Download Plato's Guardians & Ethics of Military Service in 'A Few Good Men' and more Study notes Political Science in PDF only on Docsity!
Of Wolves and Men: Reflections on Plato's Guardians and Aaron
Sorkin's ''A Few Good Men''
Associate Professor of Political Science^ Darren Patrick Guerra Biola University Paper for the Western Political Science Association Annual Conference San Diego, CA March 24- 27 th
Note: This is a first draft of a potential article to be published. Any feedback towards publishing would be helpful. I know Perspectives in Political Science publishes Film and Literature articles. Any other suggested journals would be helpful.
Abstract: The 1992 movie A Few Good Men essentially confronts one of the key problems also brought to light in The Republic of Plato. Namely, how does one control the guardians of the city and prevent them from becoming like wolves that might prey on those they are meant to protect? For Plato, the answer to this problem lay in the guardians‟ education and in the cultivation of a philosophic and well-ordered soul. In a Few Good Men such a solution is hinted at but not fully developed.
A Few Good Men
“I want the truth!” shouts Lt. Dan Kaffee played by Tom Cruz. “You can‟t handle the truth!” thunders and irate Col. Nathan Jessup played by Jack Nicholson in the climax of the 1992 film A Few Good Men. After Jessup‟s rage settles into a startling silence in the courtroom a barely composed Jessup continues : Son, we live in a world that has walls. guns. Who's gonna do it? You?...I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly And those walls have to be guarded by men with fathom. have the luxury of not knowing what I know: You weep for Santiago and you curse the marines. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, You have that luxury. You p saves lives.robably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the bac want thkbone to a life spent defendinge truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want something. You use 'em as a punchline. You don’t me on that wall. You need me on that wall! …I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d prefer you just said thank
you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to. 1
In this exchange, Jack Nicholson explodes off the screen, in a fiery defense of his role as a guardian of the country. Yet mixed with his cogent articulation of the need for walls and defenses of walls, his response also reveals an arrogant superiority and a disdain for anyone who questions him or his methods. Surely someone does need to guard that wall, but does that entitle the one guarding it to treat those he protects with utter contempt? Jessup‟s authoritarian posture raises the question of a divide between the guardian and those he is protecting, a divide that seems in tension with America‟s democratic spirit. A Few Good Men raises the specter of a commander who is willing to target the weak in order to protect the country, a means that seem at odds with America‟s democratic ethos and its dedication to political equality. This issue of a guardian class out of step with those they are sworn to protect is the same dilemma raised in Plato‟s Republic. If the guardians are powerful enough to defend the city, are then not powerful enough to prey on it as well? If they are to be sheepdogs protecting the sheep, who does the city ensure the sheepdogs do not turn into wolves? A Few Good Men was directed by Rob Reiner based on a stage play and screenplay written by Aaron Sorkin. The film includes an all-star cast from Jack Nicholson, Tom Cruz, Demi More, Keiffer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Kevin Pollack, and the late J.T. Walsh. Even minor characters feature the appearances have the likes of Cuba Gooding Jr., Christopher Guest, and Noah Wyle (of ER fame). It was the 5th^ highest grossing film of 1992 at $141 million following the likes of Alladdin, Home Alone 2, Batman Returns, and Lethal Weapon 3. It was nominated for 22 awards including Best picture, Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Jack
(^1) Aaron Sorkin, A Few Good Men, Directed by Rob Reiner (1992; United States, Columbia Pictures), DVD.
firing of his weapon at his Cuban counterpart while he was on guard duty. “Code reds” as such are against Marine regulations and against the law and as a result both Dawson and Downy are to stand trial by a Military Court. Lt. Commander JoAnne “Jo” Galloway (Demi Moore) suspects that there is more to this case and seeks to uncover a suspected conspiracy, but her efforts are seemingly thwarted when the case is assigned by the Navy to Lt. Dan Kaffee (Tom Cruise) with an assist by Lt. Sam Weinberg (Kevin Pollak). Jo resents the Navy for assigning Kaffee to the case because he isn‟t likely to investigate the case in any detail, since has never seen a plea bargain he doesn‟t like: SAM Commander, Lt. Kaffee's generally considered the best litigator in our office. He's successfully plea bargained 44 cases in nine months. KAFFEE One more, and I got a set of steak knives. JO Have you ever been in a courtroom? KAFFEE I once had my drivers license suspended.
