Perhaps Europeans differentiate between 'right action' and 'wrong action' better than Americans, who seem to view any action as 'right action', even if it doesn't produce 'right consequences' and wasn't based on 'right intention', neither of which can be said with complete authority to apply to the United States war in Iraq. In this case, some Americans have a vague sense of 'right intention' based on Saddam Hussein's humanitarian and military threat, and some have a frighteningly nationalistic (and perhaps wrong) sense of intention based on duty to conquer the world with American values and pave the way for corporate colonialism in hostile areas. In my opinion, neither of these perspectives are able to separate consequence from intention, instead believing that right action containing right intention will yield to right consequence. It is easy to understand why Americans adopt this view: our country and its mythology were built upon it, and WE are the consequence, and surely the right consequence, of our good intention. Why shouldn't the rest of the world also be the consequence of our good intention?
This belief, a modern restatement of 'manifest destiny', resonates deeply with the emphasis we place on intention in our personal and political spheres. We like to view ourselves as the consequences of the good intention to work hard and be responsible. We are in many respects alienated from any form of failure that arises from good intention, partly because we are so reluctant to admit to our own failures when they occur, and partly because those of higher social status are increasingly distanced from those in the lower ranks. Politically, we believe that reaffirming that same good intention is superior to creating good consequences (or circumstances) through any permutation of democratic socialism, although we have ceded a great deal to the latter for the necessity of preserving our democracy. If we are the consequences of our own right intention, it would be demeaning to the importance of our good intention if such consequences could be achieved artificially without hard work. Many conservative Americans, who hold this view dogmatically, would rather exist in a world where good intention is religiously observed as the key to good consequence, even as it becomes increasingly difficult for good consequences to be obtained through good intention alone.
The conservative view of the failures of American society and American military action is that there has emerged in society a tremendous epidemic of wrong-intentioned thinking and behavior among people. The liberal view of the failures of American society and military action is that while right intention is an important element of right action, more must be done to guarantee right consequences, firstly, because intention, being the obscure psychological entity that it is, is so hard to qualify as right (liberals do not believe that the bible, for instance, can authoritively qualify something as right or wrong), and secondly because rational empiricism demonstrates that right consequences are impossible to obtain coercively with right intention if circumstances are not permitting. The liberal will therefore demand that consequences be considered to their fullest detail in order to qualify and create a right action, while intention, or the will to place a quality on something, must be modified into the 'intention of right consequence'. This, the liberal will argue, is the most, if not only, right intention, and one that democracy is intrinsically designed to promote.
In American domestic social politics, the intention of right consequences will result in the creation of better social circumstances for the obtainment of right consequences on a personal level. This requires far more than 'throwing money' at problems, yet a significant aspect of creating better circumstances will be the appropriation of capital. Both Democrats and Republicans have acted with 'right intention' without the 'intension of right consequences', extending or removing money to some task or program, but failing to provide the leadership and vision to supervise its transformation into reality. I believe it is the responsibility of the president to coordinate right intention into right circumstances by working with congress on a variety of issues under a broad, cohesive, and reasonably attainable vision for the country. Examples of leadership demonstrating the intention of right consequences would include Teddy Roosevelt's Square Deal, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, FDR's New Deal, and, with reservations, LBJ's Great Society. Neither president Bush nor Reagan demonstrated this competence or vision, IMO, and Clinton was either uninterested or unable to perform the task.
George W. Bush's significant contribution to the political landscape is the 'War Against Terrorism', which resembles previous attempts to affect right consequences in the way it has been branded and promoted as a massive and visionary undertaking, with broad implications on foreign and domestic security programs. It is however, a war with no clear understanding of its own consequences, and no direction for the world it intends to change. I do not believe that 'eliminating Saddam Hussein' is a right consequence, nor do I believe that protecting the U.S. from terrorism is a right consequence. Both, I believe are right intentions, with undefined consequences. From a liberal perspective, I do not believe that military actions should be undertaken unless they are able to define right consequences, or in layman's terms, create peaceful situations where war is unlikely to occur. I do believe that the Bush administration has considered consequences that it would like to see realized, but I do not believe they are right consequences, and I have not observed Bush openly discussing them with the American people (nor, from a Machiavellion viewpoint, do I think he should). Note that I present them only because Bush has yet to offered an alternative, and therefore they represent my best assessment. These desired consequences, consistent with neoconservative ideology, include a strong American military presence in the middle east, a world that is dominated by American values and American economic order, and a world where the majority of available oil resources are controlled by American interests and corporations. I do not believe that these are right consequences because I think they are inherently selfish, fascistic, and inconducive to peace. While I believe there are right intentions in the 'War Against Terrorism', right intentions to not justify actions. Therefore, I strongly believe that the actions taken by the Bush administration are wrong actions, and will produce wrong consequences.
