Over the summer I started watching the TV series Homeland and quickly became addicted. The show addresses many modern political issues in America, however I recently realized it also addresses a political issue that is not so modern and relates to our reading-- that is, the problem of dirty hands.There is more than one example of this problem in the show, but I think the most complicated and most interesting one comes from a situation with Vice President William Walden. For those of you who haven’t seen the show, the plot is pretty complicated, and if you plan on watching it, be careful because I’m about to give a lot of spoilers. But without going into too much detail, I’ll try to describe the situation.
Before Walden became Vice President, he was the director of the CIA. Toward the end of the first season we learn that while director, Walden ordered a drone strike on a town in Iraq where one of the head terrorists of al-Qaeda, Abu Nazir, was believed to be living. However, the town also home to a school, and instead of killing the terrorist, as intended, the drone strike killed 82 innocent children. To complicate the moral situation more, we also learn the Walden knew there was a school in the town and that he ordered the strike without being completely positive that Nazir was present at the time. So the question is, how would Machiavelli and Walzer view this situation? Does Walden have dirty hands or is he just wrong?
It seems that Machiavelli and Walzer would agree that Walden is guilty of committing a crime, but that he committed it for the betterment and safety of his country, and therefore is a good political leader. However, though Machiavelli and Walzer could agree on this aspect, they would disagree when considering Walden’s actions after the strike. After it failed, Walden completely covered it up. He lied to the American people, making them believe the attack did not come from America and that 82 children were not killed, but rather that this fact was fabricated by al-Qaeda to be used as propaganda. Machiavelli would not see a problem in these actions because he would consider them acts of self-preservation, which he encourages. Walzer, though, would find them reprehensible because he believes it is part of a politician’s job to publicly bear the moral wrong he has committed, it is part of having dirty hands. Furthermore, Walzer would conclude that Walden does not have dirty hands, but is guilty and a bad politician. This is because Walzer feels that in order for a person to have dirty hands, they must struggle with committing a wrong and then afterwards they must feel guilty about what they have done. It is clear to the audience that Walden did not struggle with his decision and, in the aftermath, did not feel guilty for what he had done. So the answer to the question is no, Walden’s hands are not dirty.
Interesting Article. I started watching Homeland myself recently and have been watching the show non-stop I like your interpretation of both Machiavelli and Walzer and I find it interesting how you were able to compare and contrast their philosophies with the actions of Vice President Walden. I agree that Walden follows Machiavelli's theory because he in fact did cover up the attack, and the only way the viewer is aware is because of Brody's presence at the explosion. Another interesting point in your post reminded me that according to Walzer, one must feel guilty and morally responsible for what they have done. Walden exhibits no such behaviors and continues living on just as he did before, even after killing dozens of innocent children. One question would be to ask wether dirty hands applies to just your interests (U.S.A in this case) or to the greater good which could be debated in this scenario.
ReplyDeleteI really like your post, not only because I can relate to becoming completely obsessed with a TV show but I think you drew some really complex and interesting connections between the show, Machiavelli, and Waltzer. I was really drawn into your writing because I always find it interesting when these "heavy," moral issues that we debate in class and read about in these articles from our world's history find their way into popular culture, into TV shows that captivate millions. As the previous comment from bmakhani notes, you reminded me of Waltzer's critical argument about having dirty hands and the apprehension and guilt that comes along with those dirty hands. Overall, I think your post points to just how prevalent this issue of dirty hands, cover-ups, and whose interests a country's actions really serve is in our modern society, and seems to ask readers, well at least for me, if dirty hands is the plot of a TV show episode, how can we ignore it in the real world?
ReplyDelete