Furthermore, Kaffee seems to prefer playing softball to doing the hard work of a JAG attorney, as exemplified by Kaffee‟s exchange with the prosecutor Captain Jack Ross (Kevin Bacon): ROSS Dan Kaffee. KAFFEE Sailin' Jack Ross. ROSS Welcome to the big time. KAFFEE You think so?
ROSS I hope for Dawson and Downey's sake you practice law better than you play softball. KAFFEE Unfortunately for Dawson and Downey, I don't do anything better than I play softball. What are we lookin' at? ROSS They plead guilty to manslaughter, I'll drop the conspiracy and the conduct unbecoming. 20 years, they'll be home in half that time. KAFFEE I want twelve. ROSS Can't do it. KAFFEE They called the ambulance, Jack. ROSS I don't care if they called the Avon Lady, they killed a marine. While Kaffee is working to plea bargain the case, Galloway, who has already told Kaffee that she doesn‟t think he is fit to handle the case, maneuvers herself into being Downey‟s attorney, thus allowing her to join Kaffee and Weinberg at the trial. At the incessant behest of Jo Galloway, and despite Kaffee‟s reluctance, the three begin to peel back the full context of the crime and a possible conspiracy and cover up. The movie continually contrasts the lax demeanor and dress of Kaffee with the discipline and “spit and polish” of Dawson, Downey, Jessup and Lt. Jonathon Kendrick (Keifer Sutherland). For the marines at Gitmo there is a tight code to be followed at all costs. You follow orders or people die. This intense and uncompromising posture creates some friction between Kaffee and his clients:
Kaffe simply cannot relate to the world Dawson and Downey live in, he cannot conceive of adhering to such a code, nor being so committed to something larger than perfecting his softball swing. Dawson and Downey have found a community and a sense of purpose. They are willing to sacrifice for their comrades. Kaffee just can‟t fathom such commitment. Kaffe also encounters this intense spirit down at “Gitmo” when talking to Dawson and Downey‟s immediate superior, Lt. Kendrick: KAFFEE Lt. Kendrick--can I call you Jon? KENDRICK No, you may not. KAFFEE Have I done something to offend you? KENDRICK No, I like all you Navy boys. Every time we've gotta go someplace and fight, you fellas always give us a ride. JO Lt. Kendrick, do you think Santiago was murdered? KENDRICK Commander, I believe in God, and in his son Jesus Christ, and because I do, I can say this: Private Santiago is dead and that's a tragedy. But he's dead because he had no code. He's dead because he had no honor. And God was watching. Kaffee does not understand that, for the marines at Guantanamo, military training and discipline are a matter of life and death and that the marines there have a level of commitment that he neither feels nor desires. Kaffee is simply a privileged, Harvard trained, JAG lawyer and the son of a former Attorney General of the United States who is plea-bargaining his way through his service commitment. Marines like Kendrick and Dawson however, have a deep and abiding
commitment to something larger than themselves embodied by the Marine Corp and their country. The central question of the trial turns on whether or not Dawson and Downey committed the crime on their own out of retribution or whether they were following the orders of their superiors, Lt. Jonathan Kendrick and ultimately the commander of the base, Col. Nathan R. Jessup. Kendrick and Jessup maintain that the accused were specifically ordered not to touch the deceased Private Santiago, while Dawson and Downey argue that they were simply following orders. It is Galloway‟s constant questioning that slowly draws Kaffee into seeing the case as something more than simple plea-bargain fodder. One clue for Kaffee, that something may be amiss, occurs during the legal team‟s visit to Gitmo. At the start of the visit Col. Jessup plays the consummate host but by the end of their visit, when faced with some basic questions, Col. Jessup shifts and becomes very defensive and demeaning to his guests. He makes blatantly sexist remarks towards Galloway with the intent of intimidating her, but she doesn‟t seem phased. Likewise Jessup‟s response to the team‟s routine questions revealed a deep arrogance and dark disdain for the attorneys: JESSEP …I run my base how I run my base. You want to investigate me, roll the dice and take your chances. I eat breakfast 80 yards away from 4000 Cubans who are trained to kill me. So don't for one second think you're gonna come down here, flash a badge, and make me nervous. A few moments later, Kaffee simply asks for a copy of a transfer order and Jessep again responds with conceit and contempt:
