The Dogma of Pacisfism

We have come to a point in our society where some categories of philosophical inquiry are propped up so high that they are apparently above criticism. Pacifism, in particular, is a worldview that has staked its ground in our status-quo as a nearly perfect moral philosophy. For evidence of this, see the esteem in which we hold pacifist figures like Martin Luther King, Mohandas Gandhi, and Mother Teresa. When criticism is able to reach the pedestal on which it sits, it nearly always revolves around the practical ramifications of holding such beliefs. It almost never described as an explicitly immoral position, which I believe it is.

Pacifism may be perfectly reasonable when the stakes are low, but in the end pacifism is merely a willingness to die, and to let others die, at the hands of the world's murderers. It is significant to note that a madman, armed only with a knife, could exterminate an entire city of pacifists. It is clear in this context that violence is a requisite for the maintenance of civil society. This may seem paradoxical, but I assure you it isn't. All it takes to recognize this is a willingness to admit that there are bound to be people in our world who are simply beyond the sort of non-violent methods we may use to prevent them from causing suffering. As the author Sam Harris puts it: "When your enemy has no scruples, your own scruples become another weapon in his hand."

When the stakes are high, pacifism can be highlighted even brighter for its shortcomings. Gandhi was known to say that the Jews should have committed mass suicide as a remedy for the Holocaust, because it would have drawn attention around the world to Hitler's violence. The obvious question here is: what would a world full of pacifists have done once its attention had been raised? This question brings to light another shortcoming of pacifism, in that in many cases it requires for its maintenance the presence of people who are willing to use violence. We may wonder where a pacifist position would leave Middle Eastern Jews in their conflict with the Muslim world, given the murderous rage a significant number of Muslims feel at the presence of infidels in "their" holy land. It would leave them either at the mercy of the West for their protection, or at the mercy of the Muslim world to suddenly realize that killing in the name of Allah isn't really a moral precept.

Needless to say, if these are the choices pacifism offers, Israel has done well to throw it on the philosophical trash heap. A worldview that in itself is not self-sustaining should be a red flag to us. Especially given the world in which we live in, where the push of a button can cause the abject suffering and death of thousands. When nuclear and biological weapons are factored into our ethical equations, pacifism simply ceases to be a possible solution.

To digress for a moment, even if pacifism were somehow worthy of the status it has gained in our discourse, it would still not lend merit to the idea that it is beyond criticism. To put it plainly, nothing should be beyond criticism, if only for the reason that any belief worth subscribing to should be able to stand up to conversational analysis. Pacifism has been branded with a rectitude seemingly so impenetrable, that it remains largely unassailed as an ethical tenet. I invite you all to join me in pulling it down out of the clouds of false righteousness.

The Crux of the Conflict

I'd like to address the misrepresentation of the real problem we face in the Middle East. There seems to be a mainstream belief that the cause of Muslim violence against the west are for political grievances. The culprit, many say, is an oppressive American occupation in the region. This is an idea that seems to be conventional wisdom among the left, and even subscribed to by some on the right (see: Ron Paul).

First of all, say what you will about American foreign policy in the Middle East. It is important to notice that violence against the west would be accepted here whether the United States was involved in the Middle East or not. To believe that American foreign policy is the issue is to believe that malcontent in the Middle East is driven by civic complaints. The problem with this idea is that it would require people in this part of the world to organize themselves around a nationalistic attitude. We can see very quickly, however, that this is not the case. Just who are we fighting? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Afghanistan? No. We are fighting Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Notice that these groups do not organize themselves around political grievances. They have theological issues against Israel and the west. Do they want to push Israel into the Mediterranean because they covet their land? No. They want to push Israel into the sea because it is populated by infidels that threaten the holy sanctity of their religion.

In the final analysis, there is nothing that explains Muslim terrorism better than the tenets of Islam. We should not be afraid to consult Occam's razor here. The Muslim world has a religious identity, not a nationalist one, so we should characterize their intentions accordingly. If we can recognize that we are dealing with a region that adheres to the tenets of Islam, how can we ignore the words of the Qur'an when we evaluate reasons for Muslim violence? "Kill disbelievers wherever you find them" (Qur'an 2:191). Why isn't drivel such as this recognized in the west as the root cause of the problem? It would be good for the Middle East to arrange itself in a national identity that fought for sovereignty, but it is important to realize that as of now this is not what they fight for.

