Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Blaming and Denial as Art Forms
When we think about the attitudes that get us into the worst trouble with others, they are usually tied to our ego. I recently wrote a post on the dangers of hubris and the lack of humility and how they form our attitudes and influence our behaviors.
But one of the most damaging dilemmas we can face is when we are humiliated. And when we are embarrassed or angry in a way that our own self-perception is at risk, we will fight tooth and nail to maintain our self-image and to build our credibility with others. That struggle manifests in our obsession with being right and looking good.
The first factor, being right, is not just when we want to be right, but when we are passionately committed to maintain the belief in ourselves and convince others that we are, indeed, right. If we’re lucky, the proof can rest in agreed-upon data and if we are proved wrong, we can sheepishly or grudgingly (depending on our nature) admit our error. But very often verification of the “facts” is much harder to come by, and even when the situation leans away from us, we can fight mightily to maintain our position. At the moment of conflict with someone else, our self-worth, our reputation, our very existence can seem to depend on our being right. We believe that even suggesting the possibility of a mistake is a loss of face, a crack in our credibility, and to our own peace of mind. We are certain, beyond any doubt, that we are right. And we can have these battles over who makes the best coffee, or who is most at fault for the chaos in Afghanistan.
Now I want to define the attribute of “looking good,” which is more subtle and elusive. When I am concerned about looking good, that is defined by what I believe will build my credibility with another person in certain circumstances. In my case, my reputation, my expertise (as I see it), my poise, my writing ability, my intelligence, my sincerity and honesty, and my sense of humor are at stake. When I want to be appreciated, respected, or understood by others, I must fulfill my perception of “looking good”; sometimes those are helpful goals in building relationships and intimacy with others. But there are times when I fall short, and in my own mind, my looking good is threatened; then I can act in a way that makes me look very foolish. I may lose my temper, attack the other person and take other counterproductive actions that only get me into more trouble. And striving to look good becomes a distant memory.
As you might have guessed, being right and looking good can be detrimental to communicating, making decisions, and strengthening relationships. When they become the primary force in our daily life and supersede our own innate wisdom and priorities, we get into trouble. We especially have major issues when both attributes merge into one toxic force. And we put most of our energy into blaming others and denying any culpability.
I couldn’t help thinking of these characteristics in terms of two very different situations: the pandemic and Afghanistan.
Regarding the pandemic, the “experts” were determined to maintain their credibility and status, no matter how much they contradicted themselves and ignored the facts. They repeatedly pointed to the science, even though they rarely quoted the science. And they blamed others for putting the country at risk—governors, local magistrates, and members of Congress took the brunt of their accusations, so they could deny the attacks on their expertise. The problems with this approach to the pandemic were that people were angry, confused, and frustrated by the changing rules and information, and either attacked the experts or each other. That situation continues, with social media stepping in to defend the experts and silence the naysayers. And I see no end in sight, as long as Covid-19 is with us, which is likely for the foreseeable future (possibly forever).
The debacle in Afghanistan is another prime example of ways that being right and looking good are demonstrated, followed by blaming and denial. We see the President denying reality—saying that the administration planned for a disaster to erupt and that they had the situation under control. Biden’s commitment to being right and looking good are unsurpassed in this situation. Unless you refer to the rest of his administration.
The generals and cabinet officials think they are finessing the art of blame and denial. They insist they never received information that the intelligence predicted the collapse of the army and the government as quickly as it occurred. And they are likely furious at Joe Biden who put them in this awkward position. So, without naming him, they are pointing fingers at Biden for making them look inept and foolish. The specific accusations are likely to be stated at any moment.
When people are determined to be right and look good, anything goes: lying, blaming and denials are at the top of the list. And as citizens, all we are able to do is cry out our rage, despair, and grief at the likelihood that people, many people, will die.
And probably sooner rather than later.
