Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Reagan’s Bind (again)

Reagan’s Bind (again)

Last updated on: September 5, 2012 at 3:36 pm by Fred Clark

27 Comments

Reagan’s Bind (again) 2012-09-05T15:36:53-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

It is often the case in life that we find ourselves misled, thinking we know something we don't actually know. We may be misinformed, misled, deluded, ideologically blinded, confused by ambiguities or complexities — whatever the cause it happens to us all. It's part of what it means to be human.

We may act on this mistaken information, or we may pass it on to others. Later, we may have to face the consequences of our misguided actions and, when the truth arises, the consequences of having said things that weren't true. At that point, the question of intent becomes important.

"What you told me wasn't true," a friend will say. "Did you know that at the time?"

The friend wants to know about our intent: Were we lying to them? Or were we simply ourselves deceived? These seem to be our only options and neither is especially flattering. Yet the latter case — that we were simply misguided — is usually, and reasonably, considered a far less serious offense. We did not intend to deceive, so we are therefore "innocent." (That word here carries as well several of its lesser meanings and connotations — naive, gullible, credulous.)

In some cases, however, intent is less significant. If the consequences of our misguided actions are particularly grave, or if our untrustworthy statements were of particular import, it may not matter to others whether we are guilty of — to use Jim Hoagland's terms from the post below — credulity or chicanery. Sometimes, as in the case of those possessing stolen property, ignorance is no excuse.

Let me provide a trivial example from my own sad history.

Years ago I was in the awkward situation of trying to choose a birthday present for someone I had been dating for about five months. Five months is a tricky gift-giving time — the potential for either over- or under-doing it looms large.

I decided to enlist the advice of my then-girlfriend's best friend and, after several hours wandering with her through the King of Prussia Mall, I settled on a gift about which the best friend had said — and here I'm quoting — "Ooh, this is perfect! She would love this!"

As it turns out, the best friend was disastrously wrong. The gift was, to put it mildly, not well received.

I attempted to plead innocent due to credulity, but found that simply being misguided, in this case, did not mitigate the offense. The stakes were apparently such that whether or not I was simply acting on flawed intelligence was to her irrelevant. Whether due to credulity or chicanery, she felt I was no longer fit for the office of boyfriend, a post from which I was summarily dismissed. (No regrets, it spared me from the impending doom of Christmas shopping.)

It seems to me that such a circumstance requires a term. I have come to call it "Reagan's Bind." I outlined this concept in an earlier post, but here let me clarify with greater precision what I mean by the term.

Reagan's Bind applies to a situation in which both of the following are true:

A. A person's statements or actions can be accounted for by one of two, and only two, options: 1) malicious intent, or 2) credulousness.

and

B. The statement or actions were such that either motive/cause — malice or credulity — is equally damning.

I will occasionally on this site point out situations in which I believe a person is entangled in Reagan's Bind. You're free to disagree, of course, but doing so does not require you to refute the concept itself, only to show that it does not apply because either "A" or "B" above is not the case in this particular situation.

My invocation of Reagan's Bind in this post produced a series of complex analogies from people who objected to what they saw as the categorical application of the term to every instance of a misguided action or a false statement. I don't think I implied such a categorical use, and I certainly did not intend to.

In most situations where "A" is the case — and, because we're all human, "A" is often the case — "B" is not. In such cases, credulity is preferable to chicanery, and Reagan's Bind cannot be said to apply.

Yet I think we can all agree that there are cases — both hypothetical analogies and real-world instances — in which credulity seems even worse than chicanery. There are cases in which it does not matter whether a person spoke or acted out of malice or out of ignorance — both are equally appalling.

To spare us all the convolutions and revisions of further hypothetical analogies, let us consider again the namesake incidence of Reagan's Bind:

The American people were shocked to be presented with hard evidence that members of the Reagan administration were not only "negotiating with terrorists," but actually selling them weapons. What's more, the proceeds were being used to fund other terrorists in a flagrant violation of U.S. law.

The president's options were binary. Either he knew about these arms sales — in which case he had violated the law and his oath and was therefore unfit for office; or else this massive operation was going on right under his nose at the White House but he was oblivious — in which case he was so astoundingly incompetent that he was probably still unfit for office.

Reagan pled incompetence, arguing essentially that he was an idiot, but not a crook. He had no idea this was going on in his White House, he testified. When others' testimony indicated that the president had, in fact, been informed of this operation, Reagan was forced to argue that he neither understood nor recalled what had been explained to him — that he was, in other words, not merely irresponsibly out of touch, but also incurious and dim.

Please note that I am not attacking the former president, merely repeating his own argument. He enthusiastically asserted his own befuddled incompetence, since doing so was his only remaining defense against the charge that he knowingly and illegally sold arms to terrorists in order to fund an illegal proxy war.

Uncategorized

highlights

Previous Post

February 2, 2004

More revisionist history

Next Post

February 3, 2004 Conjecture, not evidence

Recent Comments

27 Comments | Leave a Comment

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Christian movement began with John Wesley in the 18th century?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Calvinism Lutheranism Methodism Presbyterianism