fight wars.^4 Upon discussing the nature of the persons who would be fit for this role the group decides that the guardians would need “sharp senses, speed to catch what they perceive”, strength, courage, and most of all “spirit”.^5 The greek word for spirit here is “thymos” and it is a vital concept for the Greeks as well as Plato. Thymos is the seat of anger or rage that gives warriors heart and underwrites their courage on the battlefield and a desire to defend their own and to defend justice. 6 Without this spirit warriors will be ineffective and complacent, but with it, they will be motivated, aggressive, and deadly. Socrates points out that in the natural world, courage depends upon spirit, “Haven‟t you noticed how irresistible and unbeatable spirit is so that its presence makes every soul fearless and invincible in the face of everything?”^7 Yet just as the group embraces this need for a natural spirit in their guardians, Socrates quickly raises a problem, “Glaucon…with such matters, how will...[the guardians] not be savage to one another and the rest of the citizens?”^8 Glaucon agrees this is a problem since the guardians “must be gentle to their own and cruel to enemies. If not they‟ll not wait for others to destroy them, but they‟ll do it themselves beforehand.”^9 Later on, in Book III, the issue arises again, “Surely the most terrible and shameful thing of all is for shepherds to rear dogs as auxiliaries for the flocks in such a way that due to licentiousness, hunger or some other bad habit, they themselves undertake to do harm to the sheep and instead of dogs become like wolves.”^10 Thus, how do you have warriors spirited enough to defend their city with aggression and rage but not so much that the aggression is turned inward on each other or their own citizens? What if the spirited men become like ravenous wolves? (^45) Allan Bloom, trans., The Republic (New York: Basic Books, 1968), 51-52. Ibid. (^6) See Bloom‟s discussion in his interpretive essay, Ibid. 348. (^78) Ibid. 52. 9 Ibid. 52.Ibid. (^10) Ibid. 95
In a sense, this is the problem that is ultimately confronted in A Few Good Men. To be sure, the issue of the military turning on citizens directly is not raised, but the film does confront the problem of the strong preying on the weak. Surely a military that allows the strong to prey on the weak amongst its own ranks is but one step away from preying on the weak outside their ranks. Lance Corporal Dawson is the perfect picture of a Marine: tall, strong, disciplined, powerful, and a natural leader, he seems to be full of “thymos”. Downey on the other hand, while a solid marine and perhaps possessing “thymos”, seems not to have the leadership qualities of Dawson, he is a follower and he emulates all that Dawson does. The film cultivates ambivalence towards Dawson and Downey, portraying them as sympathetic figures but also suggesting that they may have crossed a line. “Why do you hate them so much?” asks Jo Galloway. Sam responds, “They beat up on a weakling, and that‟s all they did. The rest is just smoke-filled coffee-house crap. They tortured and tormented a weaker kid. They didn‟t like him. And they killed him. And why? Because he couldn‟t run very fast.” Sam asks in return, “Why do you like them so much?” Jo responds, “‟Cause they stand on a wall. And they say „nothing‟s gonna hurt you tonight. Not on my watch.” So are Dawson and Downey simply bullies who live by the code of Thracymachus, who argues that justice is the advantage of the stronger in Book I of The Republic? Or are they proud protectors of the nation who were simply striving to improve the military readiness, and thus the security, of the whole country? The movie invites us to wrestle with this question and in doing so opens up the issue of how to have a formidable guardian class that can serve the polity and not prey upon it.
