for the position he holds. From here, not directly answering the question posed is a way to keep from misspeaking or having said something that can be ambiguous. McNamara is ahead of his time in his consideration of this because when politicians speak today, they literally are on a verbal tightrope where one mistake will result in a subsequent backlash from the media which, around the time of Vietnam, was just beginning to increase their coverage on the war. If McNamara answers the questions he wishes was asked, while it may not be entirely ethical, he will be able to swiftly respond and remain the "IBM machine with legs", and therefore, keep the trust invested in him by those who cannot read past a more subtle form of deflection.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you're absolutely right, Brendan, about the seemingly 'sensible' nature of this tactic *from the perspective of the one utilizing it*. But isn't the ethical question an important one? In fact, does it not make you uneasy to consider that, in essence, no public figure may ever actually be answering your question when using this tactic? Should we be so passive in allowing it to be used (eg, our media rarely stands up to this tactic)? Can a 'democracy' even exist without some hope of straight answers?
ReplyDeleteOne of the possible concerns with the tactic is precisely that it can be (when used by someone clever like McNamara) so effective -- it can be very difficult in complex discussions to 'read past a more subtle form of deflection', at least until it's too late. On the other side of the coin, is there a sense in which McNamara might have harmed *himself* by always using this cynical tactic?
Finally, you raise an excellent point about the very idea of a 'Secretary of Defense' -- a civilian holding a war position, one that requires public relations. Can one do both things (guide military operations and try to sell them to the public) at once, or should he?