I find myself increasingly being asked to explain my disapproval of the current war to friends and family.
It's simple really. I'm against war. I know for a fact that war brings with it attendant murder, lies, and intractable problems. The very act of "declaring war" [or in this case "claiming" war without a Constitutional declaration . . . but I digress] . . . the very act of "declaring war" should be so detestable, so debatable, so far from desirable that Christian people ought to treat it like late, third-trimester abortion or the dropping of an atomic bomb on a civilian population.
Abortion, in fact, is the example that I most recently cited in a comment to a friend here on my blog. I share the Church's stance on abortion, but one of the reasons we have pro-life protesters at LDS General Conference is because official Mormon doctrine is not 100% anti-abortion. I suppose you could even call it pro-"choice" but not in any conventional use of the term. The official stance [as I understand it] is that abortion is strongly counseled against - even considered a heinous sin in most cases - but in certain cases such as rape, incest, and where the mother's life is seriously endangered then the counsel is to consider it prayerfully on an specific basis.
I do not believe a declaration of war should be undertaken with any less consideration. Generally in the abortion debates every individual life is given consideration by the kind of people I find at Church . . . but somehow when the topic of war gets debated the whole idea of "the worth of souls" too often gets sidelined, shunned, and forgotten. Worse, it seems that if we find any legitimate-seeming reason for U.S. military action in a foreign country we seem to act as if it means that conventional morality no longer applies to that entire region of the world from that moment and into the forseeable future.
We are not – by any stretch of the imagination – under imminent attack way back here in the U.S. by the specific Iraqi and Afghani rebels who want us out of their countries. Furthermore, however you might feel about our original missions in those two countries, we have long ago abandoned them and replaced them with far-less-respectable, brazenly imperialist goals. In Iraq when Bush declared "Mission Accomplished," the best information I can gather indicates that we should have been honest about it and left. We didn't even have "Al Queda" copycats in the country at that point. In Afghanistan it is increasingly unclear why we should not have followed bin Laden and his enterprise into Pakistan instead of continuing the strange dual objectives of occupying Ahghanistan and propping up the dictator Musharrif who promptly allowed bin Laden what has effectively been permanent sanctuary.
I am greatly troubled that many tenets of our current foreign policy only make sense from the point of view that American Corporate interests (oil, shipping, military-industrial, World Bank investments, etc.) and American Empire (our power, prestige, and control in the world) are the actual driving forces behind our actions and not - as too often claimed by pundits and politicians - the evil boogiemen of 'global jihad'. Our own intelligence services issued a non-classified report this very month citing the great strengthening of Al Queda in particular (in its new stronghold in Pakistan) – and global terrorism generally – precisely because of our current foreign policy. I worry sometimes that the problem isn't that we're not smart enough to fight terrorists any more intelligently; the problem is that for many of the policymakers and politicians [whether they realize it or not – and I opine that the great majority do not realize this] fighting terror isn't even really the goal. And that, to me, is pretty terrifying.
I believe that as citizens we can be more engaged in learning about the 'big picture' of our foreign policy and our decisions to engage conflicts using our military might. I believe that there have never been more opportunities for an informed or an involved electorate. My outlook on these things is anything but bleak, but I do fear that we are not exactly headed the right direction. If anybody has good suggestions for being productively involved I'm very interested.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Monday, February 4, 2008
Some of the Reasons I'm Voting Ron Paul on Super Tuesday
Well, tomorrow's the day. Utah is one of the 24 states voting on "Super Tuesday". I'm voting for Ron Paul despite the fact that Romney is at 84% in Utah in the poll I heard about on the radio this morning. It's too bad the polls become such self-fulfilling prophecies – numbers like that make me wonder if I might as well just give up on the Republican primary altogether but I'm registering my vote for Paul tomorrow regardless.
Paul got less than 8 minutes of the two-hour debate in the last pre-Super-Tuesday Republican debate on CNN but the upside of that is you can hear a lot of Paul condensed to very little time.
Here's the tape [If you really want to get right to the good stuff drag the slider to about 3minutes and 10seconds]:
Summary:
0-1:20 Paul says our economy is in bad shape. Says we're bankrupting the country and the standard of living is going down especially for the middle class. Talks about fiscal policy and monetary policy and throws out terms that cause people's eyes to glaze which is really too bad since Paul understands these things far better than any other candidate in the running.
1:20-2:00 Paul answers the question about whether it is OK for Schwarzenegger to implement his plan for "greenhouse gasses" by saying that CA should be free to do whatever they like. In typical Paul fashion, however, he overestimates how informed his audience is and mentions in passing that he thinks it's too bad that nobody ever discusses property rights when they talk about pollution. This is an area Paul could really shine since his discussion of pollution is really unorthodox and pragmatic. He believes allowing big corporations to pollute public water, air, and land violates the property rights of those whose land or water gets polluted. This is simple truth, regardless of your political persuasion and yet you don't hear many politicians talking about it. It avoids simply siding with big business (all-too-typical Republican stance) against public health or siding with some indefinable "global village" against the property rights of big businesses (all-too-typical Democratic stance).
