[A man] finds himself forced by necessity to borrow money. He
knows that he will not be able to repay it, but sees also that nothing
will be lent to him unless he promises stoutly to repay it in a
definite time. He desires to make this promise, but he has still so
much conscience as to ask himself: "Is it not unlawful and
inconsistent with duty to get out of a difficulty in this way?"
Suppose however that he resolves to do so: then the maxim of his
action would be expressed thus: "When I think myself in want of money,
I will borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know that I
never can do so." Now this principle of self-love or of one's own
advantage may perhaps be consistent with my whole future welfare;
but the question now is, "Is it right?" I change then the suggestion
of self-love into a universal law, and state the question thus: "How
would it be if my maxim were a universal law?" Then I see at once that
it could never hold as a universal law of nature, but would
necessarily contradict itself. For supposing it to be a universal
law that everyone when he thinks himself in a difficulty should be
able to promise whatever he pleases, with the purpose of not keeping
his promise, the promise itself would become impossible, as well as
the end that one might have in view in it, since no one would consider
that anything was promised to him, but would ridicule all such
statements as vain pretences.
* * * * *
Let's leave the dry philosophy behind. The logic at work in Kant's imperatives also reveals how the argument that Republicans are making is fundamentally despotic and the position of young Democrats is fundamentally democratic. In a despotic society, we can all make other people do our bidding; we can force them to do our true duties for us if those duties are unpleasant. If there was a society that operated only on the young Republican maxim, the most powerful would enslave the weaker, sending them out to fight war after war while the powerful fulfill their ambitions and are made happy and fat. Basically, you're talking about feudalism.
If you imagine a society where everyone follows the Democratic maxim, you have a democratic society. Not fighting in unjust wars is pure democratic action; the government is at the mercy of the people. Bureaucrats cannot wage unjust wars because they are rendered army-less by the maxim. The government is at the mercy of the people.
This is what I mean by illuminating the sickness at the heart of the young Republican movement. These arguments really reveal how the young, Republican, pro-war movement is not a democratic exercise—these are a bunch of despots we're talking about. These are men and women who wish to use their fellow Americans as means to their ends. These are not democrats in the little-d sense. Values of democracy, citizenship, civic duty have all disappeared from these students' thinking and in their place is despotism, entitlement, and ambition.
I'm not seeking absolution for Democrats who sit around and do nothing but wring their hands. I'm seeking justification for the position that you don't have any duty to fight for a mistake—that you're not doing anyone but the power-hungry any favors by making yourself a tool of a mistaken military project. Instead, you have a duty to keep your fellow citizens from dieing for the wrong cause. Alongside Operation Yellow Elephant must be a rallying cry for young democrats (little-d) to lobby their Congressmen and their fellows for peace and as swift an end to our involvement in the Iraq War as we can manage. In the meantime, we all should be working to support our troops in the truest sense—doing everything we can to see them home safe.
