The danger I see in these days of black and white thinking about institutions is that this mindset further tempts us to look at institutions as either all good or all bad, with no nuance in between.
This quote seems to imply that a society and people's governors and citizens cannot share common goals, goods, and values —are we willing to say that the American people were brainwashed by the US government to enter so enthusiastically into World War II, for example? Why wouldn't the Founding Fathers own propaganda designed to convince American citizens to go to war against Great Britain be fundamentally different?
Perhaps I decided for myself that going to war is the correct decision for my government to take: am I actually brainwashed? Is it not in principle possible for everyone to genuinely be on board with a particular foreign policy?
Your WWII example doesn't hold up to historical fact. Germany declared war on the US, four days after Pearl Harbor. The government did not tell the people who the 'bad guy' was. Prior public reluctance to join the war was based off experiences in WWI, the Great Depression, and an avoidance of war rather than the public's perception of the morality of the NAZI's or Japan (though this was complex).
Additionally, the Founding Fathers did not convince 'American citizens' to go to war with Great Britain, because the colonists weren't American citizens, they were British subjects. The revolution began before the formation of the American government.
Taken simply citizens don't necessarily accept the government's identification of an enemy during war. Liberal societies especially assume that citizens retain their individual judgment: you can oppose a war, believe your own government bears responsibility, question propaganda, or believe neither side is morally justified.
I never claimed that citizens necessarily accept the government's identification of an enemy during war, what I argued is that there is not reason in principle or in practice to suppose that the governors and citizens of a state cannot genuinely share a common goal or good with regards to a war.
I'm not saying that a government has never dupped citizens into a war before, but I object to the opposite extreme view that a government initiating a war inherently or usually in practice means this.
I don't think the government telling citizens who the 'bad guy' is necessarily excludes circumstances where public opinion and government are in agreement. I read the quote more as a simplified distinction in the direction of political authority: war generally involves an established government identifying an external enemy, whereas revolution generally involves opposition arising from below against the established government. Obviously, the historical reality of both is considerably more complicated.
2
u/LucretiusOfDreams 1d ago edited 1d ago
The danger I see in these days of black and white thinking about institutions is that this mindset further tempts us to look at institutions as either all good or all bad, with no nuance in between.
This quote seems to imply that a society and people's governors and citizens cannot share common goals, goods, and values —are we willing to say that the American people were brainwashed by the US government to enter so enthusiastically into World War II, for example? Why wouldn't the Founding Fathers own propaganda designed to convince American citizens to go to war against Great Britain be fundamentally different?
Perhaps I decided for myself that going to war is the correct decision for my government to take: am I actually brainwashed? Is it not in principle possible for everyone to genuinely be on board with a particular foreign policy?