At any rate, Paul pushes right past this opportunity to press for what he correctly identifies as a topic that really needs addressing: talking about how silly the "mainstream conventional wisdom" is about conservative or liberal. Even most talk-radio extremists agree that those words get overgeneralized and abused [and apart from this strange notion where it's considered "conservative" now to police the world, Paul is the only traditional "conservative" on the stage]. But Anderson Cooper shuts him down with a lie about a question that addresses "exactly that" "in like 2 minutes or 2 questions." Big surprise -- the question and opportunity to speak on the topic never comes.
2:00-3:00 Paul is glad Huckabee is also making the point that it is absolutely ludicrous that we are borrowing from the Chinese to fund our government largesse. He notes that nobody else is talking about cutting spending (which I think is strange too because I would expect Romney to talk more about it . . . only he can't since he has signed onto this idea of pre-emptive worldwide military strikes which are unimaginably expensive). Paul notes our military expeditions are hitting $1trillion a year (with a lot of it being unbudgeted "emergency" addons during the year each year). He points out that our official foreign policy calls for taxing our people to blow up bridges overseas, then taxing our people to rebuild bridges overseas while all along we're falling behind on checking the aging infrastructure and bridges in our own country because there is simply not enough money to do both.
3:00-3:10 Paul starts a short answer about why he feels Sandra Day O'Connor was not a strict enough Constitutionalist but the CNN moderator Anderson Cooper frankly doesn't care and cuts him off at an awkward point (after less than 5 seconds) to simply turn it over to McCain.
3:10-5:10 Paul's best question and answer of the night. Paul is asked if he agrees with McCain's quote about keeping troops in Iraq for "100 years or more". Paul's answer is the reason I'm praying he's still in the media after tomorrow.
5:10-7:15 Paul's other best answer of the night. Even if you don't agree with him on foreign policy, this is the right answer on the economy. The fact that none of the other Republican candidates is willing to talk about these things is remarkable in my opinion.
7:15-7:55 Paul notes that though he doesn't pretend to know what Ronald Reagan would do that Reagan and he often campaigned for each other from before Reagan finally gained traction within the party. Furthermore, Reagan solidly agreed with [perhaps Paul's most infamous "crazy idea"] Paul that the U.S. needs to return to the gold standard to save the dollar. He backed that claim up with a great Reagan quote about it.
Paul got less than 8 minutes of the two-hour debate in the last pre-Super-Tuesday Republican debate on CNN but the upside of that is you can hear a lot of Paul condensed to very little time.
Here's the tape [If you really want to get right to the good stuff drag the slider to about 3minutes and 10seconds]:
Summary:
0-1:20 Paul says our economy is in bad shape. Says we're bankrupting the country and the standard of living is going down especially for the middle class. Talks about fiscal policy and monetary policy and throws out terms that cause people's eyes to glaze which is really too bad since Paul understands these things far better than any other candidate in the running.
1:20-2:00 Paul answers the question about whether it is OK for Schwarzenegger to implement his plan for "greenhouse gasses" by saying that CA should be free to do whatever they like. In typical Paul fashion, however, he overestimates how informed his audience is and mentions in passing that he thinks it's too bad that nobody ever discusses property rights when they talk about pollution. This is an area Paul could really shine since his discussion of pollution is really unorthodox and pragmatic. He believes allowing big corporations to pollute public water, air, and land violates the property rights of those whose land or water gets polluted. This is simple truth, regardless of your political persuasion and yet you don't hear many politicians talking about it. It avoids simply siding with big business (all-too-typical Republican stance) against public health or siding with some indefinable "global village" against the property rights of big businesses (all-too-typical Democratic stance).
At any rate, Paul pushes right past this opportunity to press for what he correctly identifies as a topic that really needs addressing: talking about how silly the "mainstream conventional wisdom" is about conservative or liberal. Even most talk-radio extremists agree that those words get overgeneralized and abused [and apart from this strange notion where it's considered "conservative" now to police the world, Paul is the only traditional "conservative" on the stage]. But Anderson Cooper shuts him down with a lie about a question that addresses "exactly that" "in like 2 minutes or 2 questions." Big surprise -- the question and opportunity to speak on the topic never comes.
2:00-3:00 Paul is glad Huckabee is also making the point that it is absolutely ludicrous that we are borrowing from the Chinese to fund our government largesse. He notes that nobody else is talking about cutting spending (which I think is strange too because I would expect Romney to talk more about it . . . only he can't since he has signed onto this idea of pre-emptive worldwide military strikes which are unimaginably expensive). Paul notes our military expeditions are hitting $1trillion a year (with a lot of it being unbudgeted "emergency" addons during the year each year). He points out that our official foreign policy calls for taxing our people to blow up bridges overseas, then taxing our people to rebuild bridges overseas while all along we're falling behind on checking the aging infrastructure and bridges in our own country because there is simply not enough money to do both.
3:00-3:10 Paul starts a short answer about why he feels Sandra Day O'Connor was not a strict enough Constitutionalist but the CNN moderator Anderson Cooper frankly doesn't care and cuts him off at an awkward point (after less than 5 seconds) to simply turn it over to McCain.
3:10-5:10 Paul's best question and answer of the night. Paul is asked if he agrees with McCain's quote about keeping troops in Iraq for "100 years or more". Paul's answer is the reason I'm praying he's still in the media after tomorrow.
5:10-7:15 Paul's other best answer of the night. Even if you don't agree with him on foreign policy, this is the right answer on the economy. The fact that none of the other Republican candidates is willing to talk about these things is remarkable in my opinion.
