Gravitas that Conceals Devious or Mistaken Minds Is a Problem for the American Public

14 July 2010

Gravitas is used to camouflage hidden agendas or poorly thought out strategies

Gravitas-masked leaders use a veneer of seriousness (and perceived competence) to sell us lies and obvious mistakes.

We should be suspicious, when one of these gravitas-camouflaged people begins to explain (without really explaining) why something should, or should not, be done.

Gravitas itself is not bad. Gravitas often comes with high social, political, and military rank. But a gravely authoritative veneer does not reliably equate to actual competence, sound mind, analytical thoughtfulness, or intelligent leadership.

Gravitas-exuding political and military manipulators have learned to use the appearance of trustworthy ability to fulfill personal or mistakenly-selected/strategized public agendas at our expense.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is a good example of gravitas skillfully used for bad ends

Former Vice President Dick Cheney springs to mind. The man is so gravitas-drenched (and such a competent misleader) that the Devil of Politics might have crafted him from a box of exceedingly rare materials.

Ambassador Richard Holbrooke is another example of gravitas used as camouflage

Richard Holbrooke, currently America‘s special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has learned to use his gravitas with similar camouflaging skill.

Last night, Rachel Maddow interviewed Ambassador Holbrooke. The interview illustrated the dangers that skillfully used authoritative demeanor can pose.

In Ambassador Holbrooke’s case, Maddow’s honestly phrased questions and explicitly worded personal context allowed the ambassador to present the Obama administration’s view of the war in Afghanistan.

Holbrooke’s responses were articulate, apparently persuasive, and even disarming.

If ever one wanted a wise elder, his persona probably persuaded viewers that they should select him. (His performance was of such a high order that one could see why his diplomatic career has been long and successful.)

Unfortunately, what the Ambassador did not say, during the Maddow interview, indicated how craftily he used his serious demeanor to bridge large logical gaps in his justifications for the administration’s policy in Afghanistan.

Camouflaging gaps in logic or evidence is exactly where gravitas is most ably used by people who have hidden agendas or unsound strategies.

Holbrooke’s gravitas was used to cover missing bits of logic and evidence

Using his trustworthy demeanor to paper over a missing analysis gap, the Ambassador said:

But, and this is the key point, we‘re in Afghanistan because it really matters. We‘re in Afghanistan because if we fail in Afghanistan, it will have a direct, immediate danger to us. It will increase al-Qaeda‘s worldwide reach. It will come back with the Taliban in all likelihood and they will gain a worldwide success which will be very dangerous for our national security interests. So we have to be clear. The American public needs to be clear on why we‘re in Afghanistan.

This is not Vietnam, a war which I participated in as a State Department civilian (UNINTELLIGIBLE) in the government. This is not the Balkans. It‘s not Iraq. This is quite different, and this one relates directly to our safety at home.

It matters to our homeland security. Vietnam did not, although at the time, the administrations in power did say it did, but they were wrong.

Ambassador Holbrooke’s assertions are not evidence-based proofs

The Ambassador (a highly intelligent man) deliberately failed to answer the logically implicit questions that his assertions raised:

How is Afghanistan a threat to the United States?

How will the return of the Taliban increase al-Qaeda’s worldwide reach?

How will al-Qaeda gain a worldwide success, if the United States leaves Afghanistan?

How is Afghanistan strategically different than Vietnam, the Balkans, and Iraq?

If the Johnson Administration was wrong (or lying) during Vietnam, how is our situation today different?

What should we do with Holbrooke’s gap-filled case for Afghanistan?

If, as Ambassador Holbrooke asserts, the American public needs to be clear on why the United States is in Afghanistan, how can it become so, when the Ambassador is not going (or able) to answer the forgoing questions?

Is the public to imply that Ambassador Holbrooke’s assertions are true, simply because he is a grave-looking, charming and experienced diplomat?

Should his intelligent, serious demeanor overcome the Rational World’s requirement that proof be intellectually honest and thoroughly supported?

Ambassador Holbrooke then concluded his comments with another egregiously unsupported statement

Again using his apparent personal authority to conceal a lack of evidence (and an equal disrespect for the rules of persuasive debate), Ambassador Holbrooke told Ms. Maddow:

We‘ve sent young men and women out to one of the most difficult places in the world, as you showed so wonderfully last week, to risk their lives. And those of us sitting in Washington have to do everything we can to get them the support they need and to make the strategy work.

The logical problem here is that (a) Holbrooke never said what the strategy actually was (other than pointing to some state-building measures that needed to occur) or (b) why the undefined strategy would work.

Instead, like politicians always seem to do, Holbrooke made the emotional appeal of supporting the troops his justification for asking America to agree with an undefined strategy that puts the very troops he wants us to assist directly into harm’s way.

The cart is before the horse.

Gravitas is often hollow

We see from the Cheney and Holbrooke examples that gravitas is often hollow. Or, alternatively (and in a more sinister way), a serious and authoritative demeanor can be used to sell deliberately concealed or mistaken purposes.

PeteFree.com

Gravitas that Conceals Devious or Mistaken Minds Is a Problem for the American Public