education of the guardians. They will be educated in music, gymnastics, mathematics, but most of all philosophy. They will gain wisdom and their souls will be shaped by their education. Gymnastics and music will shape the body and the soul of the guardians. Music will shape the soul of the student to love the “fine things” and gymnastics will help train the body to be strong and shape the spirit of the guardian to be spirited and courageous.^13 The two must be in balance for excessive gymnastics not balanced by music will result in “savageness and hardness” where as an excess of music will result in “softness and tameness”, but if they are in balance the, “soul of the man thus harmonized is moderate and courageous.”^14 For the guardian who indulges too much in music it “charms his spirit” and it “begins to melt and liquefy his spirit” in the end making him a “feeble warrior”. In contrast, too much gymnastic without requisite music or philosophy dampens any love of learning that nature might have bequeathed to the guardian. As a result the guardian becomes a “misologist”, a hater of reason, he no longer makes any use of persuasion, “but goes about everything with force and savageness, like a wild beast and he lives ignorantly and awkwardly without rhythm or grace.”^15 Through philosophy, they will study “the idea of the good” and cultivate a healthy soul. Knowledge of the “idea of the good” is, “Greater than justice…the idea of the good is the greatest study and that it‟s by availing oneself of it along with just things and the rest that they become useful and beneficial.”^16 Furthermore, “just and fair things, when it isn‟t known in what way they are good, won‟t have gotten themselves a guardian who‟s worth very much in the man who doesn‟t know this.”^17 So philosophy and knowledge of “the idea of the good” will shape the
(^1314) For music see Ibid., 80. (401e) for gymnastics see Ibid., 89 (410d) 15 Ibid., 89 (410c)Ibid., 90 (411a-e) (^1617) Ibid., 184. (504e) Ibid., 184. (506a)
guardians soul so that it will be in tune with “the good” and he will learn that it is good to serve and protect the city. The late great Alan Bloom, argued that the guardian‟s spiritedness will be ultimately controlled and directed by another class of philosophers. He seems to doubt that the warrior class themselves will become philosophers but he does mention that education is the primary means of training them to harm enemies and not friends.^18 Of course this still means that the education of the guardians will contain training in discerning the “good” rather than simple obedience to orders from the philosopher class. According to Alan Bloom, “The true science…is the study of the good…The good is the transcendent principle of the whole, the cause of the being of things and of the apprehension of being, uniting knower and known, the lover of the good and the good things. As experienced by man, the good is an overpowering combination of pleasure and knowledge.”^19 The guardians, through their education will experience the deep pleasure of knowing the good and it will shape their souls in a deep and abiding way. For Plato then, the guardians can be trusted with power, and can be trusted to be guardians of the city, because they have had the proper philosophic education. They have been trained in the knowledge of the good. Their soul has been shaped into a healthy soul where their reason is in control of both their will and their passions. Guardians who abuse their power and act like wolves have not received a proper education or have allowed their soul to be corrupted by their passions; they have developed a disordered and tyrannical soul. One of Plato‟s main themes in The Republic is that order in the soul leads to order in the republic, thus a guardian class of well ordered souls will pursue the moral good of their city and help sustain a moral order
(^1819) See Bloom‟s essay in … Alan Bloom, interpretive essay, 401-402.
By the end of the trial, Dawson finally understands what is at stake more fully, and as he turns to Downey and says, “We were supposed to fight for people who couldn‟t fight for themselves, we were supposed to fight for Willy,” says Dawson. In Dawson‟s simple statement, volumes are communicated. Dawson‟s statement reveals that he believes they both had a duty to a moral good that transcends any orders by Jessup or Kendrick and it suggests that the moral good should be shaping their actions at all times. Their training, their dedication to unit, Corp and Country, their physical strength, their weapons, their power, their deadly aggression, their “thymos” should all be in service of “the good”. Yes, it is to protect the man next to them, yes it is to serve their unit and the Corp, yes it is to serve and protect their nation, but in the end it is to serve “the good”. One might point out also, that in serving the nation of the United States one is not merely defending one‟s own tribe but for many Americans and American observers, the United States as a nation was founded to give life to “the good” at least the political goods articulated in the Declaration of Independence. To put it another way, what makes people American is not a common ethnic heritage or common language but a commitment to a set of philosophical principles found in the Declaration of Independence and the political structure found in the U.S. Constitution. For example, Abraham Lincoln argued that what held Americans together and connected them with their ancestors, was not some blood connection, but one of moral principle. According to Lincoln, recent immigrants: If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that ``We hold these truths part of us, but when they look through that old to be self sentiment taught in that day e-evident, that all men are created equal,'' and then they feel that that moralvidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of