7:15-7:55 Paul notes that though he doesn't pretend to know what Ronald Reagan would do that Reagan and he often campaigned for each other from before Reagan finally gained traction within the party. Furthermore, Reagan solidly agreed with [perhaps Paul's most infamous "crazy idea"] Paul that the U.S. needs to return to the gold standard to save the dollar. He backed that claim up with a great Reagan quote about it.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Standing for Something
 | Gordon Bitner Hinckley June 23, 1910 - January 27, 2008 |  |
President Gordon B. Hinckley is far and away one of the most inspiring people I have ever studied. He certainly exemplified his oft repeated challenges to "Stand for Something" [great and good] and to "Be!" 'grateful', 'smart', 'clean', 'true', 'humble', 'prayerful', 'positive', 'involved', and 'still'.I can in no way sufficiently summarize my estimation of
this man. But he leaves behind an astonishing legacy of words, actions, and example that speak to all who take the time to notice. I would encourage everyone to take the opportunity of his passing to remember the life he lived and find renewed inspiration in it.I particularly admired his courage, his wisdom, his love, his open-mindedness, his humor, his kindness, his encouragement of learning, his positive outlook, his hope,
and his ever-ready, strikingly-sincere smile. He was a brilliant ray of light in a often-darkened world and the world is a better place for having had him here.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Amazing Grace: an Inside Job
I recently watched the film Amazing Grace with my wife and my oldest son (on the MLK holiday which made it even better).
I can't believe I'd missed this one!
The film retells the true story of William Wilberforce and his unceasing crusade to end slavery in the British Empire. It does not shy away from either his overt religiosity or his personal struggles.
I'd never heard the background of how Amazing Grace came to be composed. The song means even more to me now. I immediately went online to read more about John Newton (Amazing Grace writer and former Slave Ship captain who repented, became a minister, and profoundly inspired the British abolitionist Wilberforce), William Wilberforce, and William Pitt (British Prime Minister at 24 and sometimes Wilberforce's friend and co-conspirator in the abolitionist movement).
There is a lot I'd like to write about the parallels between the Slave Trade of the British Empire (ie the American Slave Trade) and our new slavery wherein we off-shore all of our manufacturing, textile production, etc. to third-world "sweat shops" but have to neither see nor consider it. There were a few interesting parallels to our current fascist-Empire building and those in parliament who would argue, for instance, that slavery was a necessary evil for the economic health of the empire (much as, I would contend, many in our government argue that the conquest and sacrifice of innocent civilians abroad is a necessary evil for our current oil economy) and that consequently anyone arguing for abolition was nothing less than a traitor.
But I only have time for three quick notes at the moment.
The first is how moving it is to read the full text of the hymn Amazing Grace and consider the awesome power of the atonement of our Savior in overcoming our own personal trials, mistakes, and evils. It was very inspiring early in the film when Wilberforce leaps to top of a table in what was essentially a gambling bar-room and sings the hymn with perfect baritone.
The second thing I wanted to note was that, interestingly, the film spends some time showing Wilberforce's personal struggles with depression, disillusionment, discouragement, and confusion about what to pursue in life. He ends up being shepherded into a dependency on heroin prescribed by a well-meaning family doctor and has to break free of that addiction (due to what he and his wife recognize as negative side effects) despite the fact that his society tended to overlook the ill effects of that drug's abuse.
The final thing I wanted to mention was a brief scene where one of Wilberforce's close personal allies in the abolition movement tries to recruit him into the bloody French (and potentially British) Revolution. Wilberforce – who has earlier in the film indicated that he favors sovereignty for the Americans and harbors other concerns about the the British Empire – explains forcefully to his friend that he has taken an oath to the King which he still cherishes and clearly sees cause for hope within the current British system. Even when another friend (the Prime Minister, Pitt) abandons the abolitionist movement [and Wilberforce himself] as being too anti-British during a time of war, Wilberforce remains true and keeps trying to work within the system he cherishes. I don't think it will ruin the movie to reveal what history already tells you – that ultimately Wilberforce prevails against incredible odds.
Amazing Grace reaffirmed my deep belief that if we can start within ourselves, within our families, and within our communities there is an insuperable power of God that can come to the rescue of all that is good and right. I'd recommend it to anyone.
I can't believe I'd missed this one!
The film retells the true story of William Wilberforce and his unceasing crusade to end slavery in the British Empire. It does not shy away from either his overt religiosity or his personal struggles.
I'd never heard the background of how Amazing Grace came to be composed. The song means even more to me now. I immediately went online to read more about John Newton (Amazing Grace writer and former Slave Ship captain who repented, became a minister, and profoundly inspired the British abolitionist Wilberforce), William Wilberforce, and William Pitt (British Prime Minister at 24 and sometimes Wilberforce's friend and co-conspirator in the abolitionist movement).
There is a lot I'd like to write about the parallels between the Slave Trade of the British Empire (ie the American Slave Trade) and our new slavery wherein we off-shore all of our manufacturing, textile production, etc. to third-world "sweat shops" but have to neither see nor consider it. There were a few interesting parallels to our current fascist-Empire building and those in parliament who would argue, for instance, that slavery was a necessary evil for the economic health of the empire (much as, I would contend, many in our government argue that the conquest and sacrifice of innocent civilians abroad is a necessary evil for our current oil economy) and that consequently anyone arguing for abolition was nothing less than a traitor.