This conflict is not based on American misadventures in the Middle East, or western colonialism, or western foreign policy in general. It is based on the fact that the Muslim world has more than its fair share of bad ideas. It is an ideological struggle, and the Muslim world recognizes this. Americans refuse to. We are losing ground in this struggle every second we fail to admit this. Our credulity is costing us precious time in meeting bad ideas with the might of liberty and democracy before they spread beyond our control.

Western Superiority

Our current conflict in the Middle East has been characterized by some as a "war of ideas." While I am in substantial agreement with this distinction, great deals of people in the west seem to be uncomfortable with the premise. Who are we, they say, to claim an ideological and moral superiority over the east? The thought seems to be that ethics are culturally contingent, indeed, that ethics are a subjective worldview where right and wrong is really a gray area.

Many who take issue with conclusions of this sort will argue that there really are moral truths in this world, much in the same way that there are scientific truths. They will ask why, if we would not be tempted to consult the third world on issues of technology or economics, why should we be reluctant to make similar criticisms of their ethics? Civilizations of this sort have simply not advanced to the point where they are in a position to make legitimate claims about the way the world is. It is no accident, after all, that the term "third world" exists.

Before I go on, I would like to dispel the notion that claims of this sort of are racist, which they are surely not. Consider that at the height of its power in the 16th and 17th centuries, the Ottoman Empire was one of the foremost civilizations in the world. The Ottomans were an Islamic tradition, but contributed mightily to mathematics, astronomy, and the modern calendar. They were an exceptionally tolerant civilization, as Jews and Christians lived relatively undisturbed under Ottoman rule. This is in stark contrast to a Europe during this time that was burning "heretics" at the stake and converting Muslims and Jews to Christianity in violent fashion. It is reasonable to say, at that point in history, that white culture was inferior to Mesopotamian (Middle Eastern) culture. Clearly, therefore, notions of racism are false.

Typical arguments against the equality of cultures are unavoidably abstract, however, as it is difficult in cultural discourse to make evidentiary claims supporting one side or the other. As an aspiring historian, I would like to map this debate onto a historical perspective. One of the principle conflicts of the 20th century was western liberalism vs. far eastern communism. A common historical view is that the west, especially United States, overstated communism as a threat and was largely paranoid in its dealings with the spreading communist doctrine. While this may be true to a degree, we will see that communism, as a worldview, was incredibly destructive and the direct cause of a level of human misery that may be unmatched in human history. Communist movements in the Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, and Cambodia saw affronts to basic human rights that western liberalism could not possibly create. Joseph Stalin's Great Purge, which caused the murder of more than 1 million Soviet citizens, directly correlated with the suppression of political dissent inherent in communist doctrine. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, who claimed the lives of more than 2 million Cambodians, were a communist regime bent on purging ethnic Vietnamese, Muslim and Christian Cambodians, and Buddhist monks from the Cambodian population. The Khmer Rouge targeted these groups as opponents to communist Cambodia. Finally, Mao Zedong, following his victory over the Chinese Nationalists in the Chinese Civil War, declared the beginning of the communist People's Republic of China in 1949. One of the first acts under this regime was massive land reform, which called for the redistribution of wealthy land owner holdings to the Chinese peasantry. As most land owners in China were reluctant to give up their land, Mao oversaw the slaughter of resisting land owners in order to enforce the new reforms. The maintenance of the new communist China required the deaths of an estimated 2 million people.

We may be tempted to make a distinction here between what, on the surface, seem to be political grievances. I would submit, however, that when such movements lead to the abject extermination of millions of people, the motivation ceases to be merely political. When the maintenance of "political" ideas includes mass graves, we have left politics behind for the sort of ideology that is manifestly evil. Would anyone hesitate to say that the ideals of the west were just plain better than eastern collectivism here? One simply cannot attribute liberal democracy to the sort of human destruction that one can easily attribute to the eastern ideological patterns of the 20th century. There are those who will stand up in 2007 and claim that it is arrogant to claim western moral superiority, and receive relatively little pressure for taking such a stance. I wonder just how ridiculous these people would look making the same claims in 1950, as Chinese land owners were being taken behind their homes and executed for refusing to submit to the new communist regime. It is important that our discourse begin to point out just how wayward this thinking is, or we will be unable to criticize with sufficient vigor the sort of evil ideas about the world that have already begun knocking at our door.