all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are.^22
For Lincoln, “all men are created equal” is the philosophical and moral principle that links all Americans for all times, “That is the electric cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the minds of men throughout the world.”^23 According to Harry Jaffa, Lincoln saw the principles of the Declaration of Independence as the “central idea from which all minor thoughts radiate, of the public opinion upon which the nation was founded,” and that such principles, Lincoln believed, were, “no less metaphysical than moral and political.”^24 Robert Kagan argues that founding a nation upon a moral principle gave America a unique character. He put it this way, “The idea of natural rights was not new. But founding a government and society based on the principle of natural rights was new…The Americans were the first to attempt to vindicate their natural rights in the real world and to erect a nation with universal rights as the foundation. The Declaration of Independence was at once an assertion of this radical principle, a justification for rebellion, and the founding document of American nationhood.”^25 According to Lincoln then, America was founded on the principle of the moral and political equality instilled in all men by “nature and nature‟s God”. The good was further realized in the “unalienable rights” that were embedded in the very nature of man; rights to “life,
(^2223) Abraham Lincoln, On the Meaning of the Declaration of Independence , speech given on July 4, 1858. 24 Ibid.Harry Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War. (Rowman and Littlefield, Landham, MD, 2000) xiii. (^25) Robert Kagan, Dangerous Nation, (Knopf, New York, 2006)
But if Dawson himself is not a philosopher how could he have come by this knowledge? For example, in Plato‟s Republic, the philosopher must struggle to leave the cave and to see the truth in the full light of day. Only an elite few capable of deep philosophy will ever know the true, the good, and the beautiful because only a few are capable of crawling their way out of the cave. However, the promise of the western tradition (in both Christianity and the enlightenment) are that the sun can be brought into the cave, to expose “the many” to the true, the good, and the beautiful. The many (as opposed to an elite few) can now know the truth without recourse to special levels of intelligence or training. Plato‟s “idea of the good” has revealed itself directly to human beings through religion or a democratized philosophy, and they are free to respond in kind. The “idea of the good” can be transmitted now through the culture itself. Similarly, the premise of the American experiment is that democracy can work because the many can know the good, broadly speaking, and therefore the good can inform their public duty. As Abraham Lincoln put it, the edifice of political liberty rests upon “general intelligence” a “sound morality” and a “reverence” for the Constitution and the laws.^26 Furthermore, the natural law tradition holds that there is “a law written on the heart” and that there are things that, one “can‟t not know”.^27 This deep human knowledge can be obscured by culture or ideology for a time, but it is so ingrained in one‟s nature that it cannot be entirely blotted out. Dawson seems to have recovered the moral principle that was “written on his heart” in nature. Thus, while Dawson and Downey may not have been trained as philosophers they have been raised in a culture that was grown out of the western moral tradition and they have been tutored by a civic culture that is infused with the philosophical grounds articulated in the (^2627) Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address. See J. Budziszweski, What we Can’t Not Know: A Guide.” (Ignatius Press, San Fransisco, 2003).
Declaration of Independence. Their civic education should have impressed upon them the moral and philosophical nature of America‟s founding principles. Even if they could not fully articulate such principles, these sources have likely given them an intuitive sense of morality and justice to guide their actions. As an example of the kind of common culture they might have experienced, one is reminded of another scene in another recent military film American Sniper where Chris Kyle‟s father is talking to his sons at the dinner table, and his remarks closely track the analogy of sheep and dogs in Plato‟s dialogue: WAYNE KYLE Some people prefer to believe that evil doesn’t exist in the world, and if it ever darkened their doorstep they wouldn’t know how to protect themselves... those are the sheep. Then there are those blessed with the gift of aggression and an overpowering need to protect the flock. These men are the rare breed that live to confront the wolf. They are the sheepdog. Now we’re not raising any sheep in this family and I will whoop your ass if you turn into a wolf But we take care of our own. And if someone picks a fight with you or bul— lies your brother, you have my permission to finish it. Then you know who you are...
This simple homespun common morality that teaches the strong to protect the weak represents an important strain of the American cultural tradition. Men like Dawson are likely taught to be “sheepdogs” by their family and community. It is this desire to be a “sheepdog” that might lead them to serve in the military. In a certain sense as Robert Kagan argues, many in America see their nation itself, in some sense, as the world‟s sheepdog.^28 On top of this, American civic education (to the extent that it is still taught) teaches that American principles uphold the dignity and moral equality of the human person. Leon Kass in describing his reader on American civic education put it this way:
(^28) Robert Kagan, Dangerous Nation. Kagan does not use the term “sheepdog” but he argues that American‟s have seen their nation having a special role in the world.