But I only have time for three quick notes at the moment.
The first is how moving it is to read the full text of the hymn Amazing Grace and consider the awesome power of the atonement of our Savior in overcoming our own personal trials, mistakes, and evils. It was very inspiring early in the film when Wilberforce leaps to top of a table in what was essentially a gambling bar-room and sings the hymn with perfect baritone.
The second thing I wanted to note was that, interestingly, the film spends some time showing Wilberforce's personal struggles with depression, disillusionment, discouragement, and confusion about what to pursue in life. He ends up being shepherded into a dependency on heroin prescribed by a well-meaning family doctor and has to break free of that addiction (due to what he and his wife recognize as negative side effects) despite the fact that his society tended to overlook the ill effects of that drug's abuse.
The final thing I wanted to mention was a brief scene where one of Wilberforce's close personal allies in the abolition movement tries to recruit him into the bloody French (and potentially British) Revolution. Wilberforce – who has earlier in the film indicated that he favors sovereignty for the Americans and harbors other concerns about the the British Empire – explains forcefully to his friend that he has taken an oath to the King which he still cherishes and clearly sees cause for hope within the current British system. Even when another friend (the Prime Minister, Pitt) abandons the abolitionist movement [and Wilberforce himself] as being too anti-British during a time of war, Wilberforce remains true and keeps trying to work within the system he cherishes. I don't think it will ruin the movie to reveal what history already tells you – that ultimately Wilberforce prevails against incredible odds.
Amazing Grace reaffirmed my deep belief that if we can start within ourselves, within our families, and within our communities there is an insuperable power of God that can come to the rescue of all that is good and right. I'd recommend it to anyone.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Killing Factory – Unchecked, Unbridled
A little over a year ago I read a well-researched article about the evolution of the psychological training of US troops to more efficiently kill perceived enemies.
Apparently, during WWII, US Army historian S.L.A. Marshall made a diligent study of combat behavior amongst his fellow troops. His published conclusion was that a shocking 75% of American soldiers failed to immediately return fire when fired upon. His report and methodology were of course the subject of much controversy. But the question had been raised. What could America do to better prepare its' defense forces for the brutal reality of the actions required by a soldier?
Jeff Tietz, the author of the article, provides some background. He explains that:
But I also know you can go 'too far' with anything. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with 'good intentions'.
One of the most effective psychological techniques that our battle-trainers utilize is de-humanization. With Vietnam it was describing the enemy as 'gooks', not people. In Iraq, they're all 'rabid-terrorist-camel-jockeys' - and worse. The idea is that you want to create as much psychological separation between the enemy and your troops as possible. The less human your "enemy", the less problems you have managing your troops. Truth and reality go right out the window. The enemy is not comprised of fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, daughters, sons, and innocent children. No, somehow, they are all nameless, faceless, entirely unconnected to the world you know, completely negligible, and most probably hell-bent on destroying your faithful batallion members, you, and everything you hold dear. This extends beyond the enemy army to the complicit neighbors, villages, families, and other sometimes unavoidable collateral damage that [presumably] should have and could have chosen not to support such inhuman evil in their midst.
I suppose this is one of the 'evils of standing armies' that our Founding Fathers warned against: the over-professionalization of warmaking, killing, and conquest. [As a side-note I was reading the Federalist Papers the other day and discovered a long argument about how any politician that wanted to could always cook up a good argument that the Union was in imminent danger from Spanish or British support of the disgruntled Indian tribes – and thus, disingenuously keep America in a constant state of needless war . . . perhaps times have not changed so very much.]
Don't get me wrong. When I decry the potential 'evils of standing armies' and our leaders 'going too far', it's not that I don't understand the need for a strong defense. It's just that I have often observed the maxim that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Also, from the Doctrine and Covenants: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
A strong national militia is indeed a dangerous power. The founders worried ceaselessly about this. It's a necessary component of a free and sovereign nation and yet that component is fraught with perilous downsides. In the Constitution they drafted (as well as in their writings) they labored diligently to provide checks and balances to these powers that seem to have been completely ignored in our current warmaking processes.
Anyways all of that, of course, brings me back to my Presidential candidate of choice and why I back him so fervently. Dr. Paul talks about Constitutional safeguards that have been neglected in our current conflicts. Ron Paul talks about the inherent humanity of each person in each sovereign nation and the "God-given" rights that we have all been granted.
Paul is not a simple pacifist nor is he soft on defense. He served in the armed forces as an Air Force surgeon and he was one of the first to support Reagan (and his talk of restoring America's defenses) out in Texas. Paul voted against the irrational conquest of Iraq, but he voted for going after al Queda who had taken responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. He still advocates going after bin Laden and questions our strange support of the military dictator (and Islamo-fascist nuclear rebel) Musharrif in Pakistan where bin Laden has - by most reports - taken up residence.
Paul is the only candidate I've heard who respects the wisdom of the Constitutional framers, who advocates limited and judicious use of our military powers, and who opposes our wholesale transformation into an angry 'pre-emptive' warmaking Empire who marches around the world and forces policing on cultures we don't care to even understand. Paul suggests that de-humanization itself is a weapon we should wield with much more caution. He suggests restraint, diplomacy, and a re-focusing of our defenses on defending our borders as opposed to Imperial conquests; he understands that our men and women in uniform should be treated with respect and well-taken care of as we choose our engagements in the world. Anything else is neither "support for the troops" nor "strengthening our defenses".