Genocidal Stupidity

Haven't written an entry in a about a month; it has been a crazy few weeks at school. Read a story on CNN.com yesterday that has brought me out of my hiatus.

The U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a measure last Wednesday that labeled the Turkish killing of Armenians during World War I as a genocide. The Bush Administration spoke out against the measure, fearing Turkey (who denies the event as a genocide) would be antagonized to the point of stopping their cooperation with the U.S. in the Iraq war. Turkey is a key ally used for U.S. troop deployments and the movement of supplies. As predicted by those opposing the resolution, Turkey claims the House decision has put U.S./Turkey relations "in jeopardy." Turkey also recalled its ambassador in response.

Let's get one thing out of the way. The Ottoman Empire's subjugation and slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians from 1914-1918 was manifestly genocidal. The killing was state sponsored, complete with concentration camps and mass graves. Greeks, Jews, and other religious and ethnic minorities were also targeted by the Muslim majority. Nearly half of the estimated Armenian population in Turkey perished. Adolf Hitler would later use the Ottoman effort as a model for his attempted extermination of the Jews in Nazi Germany.

The distinction of genocide to these events is as obvious as it is unimportant. Outside of the Middle East, where incredulity and ignorance already run rampant, it is a widely held opinion that genocide did indeed occur. Does this not render the House's official recognition of genocide anything but a formality? On the surface, this would seem harmless (while perhaps a waste of congressional time), but the reality of our current situation in Iraq makes the measure an unnecessary nuisance. This is a truism that is not contingent on a political party or where one stands on the Iraq war. If you favor involvement, Turkey is a vital resource for troop and supply movement. If you favor withdraw, even immediate withdraw, Turkey's cooperation is necessary for a smooth and organized redeployment from Iraq. With this is mind, why would the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Relations choose this point in time to anger one of our most important allies in the Middle East? The timing is indeed curious. The circumstances of the genocide itself make the U.S. declaration of genocide long overdue, but at the same time, now would not seem to be the most prudent time for it.

There is another aspect of this whole mess that makes it even more grotesque. As Turkey and the U.S. Congress argue over the correct language to describe an event that happened almost 100 years ago, 400,000 people have been murdered and 2 million more have become refugees in western Sudan as of September 2006. There are few in the west who fail to recognize these events as genocidal, yet the United States has yet to declare them as such, or intervene in the massacres. The United States and Europe have displayed indifference in this matter reminiscent of the Rwandan genocides of the 1990s.

To sum up, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs has put U.S. efforts in Iraq in jeopardy by alienating a key ally, and showed that its priorities are woefully out of line. They would rather declare a 100 year-old conflict a genocide than act on the systematic murder of thousands of people that is happening in the here and now.

This measure should be voted down by the majority of the House, and/or the Darfur conflict should soon be likewise recognized as genocide and action should be taken against the Janjaweed.

Read more about the issue here:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/11/turkey.protests/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/us.turkey.armenians/index.html?iref=newssearch

Re: Speaking of Delirium...

Only a few hours after I posted my entry about New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin's supposed intention to run for Governor of Louisiana, news broke that he did not register his name for the race in time for today's deadline. Congratulations to Nagin for excercising some good judgement in his decision to not run.

This is not to say my blog entry is wasted, as my criticism of his performance as mayor, specifically during and after Hurricane Katrina, still applies. Let us hope that this is a sign that Nagin will complete his term as mayor and retire from public life. The city of New Orleans should be so lucky.

**http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_re_us/nagin_governor

Speaking of Deliruim...

Wrote here on Tuesday about what I thought was a delirious ruling by the U.S. District Court regarding the legality of the Department of Homeland Security warning employers of prosecution for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Then I read an AP story this morning about New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin considering a run for Governor of Louisiana.

Yes, that Ray Nagin. The one that said in a speech, shortly after Hurricane Katrina: "we as black people, it's time, it's time for us to come together. It's time for us to rebuild a New Orleans, the one that should be a chocolate New Orleans. And I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day" (Courtesy: Wikipedia.com).

This is not delirium, folks. This is downright psychosis.

