Crackpot Realism

Crackpot Realism is a term defined by C. Wright Mills in his novel The Power Elite. It refers to the rationale of the men who controlled the Cold War. As Mills explains in his book, “such men as these are crackpot realists: in the name of realism they have constructed a paranoid reality all their own; in the name of practicality they have projected a utopian image of capitalism” (Mills 356). In the undertaking of social issues, these problems are targeted from a seemly rational but fundamentally illogical point of view, resulting in a completely unfeasible plan of action. Mills was referring to this idea regarding the Cold War and the fallacy of deterrence, however, this way of thinking continues to be particularly prevalent in the current political landscape. Deterrence continues to be a topic of discussion in the United States as Donald Trump continues to grow his nuclear arsenal. Violence seems to be the immediate response of Trump in attempting to prevent more violence, a deeply problematic rationale. Crackpot Realism is the reasoning used beyond deterrence, it has become a basis for foreign policy in the United States, as seen in the Iraq invasion in 2002. Outside of the “war on terror”, Crackpot Realism is prevalent in Canadian politics as well. Justin Trudeau’s deeply paradoxical ‘green economy’ is a prime example. All of these instances point to one conclusive truth: these rationales paint a narrative of seemly necessary actions in an attempt to protect humankind but continue to preserve capital interests and disseminate control.

In Donald Trump’s most recent grasp at deterrence, in January of this year, he called for the assassination of Major General Qassim Suleimani, who led the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. This strike was allegedly in response to the death of an American contractor in Iraq in December (Crowley, Falih, Schmitt, New York Times). This act was supposedly a means of deterrence to highlight that Iran’s actions would not come without consequences. Some United States officials argued that “the show of force might convince Iran that its acts of aggression against American interests and allies have grown too dangerous” (Crowley, Hassan, Schmitt). However, “American military officials said they were aware of a potentially violent response from Iran and its proxies and were taking steps they declined to specify to protect American personnel in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world” (Crowley, Hassan, Schmitt). There is a major discrepancy between taking action to deter further violence and preparing for retaliation. Violence will only result in more violence; it cannot be used as a means to end it. Anders explains this in his piece, “the Commandments of the Atomic Age”. Anders argues that “it is, in fact, the ‘nothing but tacticians’ who should be called unrealistic – because they see atomic weapons only as a means; and because they fail to grasp that the ends which they allege to seek are being forfeited by the very use of their means” (Anders 17). To use violence as any sort of means, including deterrence, can only result in more problems than solutions.

A New York Times article detailed the allocations for the 2021 United States government budget. The article explains “buried in the budget is a significant new effort to develop intermediate-range missiles – largely conventional weapons – that were prohibited by the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty with Moscow that Mr. Trump withdrew from last year” (Sanger, New York Times). The budget also proposes a 23 percent increase in research and development of weapons of mass destruction (Sanger, New York Times). Currently, the United States is holding an estimate of 6,185 nuclear warheads, second only to Russia with an estimate of 6,500. The next highest number belongs to France with 300 warheads (Armstrong, Statista). This number far exceeds any realm of deterrence, as the ability to destroy the world twenty times over is not a strong symbol of peace. As Anders explains, the very means forfeit the end. Violence can only ensure further violence; it cannot prevent it. As the United States continues to develop its nuclear arsenal there is a clear indicator of what Trump administration is trying to achieve: power. The unfettered growth of nuclear weapons serves as a means of disseminating power over competing nations. The illogical development of WMD is portrayed as a necessary action under a crackpot realist rationale, to hide the far more prevalent goal, power and control. In both cases, the development of nuclear weapons and the killing of Major Suleimani, the narrative is that these actions were taken as a means of deterrence, however, they both result in increasing tensions.