I've quoted before that First Presidency message from 1976 where President Kimball said "We are a warlike people, easily distracted . . . when threatened we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching. . ." The whole article is good for perspective and addresses many of the "False Gods We Worship", not just the militant ones, of course, but that part of his message seems particularly applicable to the political questions of today.
I believe it is time to regain perspective in the self-governance of our nation and its formidable powers. I also strongly believe Congressman Ron Paul is the most capable advocate of that cause in the running. So I look forward to voting for him February 5th. At any rate, I particularly like the perspective he has that the issues are far bigger than he is and – win or lose – they aren't going away.
Apparently, during WWII, US Army historian S.L.A. Marshall made a diligent study of combat behavior amongst his fellow troops. His published conclusion was that a shocking 75% of American soldiers failed to immediately return fire when fired upon. His report and methodology were of course the subject of much controversy. But the question had been raised. What could America do to better prepare its' defense forces for the brutal reality of the actions required by a soldier?
Jeff Tietz, the author of the article, provides some background. He explains that:
I have mixed feelings about this. I really do have a dedicated and passionate allegiance to our nation and its freedom. I also have great respect and admiration for being 'the absolute best'. Maximizing potential. Protecting loved ones. Fighting for Freedom. Succeeding. Winning.Before World War II, basic training sought to produce disciplined men, not killers. The closest you got to battle was shooting at bull’s-eye targets and bayoneting hay bales. Less than a year after Men Against Fire [the published report by Army historian Marshall], the Army began distributing a “Revised Program of Instruction” to its officers and drill sergeants. Marshall considered it essential to “free the rifleman’s mind with respect to the nature of targets”—to keep soldiers from thinking human before shooting.
On his recommendation, the Army began training recruits in “massing fire”—shooting at the types of inanimate cover they would see in combat: tree lines, embankments, ridges. It also began downplaying its standard exhortation “Kill the enemy!” and emphasized instead a rifleman’s responsibility to deliver his comrades from danger. “Protect your buddy!” and “Protect the integrity of your unit!” became common maxims.
The value of applied psychology soon became apparent: The firing rate during the Korean War rose to nearly sixty percent. In Vietnam it was ninety percent, and in the first Gulf War it reached ninety-eight percent. In Iraq, the number of soldiers who fail to fire is thought to be statistically insignificant. American forces never lost a major engagement in Vietnam, and they have not lost one since.
The Army now spends nearly $2 billion annually on basic training. It employs thousands of people: to invent virtual-reality environments, to calculate the maximum volume of information a recruit can absorb in fourteen weeks, to determine the emotional state in which recruits will most freely shoot at the human form, to discover how much punishment their bodies can take, to build mock urban battlefields that replicate mosque spires and the sound of a muezzin’s call to prayer. The Army’s infantry schools graduate nearly 20,000 soldiers a year. No institution in history has come close to training so many people to kill so effectively in such a short time.
But I also know you can go 'too far' with anything. The road to hell is, as they say, paved with 'good intentions'.
One of the most effective psychological techniques that our battle-trainers utilize is de-humanization. With Vietnam it was describing the enemy as 'gooks', not people. In Iraq, they're all 'rabid-terrorist-camel-jockeys' - and worse. The idea is that you want to create as much psychological separation between the enemy and your troops as possible. The less human your "enemy", the less problems you have managing your troops. Truth and reality go right out the window. The enemy is not comprised of fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, daughters, sons, and innocent children. No, somehow, they are all nameless, faceless, entirely unconnected to the world you know, completely negligible, and most probably hell-bent on destroying your faithful batallion members, you, and everything you hold dear. This extends beyond the enemy army to the complicit neighbors, villages, families, and other sometimes unavoidable collateral damage that [presumably] should have and could have chosen not to support such inhuman evil in their midst.
I suppose this is one of the 'evils of standing armies' that our Founding Fathers warned against: the over-professionalization of warmaking, killing, and conquest. [As a side-note I was reading the Federalist Papers the other day and discovered a long argument about how any politician that wanted to could always cook up a good argument that the Union was in imminent danger from Spanish or British support of the disgruntled Indian tribes – and thus, disingenuously keep America in a constant state of needless war . . . perhaps times have not changed so very much.]
Don't get me wrong. When I decry the potential 'evils of standing armies' and our leaders 'going too far', it's not that I don't understand the need for a strong defense. It's just that I have often observed the maxim that "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Also, from the Doctrine and Covenants: "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion."
A strong national militia is indeed a dangerous power. The founders worried ceaselessly about this. It's a necessary component of a free and sovereign nation and yet that component is fraught with perilous downsides. In the Constitution they drafted (as well as in their writings) they labored diligently to provide checks and balances to these powers that seem to have been completely ignored in our current warmaking processes.
Anyways all of that, of course, brings me back to my Presidential candidate of choice and why I back him so fervently. Dr. Paul talks about Constitutional safeguards that have been neglected in our current conflicts. Ron Paul talks about the inherent humanity of each person in each sovereign nation and the "God-given" rights that we have all been granted.
