General Principles and "Outing" Undercover Operatives

As I've said a lot recently, I don't really read blogs right now. But I fear that I know what's going on in the 'Sphere. I fear that blogs on the left have already convicted Rove. And I fear that blogs on the right are frantically backpedaling and making excuses. If folks on the right stoop to that, it will be another blow to the integrity of American conservatism. Remember that to be a good reasoner, one must ask oneself what one would do were the tables turned. I ask myself that question several times a day (not that I'm a particularly good reasoner, but I'm a better one than I'd be if I didn't ask the question). If something like this had happened in a Democratic administration, there's no doubt that the perpetrator would go to jail and the president would almost certainly be impeached. Hmmm...but what if the Democrats controlled Congress? Not so sure in that case. My guess is that they'd be likely to impeach him, but I'm not sure whether they'd convict him.

Optimally we establish general principles ahead of time, from (to put in in the Rawlsian way) behind a "veil of ignorance." (That's got a more precise meaning in Rawls's political theory, but it's a useful and evocative phrase, so I think we can use it in this more general way.) That is, we consider the question "what if someone in the administration reveals the identity of a covert intelligence operative?"...and we consider it without regard to whether the administration is affiliated with the Democrats or the Republicans. That is, we ask the question in ignorance of whether it is our party or the other party that has engaged in the transgression. Such questions can be difficult, and our judgments are easily thrown off by our political affiliations, so it's important to set up rules--when possible--in a cool hour and in such a general way.

This is one reason why we fall back on the law in such cases--those are the general rules we have antecedently established and ratified as fair. The law is a great tool for preventing ourselves from trying to gain advantage by special pleading--that is, for preventing us from making one set of rules for people we like and another set of rules for everyone else. And believe me, we are going to need the law and every ounce of its majesty in this case...

As it stands, we all know what is going to happen politically. Democrats will play up the offense, Republicans will play it down. If this had happened in a Democratic administration, the opposite would have happened. If Rove did what he is suspected of, then--unless I discover that I'm making a mistake about the relevant principles--I'd judge that he has, in fact, done something terrible and there is no need for exaggeration by Democrats. If Rove does end up being guilty, then it's the Republicans who will be most tempted to reason fallaciously since the facts and sound reasoning will be on the side of the Democrats in this case. In general, it's the party that's wrong that faces the greatest logical temptation; those who are right don't need to stretch facts or twist logic.

Let's put a relevant central argument in standard form:

(1) Anyone who "outs" a covert intelligence operative deserves a severe penalty
(2) Karl Rove outed a covert intelligence operative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Karl Rove deserves a severe penalty

SURELY we can all agree with premiss (1)--that is, as is so often the case, all parties should be able to agree on the relevant general principle.

The really important and interesting premiss here is (2). That premiss has not been established, and there is no reason to rush to judgment on it. I think that I have made it clear that I think that Karl Rove is a destructive force in American politics--but that doesn't mean that he's guilty of this crime. No one should want to convict an innocent man of a crime like this, no matter how much one might disagree with his politics. We should all also be able to agree that he is legally innocent unless proven guilty.

I guess it's worth noting that premiss (2) is interesting in part because it contains some importantly vague, technical, and otherwise problematic terms like "out" and "covert intelligence operative."

Come to think of it, some of the above isn't exactly right, but it's something.