This issue is not isolated to the United States however, Russia, currently holding the largest nuclear arsenal, engages in similar rhetoric. Russia’s development of nuclear warheads is seemingly in avoidance of an arms race with the United States; however, the constant development of warheads would suggest that an arms race is already at foot. The growth of nuclear warheads is a strategic game between the United States and Russia to illustrate power. Russia’s development of WMD is a means of securing Vladimir Putin’s presidency. As explained in the article Carnegie Endowment, “these exotic systems have more of a political function than a strategic or security one. Their role is to signal Russia’s continuing scientific and military prowess at a time when the country does not otherwise have much on offer” (Gottemoeller, Carnegie Endowment). Putin’s nuclear arsenal is one of the few feathers in his cap, therefore he must grow and bolster it as much as possible. As actually deploying his nuclear arsenal would result in the annihilation of the world, he has to illustrate his power by constantly growing his collection and showing it off. In this way, Putin wields his arsenal under the pretence of deterrence and protecting his country, however, it is far more concerned with securing his position in power.

Crackpot Realism is not just contained within deterrence, it is prevalent in foreign policy as a whole. The 2002 invasion of Iraq, for instance, is a prime example of this irrational thought process at work. The decision to invade Iraq was based heavily on the suspicion that they were harbouring nuclear weapons that posed a major threat to the United States. An article in Politico unpacks a classified report that details what United States intelligence knew about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, it was very little, to say the least. The article writes, “was Iraq secretly reconstituting its biological weapons program, as Cheney had asserted in Nashville? The report’s answer: “We cannot confirm the identity of any Iraqi facilities that produce, test, fill, or store biological weapons.” (Walcott, Politico). The decision to invade was founded on a largely baseless premise, resulting in a completely irrational and violence provoking outcome. As explained in an article in the Huffington Post, “crackpot realism wears the camouflage of idealism: military invasions are really aimed at humanitarian rescue, spreading democracy, or peacekeeping” (Lofgren, Huffington Post). The invasion was painted as a means of protection, but it lacked any concrete evidence to substantiate the mission. This is because it was a means of retaliation, not protection. Paul Krugman explains this in his New York Times article. He writes “The Iraq war wasn’t an innocent mistake, a venture undertaken on the basis of intelligence that turned out to be wrong. America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration wanted a war. The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretexts, and falsified pretexts at that” (Krugman, New York Times). The costly and poorly planned invasion was far more concerned with retaliation for 9/11 than any impending threat of WMD. It was framed as a necessary means of prevention when in reality it fed into a relentless war that the United States is waging. The Huffington Post highlights a powerful quote from C. Wright Mill’s book The Causes of World War Three that summarizes this example. It reads “some men want war for sordid, others for idealistic, reasons; some for personal gain, others for impersonal principle. But most of those who consciously want war and accept it, and so help to create its “inevitability,” want it in order to shift the locus of their problems” (Lofgren, Huffington Post). This crackpot realist rationale serves to shift the narrative away from the United States wanting to illustrate control and retaliate for 9/11.

Crackpot Realism is occurring outside of foreign policy as well, one of the most recent examples is occurring in Canada with Justin Trudeau’s crusade for a green economy. Despite Trudeau’s longstanding dedication to Indigenous reconciliation and climate change resolution, he stands fully behind the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline and similar projects. Trudeau argues that growing the economy and protecting the environment can occur at the same time and that the pipeline will pave the way to reducing carbon emissions. This argument largely negates the tremendous amount of damage that the pipelines across Canada have done to the environment. There is no conceivable way to fund these projects and protect the environment. When questioned on his reasoning, Trudeau often deflects. One article in the National Observer outlines exactly this, writing “he didn't address reporter concerns about increasing the amount of fossil fuels combusted by expanding development of the oilsands. Instead, he pointed towards other government commitments to clean tech solutions that he said will decrease Canada's reliance on oil and gas” (McSheffrey, National Observer). There is no way to rationalize the choice the expand the pipeline while still trying to advocate for a cleaner environment. In addition, the pipeline has seen numerous oppositions from Indigenous groups whose land is being destroyed by the project. The Coastal GasLink Pipeline has been majorly protested by the Wet’suwet’ en Nation as it threatens to contaminate their land. In Maclean’s transcription of Trudeau’s speech in response to anti-pipeline protests, he has little to say in the way of resolutions. Trudeau repeated several times that his government is working hard to find a solution, but had nothing concrete to offer, simply stated that it will lean heavily on communication (Maclean’s). On both fronts, Trudeau is unable to offer explanations to how his support of pipelines in Canada aligns with his alleged support of climate change resolution and indigenous reconciliation. This is because these things are completely incompatible. The premise of a green economy is highly illogical and unfeasible, as capitalism is the driving force of the climate crisis. Arguing that the economy will be the saving grace of climate change aims to distract from Trudeau’s economic interests and paint him as a frontier of tackling social issues.