Paul is not a simple pacifist nor is he soft on defense. He served in the armed forces as an Air Force surgeon and he was one of the first to support Reagan (and his talk of restoring America's defenses) out in Texas. Paul voted against the irrational conquest of Iraq, but he voted for going after al Queda who had taken responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. He still advocates going after bin Laden and questions our strange support of the military dictator (and Islamo-fascist nuclear rebel) Musharrif in Pakistan where bin Laden has - by most reports - taken up residence.
Paul is the only candidate I've heard who respects the wisdom of the Constitutional framers, who advocates limited and judicious use of our military powers, and who opposes our wholesale transformation into an angry 'pre-emptive' warmaking Empire who marches around the world and forces policing on cultures we don't care to even understand. Paul suggests that de-humanization itself is a weapon we should wield with much more caution. He suggests restraint, diplomacy, and a re-focusing of our defenses on defending our borders as opposed to Imperial conquests; he understands that our men and women in uniform should be treated with respect and well-taken care of as we choose our engagements in the world. Anything else is neither "support for the troops" nor "strengthening our defenses".
I've quoted before that First Presidency message from 1976 where President Kimball said "We are a warlike people, easily distracted . . . when threatened we become anti-enemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan's counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior's teaching. . ." The whole article is good for perspective and addresses many of the "False Gods We Worship", not just the militant ones, of course, but that part of his message seems particularly applicable to the political questions of today.
I believe it is time to regain perspective in the self-governance of our nation and its formidable powers. I also strongly believe Congressman Ron Paul is the most capable advocate of that cause in the running. So I look forward to voting for him February 5th. At any rate, I particularly like the perspective he has that the issues are far bigger than he is and – win or lose – they aren't going away.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The American Revolution, Pax Americana, and Ron Paul
Ron Paul's understanding of Pax Americana and our new American Empire is one of the things I most admire in him. (Check out the Wikipedia link on 'Pax Americana' – it is, I believe, a fairly concise and balanced consideration of the term.)
I think the questions engendered by the concept of Pax Americana are vital to the continued health, strength, and future of our nation. Do we truly live in such a changed world that we must entirely jettison every reason and precept of the American Revolution and our Founding Fathers in favor of a neo-British-Empire (our new American Empire) with exactly all of the same excesses, abuses, and problems that our forefathers rebelled against?
I don't think the average American is even aware that we have over 6,000 large, complex, and wildly expensive bases worldwide. While many of them are here in the states to protect our borders and train our forces, literally thousands of them are not. These are not temporary bases in response to an existing security threat. These are permanent military installations in over 130 countries and growing all the time. Most nations where we run these small colonial "footprints" (as our current leaders like to call them) are understandably scared to death of opposing the American hegemony and asking for their sovereignty back.
The once independent, non-Imperial 'United States' have only recently been building this Empire. Before WWII, almost none of it was in place. Every decade since, our rhetoric and action have increasingly accelerated towards Empire. Perhaps a modicum of increased defense was required in the changed world, but I would argue we've gone much too far and we're headed the wrong direction.
Many of my friends and colleagues welcome this recent turn of events. "Somebody has to force the world to be a safe place," they argue. "Who better than us? I am sure," they contend, "that we are better than anybody else to consider the worlds' best interests as we send our military out to enforce democracy."
Those ideas, however, are wrong in so many ways! If you are Mormon and reading this, than I am certain you can see the philosophical parallels to what we believe to be one of the fundamental differences between the Savior and the Devil. The Savior upheld the universal necessity of free will, while the Devil proposed a radical new hierarchy wherein morality would be forced with [what he argued was a negligible] loss of freedom and autonomy.
Ron Paul talks about the sovereignty of nations. He reminds us that we expect other nations to respect ours and we should respect theirs. He has considerable – and I believe well-informed – philosophical doubts about the success of forcing value changes at the barrel of a gun versus inviting changes in values through consistent example and action.
I can see how there might need to be a reasonable debate about how much of the Empire to dismantle. And how quickly. It is similar to the debates on nuclear and chemical weapon reduction in the 1980's. At one point it was reasonably estimated that the US alone had the current capacity to annihilate the entire planet some 1300 times over. Consequently, it was the considered wisdom of compromises and open debate that the nuclear stockpile could be seriously reduced without leaving our nation either vulnerable or weakened. Much redundancy was maintained for judicious reasons. But, as I understand it, the perhaps 'overzealous' expansion of our nuclear stockpile was indeed slowed to combat the innumerable unintended consequences that we had discovered. We had gone past even the point of 'diminishing returns' to the place where too many nukes were actually becoming more of a liability than a strength.
In considering our global Empire, what we should certainly not do is continue to ratchet up the pre-emptive wars and foreign military bases without some pause for consideration of what we have in place already. Admittedly, assessing the state, scope, and influences of our Empire is increasingly difficult. Many of our overseas bases and installations are 'off the books' so to speak. Even non-classified installations are often prepared with intense secrecy and disinformation – with our 'national security' cited as trumping both the right of our regular citizens and even our duly elected Congress members to be involved with the building of base-colonies on foreign soil until after they are complete. (I could probably write a book on the number of purposefully inaccurate DoD/Intelligence community reports to Congressional leaders that have ended up being exposed in recent decades – and remember that's only when they got caught so that normal people like me could even be aware of it.)
But, regardless of how they get their start, once these bases are in place they wield considerable influence over the nations they exist in. To argue otherwise is simply foolishness.