Published in Foreign Policy
General Milley is a dishonourable Coward. Were he not, he would resign. Ditto Austin
As a general rule, or even a political rule, when something gets screwed up this spectacularly someone is supposed to fall on their sword or be fired.
I mean really they don’t seem to have thought this through enough to even have a almost credible scape goat.
The goat is at the top. If Biden’s abandoning our citizens does not constitute “treason…high crimes and misdemeanors “, nothing does.
I was appalled at DOD’s presser yesterday. When a reporter asked the SecDef if we were going to get all our people out of Afghanistan, he appeared to go totally blank; turning his head back and forth, and looking a bit like a deer in the headlights. This was a battalion/brigade/division/corps commander?
Finally, the CJCS came to his rescue (his rambling reply wasn’t much better).
These guys need to get out of the government and go start their own diversity consulting company.
Over and over we’re seeing them digging deeper holes for themselves. Where will it all end?
Dan McLaughlin has an excellent column at NRO today. It’s labeled “NR Plus,” supposedly only available to subscribers, but I’m not and I was able to read it.
Key quote:
No American Military Leader Should Ever Say What Lloyd Austin Said | National Review
When I see this, I think of Carlos Hathcock . . .
Who?
“White Feather.” Named for an accessory choice, not necessarily as an insult.
Thanks for making me look this up. Carlos Hathcock was not only a sniper in the Marine Corps, he holds the sniper record for most confirmed kills – 93. He word a white feather in his bush hat taunting/daring the North Vietnamese to spot him. Ergo the nickname “White Feather”.
Pretty sure that the use of the white feathers by @nocaesar is the British WWI insult. Young ladies would give young men white feathers to call them cowards for still being at home.
Someting like that.
We still don’t know what happened. But it looks like the decision making for the Afghan bug-out did in fact take months at least, and there was a some disagreement, and if there was any significant descension, apparently it finally came down “Do what the CiC says!”. And Biden said, “Screw it!” And Milley thought about his life-long military investment, and his future, and he screwed it. And now he has trouble looking people in the eye.
I have no doubt. Until Stad mentioned it, I had forgotten about Hathcock’s nickname.
Didn’t he also place a white feather at the victim’s body when he could? I read the book, but it was eons ago . . .
I’ve heard of that movie. Forgot the name . . .
I am using as the traditional serious accusation of cowardice of the worst kind. (For example, see The Four Feathers, even the 2002 version is good). Although, as InstaPundit suggests in his recent NY Post editorial, I would have no problem with them following in the footsteps of Admiral Byng.
Actually it long preceded WWI throughout the West. That was probably when it last had widespread use. It basically started in the early 19th century as a token to signal a very serious and considered accusation of cowardice. Not casual or flippant. One that you (male or female) were prepared to back up until they redeemed themselves. Backing it up ranged from social ostracism to duel.
On the note of symbolism, I recently rewatched Forrest Gump and found it interesting that it starts with the white feather falling from Heaven. The first thought that came to my mind was the White Feather of Cowardice, then the dove of peace, by the end I thought of the Marine Sniper (I didn’t remember his name, just his exploits). In the extras there was no indication that the film-makers were aware of any of them, it was more about picking up what falls in front of you by random chance.
So this little go-round caused me to look this up. Thanks to Carlos Hathcock the white feather, in the US military, currently signifies extraordinary bravery and excellence in combat. Oops. That is the opposite of my intent with Milley and Austin.
If you’ve got a beef with the boss, resign and let your speech flow freely. People will judge whether you have been ill used or not. But these palace intrigues and face-saving have nothing to do with the job WE have given them — only their venal self-interest.
Back in Ancient Greece, there was a Athenian general who said that an army of deer led by a lion is more to be feared than an army of lions led by a deer.
Absolutely correct. When I look at the JCS, I don’t see many lions.
Not many deer either, more like weasels.
I don’t believe I’d refer to the rank and file of the Army as weasels.
The JCS