In Tracy. C. Davis’s Stage of Emergency, she describes the civil defence that occurred during the cold war. Civil defence exercises were run in communities to practice safety procedures if a nuclear strike did occur. All of this aims to perpetuate the fallacy that anyone would survive a nuclear attack, let alone citizens who were close to the strike. In the book, she explains, “a delicate balance existed between giving the public accurate information about the realities of atomic attack and building morale that would motivate compliant involvement” (Davis, 116). This is the same balance that occurs under Crackpot Realism. The people in power cannot stand behind the realities of what they are trying to achieve, so instead the reframe to it to the public as a service to protect humankind. Similarly to the Cold War, all of the actions taken under Crackpot Realism have the nuances of saving humanity, when in reality they are doing the opposite.

Altogether, as we move further away from the Cold War, Crackpot Realism is becoming seemingly more prevalent. In each example, there is a clear indication that this rationale is used as a distraction from bolstering capital interests and maintaining control. As nuclear war hangs over the head of all of humanity, deterrence continues to be the alleged saving grace. In the majority of foreign policy, many of the decisions seem with an evidence-based premise, but simply a means of bolstering power. Outside of the “war on terror”, irrational premises are used to distract from major environmental disasters that are single-handedly created by capitalism. In all of the instances, problems attempt to be solved by causing more problems – which is completely irrational and impossible. Violence begets violence, it cannot and never will solve it.

Work Cited

Armstrong, Martin. “Infographic: The Countries Holding The World's Nuclear Arsenal.” Statista Infographics, 17 June 2019, www.statista.com/chart/8301/the-countries-holding-the-worlds-nuclear-arsenal/.

Anders, Gunther. “Commandments of the Atomic Age” Burning Conscience. Monthly Review Press, New York, 1961.

Crowley, Michael, et al. “U.S. Strike in Iraq Kills Qassim Suleimani, Commander of Iranian Forces.” The New York Times, 3 Jan. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/world/middleeast/qassem-soleimani-iraq-iran-attack.html.

Davis, Tracy C. “The Psychology of Vulnerability” Stages of Emergency: Cold War Nuclear Civil Defense. Duke University Press, 2007.

Gottemoeller, Rose. “Russia Is Updating Their Nuclear Weapons: What Does That Mean for the Rest of Us?” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 29 Jan. 2020, carnegieendowment.org/2020/01/29/russia-is-updating-their-nuclear-weapons-what-does-that-mean-for-rest-of-us-pub-80895.

“Justin Trudeau's Speech in Response to Anti-Pipeline Blockades: Full Transcript.” Macleans.ca, 18 Feb. 2020, www.macleans.ca/politics/justin-trudeaus-speech-in-response-to-anti-pipeline-blockades-full-transcript/.

Krugman, Paul. “Errors and Lies.” The New York Times, 18 May 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/opinion/paul-krugman-errors-and-lies.html.

Lofgren, Michael S. “Syria and the Triumph of Crackpot Realism.” HuffPost, 27 May 2013, www.huffpost.com/entry/syria-and-the-triumph-of-_b_2966541?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADRVDgCyAUngVLFapzBxo0JdXrVJmaOBWOf5PJiN4fwI4nZFVaRWqLDtod1ivKf437B8601xL1qpOogElxhtvtFfk3KbYUCai9Q5QC6vZXF80w7YxoZMFp8rZtGFtlP_AbPW9KAJTrEhnkRBYR8vnKUYmoIc2w8m4zoA2qSypO9B.

McSheffrey, Elizabeth. “Trudeau Says Pipelines Will Pay for Canada's Transition to a Green Economy.” National Observer, 22 June 2016, www.nationalobserver.com/2016/03/02/news/trudeau-says-pipelines-will-pay-canadas-transition-green-economy.

Mills, C. Wright. The Power Elite. Oxford University Press, 1989.