We have few "traditional colonies" in the world today. That method of colonialism is no longer acceptable in the modern world. But the whole concept of 'Pax Americana' recalls to my mind these words of wisdom from Alexander Pope:
When, exactly was it that we repudiated everything our Founding Fathers stood for in their revolution against Empire? And if we decide, as some have suggested, that it was sometime after our victories in the 'Good War' – and remember, I don't have a problem with our battles against the Imperial Japanese or the Imperial Germans – have we discovered any unintended consequences to our own expanding Empire that we need to re-examine? Please comment.
I think the questions engendered by the concept of Pax Americana are vital to the continued health, strength, and future of our nation. Do we truly live in such a changed world that we must entirely jettison every reason and precept of the American Revolution and our Founding Fathers in favor of a neo-British-Empire (our new American Empire) with exactly all of the same excesses, abuses, and problems that our forefathers rebelled against?
I don't think the average American is even aware that we have over 6,000 large, complex, and wildly expensive bases worldwide. While many of them are here in the states to protect our borders and train our forces, literally thousands of them are not. These are not temporary bases in response to an existing security threat. These are permanent military installations in over 130 countries and growing all the time. Most nations where we run these small colonial "footprints" (as our current leaders like to call them) are understandably scared to death of opposing the American hegemony and asking for their sovereignty back.
The once independent, non-Imperial 'United States' have only recently been building this Empire. Before WWII, almost none of it was in place. Every decade since, our rhetoric and action have increasingly accelerated towards Empire. Perhaps a modicum of increased defense was required in the changed world, but I would argue we've gone much too far and we're headed the wrong direction.
Many of my friends and colleagues welcome this recent turn of events. "Somebody has to force the world to be a safe place," they argue. "Who better than us? I am sure," they contend, "that we are better than anybody else to consider the worlds' best interests as we send our military out to enforce democracy."
Those ideas, however, are wrong in so many ways! If you are Mormon and reading this, than I am certain you can see the philosophical parallels to what we believe to be one of the fundamental differences between the Savior and the Devil. The Savior upheld the universal necessity of free will, while the Devil proposed a radical new hierarchy wherein morality would be forced with [what he argued was a negligible] loss of freedom and autonomy.
Ron Paul talks about the sovereignty of nations. He reminds us that we expect other nations to respect ours and we should respect theirs. He has considerable – and I believe well-informed – philosophical doubts about the success of forcing value changes at the barrel of a gun versus inviting changes in values through consistent example and action.
I can see how there might need to be a reasonable debate about how much of the Empire to dismantle. And how quickly. It is similar to the debates on nuclear and chemical weapon reduction in the 1980's. At one point it was reasonably estimated that the US alone had the current capacity to annihilate the entire planet some 1300 times over. Consequently, it was the considered wisdom of compromises and open debate that the nuclear stockpile could be seriously reduced without leaving our nation either vulnerable or weakened. Much redundancy was maintained for judicious reasons. But, as I understand it, the perhaps 'overzealous' expansion of our nuclear stockpile was indeed slowed to combat the innumerable unintended consequences that we had discovered. We had gone past even the point of 'diminishing returns' to the place where too many nukes were actually becoming more of a liability than a strength.
In considering our global Empire, what we should certainly not do is continue to ratchet up the pre-emptive wars and foreign military bases without some pause for consideration of what we have in place already. Admittedly, assessing the state, scope, and influences of our Empire is increasingly difficult. Many of our overseas bases and installations are 'off the books' so to speak. Even non-classified installations are often prepared with intense secrecy and disinformation – with our 'national security' cited as trumping both the right of our regular citizens and even our duly elected Congress members to be involved with the building of base-colonies on foreign soil until after they are complete. (I could probably write a book on the number of purposefully inaccurate DoD/Intelligence community reports to Congressional leaders that have ended up being exposed in recent decades – and remember that's only when they got caught so that normal people like me could even be aware of it.)
But, regardless of how they get their start, once these bases are in place they wield considerable influence over the nations they exist in. To argue otherwise is simply foolishness.
We have few "traditional colonies" in the world today. That method of colonialism is no longer acceptable in the modern world. But the whole concept of 'Pax Americana' recalls to my mind these words of wisdom from Alexander Pope:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,Many of the official agency reports coming out of our Federal institutions these last few years openly telegraph our new plans to radically and hastily increase our numbers of foreign military bases. Generally this is cited as being in the interest of what is clearly an expanding definition of 'national security.' Furthermore, much of the rhetoric coming from our current administration warns of impending first-strikes against nations that have not, indeed, attacked our soil – or anybody at all, in most cases.
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity,
then embrace.
– Essay on Man. Epistle ii. Line 217
When, exactly was it that we repudiated everything our Founding Fathers stood for in their revolution against Empire? And if we decide, as some have suggested, that it was sometime after our victories in the 'Good War' – and remember, I don't have a problem with our battles against the Imperial Japanese or the Imperial Germans – have we discovered any unintended consequences to our own expanding Empire that we need to re-examine? Please comment.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
High Treason and the Founding Fathers
A toast, to high treason.That's what these men were committing when they signed the Declaration.
Had we lost the war, they would've been hanged, beheaded, drawn and quartered, and oh! oh my personal favorite, had their entrails cut out and
burned!So, here's to the men who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right.
