Paul Wolfowitz scandal
Brad DeLong, a professor of economics at UC Berkley, made an interesting post reviewing the Paul Wolfowitz scandal at the World Bank. The good professor speculates on both the actual series of events and what Wolfowitz has convinced himself is the true story.
While interesting and informative, I think Professor DeLong missed the key point regarding Wolfowitz’s reasoning. It seems clear that Wolfowitz is one of many neo-conservative powerbrokers that do not believe the rules apply to themselves as they do to others. “We” are uniquely good and self-empowered is the basic tenet of neo-conservative realism. The situation can be summed up quite well by Machiavellian philosophy: Petty rules are not intended for great men.
Wolfowitz is in good company in selectively obeying the rules. Alberto Gonzalez recently lied obviously and repeatedly during Congressional testimony. Bush’s response was effectively “Heck of a job, Al!”. In contrast to such blatant disregard for Congressional authority, promoting one’s girlfriend seems quaint.
Though clearly not the thought-leader, George W. Bush is the cheerleader and role model for this philosophy of moral relativism. Bush had no use for international legal approval before invading a sovereign country. Of course, Wolfowitz was a key member of the team that planned and delivered that unjustifiable war. Bush’s choice to ignore FISA and the Geneva Conventions are further examples of the real limitation of rules on men possessed by a supposed greater mission. Bush’s extraordinary use of signing statements, which reserve the right to ignore the just signed law, give a true insight into the governing philosophy of the most influential group of leaders in the current US administration.
development & politics posted by: dan @ 11 May 2007 13:34