In the 2003 film, National Treasure, the fictional Ben Gates toasted our Founding Fathers' convictions. I think it is worth recalling exactly why they were willing to place their lives on the line and what was so wrong with the British Empire that they were dangerously and unconventionally rebelling against it. I sometimes take for granted that everybody knows what the American Revolution was about. But when yesterday's blog entry referred to Washington's Farewell Adress as kinda being something people know about generally, I quickly got feedback that - unfortunately - that's fairly rare these days. Which is really too bad.
But Hey! that's why I blog. :]
I've posted Washington's Farewell Address as a blog entry so that I could bookmark specific parts of it and link right to them. I think I'll do the same with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at least.
I have noticed a growing number of politicians and pundits writing and opining that the Constitution is woefully "outdated" or, more precisely, a "mere piece of paper." Times have changed, they challenge, and the wisdom of our forefathers no longer serves in the world we live in now. I think such thinking merits analysis. It certainly deserves an honest, open debate.
I, for one, am still with the Founding Fathers. I believe in liberty, hope, peace, and equality in the pursuit of happiness for all people.
I grant that there are those that genuinely [and rightly] question the 'vaunted wisdom' of those early patriots. In those first steps of our Republic, they contend, there was no equality for either gender or race. Women couldn't vote at all. Slavery was actually somewhat protected as an institution - or at least officially recognized in half of the nation. I would agree, that by my reckoning, those are gaping holes in liberty. But I would invite anybody who rationally questions what went wrong to study the history. Arguably, the meetings, documents, institutions, and decisions of those founding rebels are precisely what set in motion our original Bill of Rights, abolition, universal suffrage, and most other revolutionary liberties that Americans often take for granted today.
Indeed, most of the Bill of Rights and other missing protections (including egregious examples such as complete abolition slavery and universal suffrage) were strongly argued for by at least some representatives. There were those who lost strong debates on such liberties to heartbreaking compromise, but could see that such freedoms could be clearly granted by what they were then setting in motion. Some continued to champion such unfulfilled guaranties of liberty throughout their lives of public service. The rapid ratification of the first ten amendments is testament to the ongoing debate.
Of those that intimate that those "ancient" debates and writings bear little relevance in our modern world, I would request a sincere and transparent discussion. The United States has one of the oldest, if not the oldest functioning Constitution in use today. Maybe it is, indeed, (as has been opined) completely outdated.
Certainly our current leaders – with their strong regard for strength through empire, standing armies, and the use of force – are out of sync with the kind of passions and beliefs that forged our original Union.
I believe we are at crucial juncture. We crossed a line when we pre-emptively conquered Iraq and then we crossed another when we stayed and made them a de-facto colony in order to build more permanent military bases. You certainly don't have to look far to find powerful politicians and pundits that reject the ideals of our anti-Empire, pro-Liberty Founding Fathers. The question is, then: do you?
[I'll close with another great National Treasure quote (this time quoting the Declaration of Independence).]
But Hey! that's why I blog. :]
I've posted Washington's Farewell Address as a blog entry so that I could bookmark specific parts of it and link right to them. I think I'll do the same with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution at least.
I have noticed a growing number of politicians and pundits writing and opining that the Constitution is woefully "outdated" or, more precisely, a "mere piece of paper." Times have changed, they challenge, and the wisdom of our forefathers no longer serves in the world we live in now. I think such thinking merits analysis. It certainly deserves an honest, open debate.
I, for one, am still with the Founding Fathers. I believe in liberty, hope, peace, and equality in the pursuit of happiness for all people.
I grant that there are those that genuinely [and rightly] question the 'vaunted wisdom' of those early patriots. In those first steps of our Republic, they contend, there was no equality for either gender or race. Women couldn't vote at all. Slavery was actually somewhat protected as an institution - or at least officially recognized in half of the nation. I would agree, that by my reckoning, those are gaping holes in liberty. But I would invite anybody who rationally questions what went wrong to study the history. Arguably, the meetings, documents, institutions, and decisions of those founding rebels are precisely what set in motion our original Bill of Rights, abolition, universal suffrage, and most other revolutionary liberties that Americans often take for granted today.
Indeed, most of the Bill of Rights and other missing protections (including egregious examples such as complete abolition slavery and universal suffrage) were strongly argued for by at least some representatives. There were those who lost strong debates on such liberties to heartbreaking compromise, but could see that such freedoms could be clearly granted by what they were then setting in motion. Some continued to champion such unfulfilled guaranties of liberty throughout their lives of public service. The rapid ratification of the first ten amendments is testament to the ongoing debate.
Of those that intimate that those "ancient" debates and writings bear little relevance in our modern world, I would request a sincere and transparent discussion. The United States has one of the oldest, if not the oldest functioning Constitution in use today. Maybe it is, indeed, (as has been opined) completely outdated.
Certainly our current leaders – with their strong regard for strength through empire, standing armies, and the use of force – are out of sync with the kind of passions and beliefs that forged our original Union.
I believe we are at crucial juncture. We crossed a line when we pre-emptively conquered Iraq and then we crossed another when we stayed and made them a de-facto colony in order to build more permanent military bases. You certainly don't have to look far to find powerful politicians and pundits that reject the ideals of our anti-Empire, pro-Liberty Founding Fathers. The question is, then: do you?
[I'll close with another great National Treasure quote (this time quoting the Declaration of Independence).]
Ben Gates:"'But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.' People don't talk that way anymore."
Riley Poole:"Beautiful. No idea what you said."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