The subtitle of the AP story says it all: "NEW ORLEANS — Mayor Ray Nagin could be days away from announcing he will run for governor of Louisiana — a move many in this stricken city regard as preposterous." Emphasis on the word "preposterous." Rest assured, the absurdity of this idea is not restricted to the stricken city of New Orleans. Nagin would presumably run on a platform promoting his successes in New Orleans, which is curious, considering he displayed a level of ineptitude during and proceeding the crisis that is scarcely imaginable. Despite days of warning, the evacuation of the city was slow, inefficient, and disorganized. Pictures of fleets of empty buses submerged under water should be damning enough to sink Nagin's political future. Let us not forgot his excuse for this mistake: "there was no one to drive them."

The cleanup and rebuilding efforts have been similarly lacking. Instead of taking responsibility, Nagin has repeatedly blamed the federal government for lack of sufficient support. While there is no doubt that FEMA and others are not blameless, Nagin's culpability in the whole mess is starkly apparent. As secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has noted, the responsibility and authority for an evacuation lies with state and local officials. Federal aid is meant to augment this effort, not be relied upon as the sole resource. Nagin is quick to point out that 60 percent of the city's original population have returned, as if this is some sort of accomplishment, proving the "success" of the rebuilding effort. It should be noted that this 60 percent includes a lot of working class blacks who either never left or returned to the city as soon as it was reopened for lack of another place to go. One only needs to look at Nagin's reelection in 2006 as proof of this, as this is the only demographic still supporting Nagin after Katrina (he received 80% support from black voters). New Orleans has been known as a pit of corruption in Nagin's tenure, even before Katrina struck. He has done nothing to rectify or improve this perception. The crime rate in the city, already a problem pre-Katrina, has become so egregious that a protest was held at City Hall in January of this year. Protesters brought criticism of Nagin's leadership as a main reason for the high crime rate and overall lack of progress in the city's reconstruction. According to the AP story, Nagin's disapproval rating stands at 65 percent.

Lastly, we should consider the fate of current Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco. Blanco, like Nagin, was harshly criticized for an ineffective response to Katrina. Blanco has decided not to seek reelection amid these criticisms. Yet Nagin, despite the same, if not, harsher criticism, is going to run for governor? I assure you the capabilities of the human brain are not sufficient to make sense of this.

Just to punctuate my diagnosis of "abject delirium" on Mr. Nagin and his intended Gubernatorial run, I will quote him from the end of the AP article. Nagin says of his legacy: "My legacy will probably be one of honesty and integrity and bringing that to government in a meaningful way. I'm sure my legacy will also be this guy said things pretty straight and wasn't your typical politician."

Sigh.

**Read the AP story here: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295746,00.html

Judicial Delirium

CNN reported on its website last Friday that a federal judge ruled to block the Social Security Administration from sending letters to employers warning of more serious penalties for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The SSA has been sending out similar letters for about twenty years that were largely ignored by employers. This year, those letters are to include "notices from the Department of Homeland Security outlining strict new requirements for employers to resolve those discrepancies within 90 days or face fines or criminal prosecution if they're deemed to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants" (CNN.com). The AFL-CIO has brought a lawsuit on the issue, claiming the new rules "violate workers' rights and unfairly burden employers." U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney ruled to temporarily stop the Department of Homeland Security notices to give the court some "'breathing room' before making any decision on the legality of new penalties aimed at cracking down on the hiring of illegal immigrants."

I think I'm going to need some breathing room, too, or I may pass out.

This is logic in exile. Let us examine briefly the AFL-CIO's contention that bringing penalty on employers who knowingly violate the law is somehow an infringement on workers' rights. These workers are, theoretically, illegal immigrants. They have entered the country illegally and/or are not documented citizens of the United States, which is in violation of a number of laws. As non-citizens, what obligation does the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration have to recognize their rights as workers? Why should we expect any less of our government agencies than to hold American employers accountable for consciously circumventing the law?

It is well within the AFL-CIO's prerogative to bring this lawsuit, however ridiculous it sounds. The responsibility lies with the court to swiftly reject it. Granted Judge Chesney did not explicitly rule that the new rules were illegal; she delayed the notices from being sent until the court can hear further arguments on October 1. What further arguments need be heard? The court is essentially reviewing the legality of actually punishing lawbreakers. Let's broadcast this onto a hypothetical. Imagine that the current penalty for dealing cocaine is a letter that may contain a small fine. For years, dealers have been brushing aside these fines as a cost of doing business. The dealers are knowingly breaking the law by dealing cocaine, and the federal government is aware of their crimes. Cocaine addiction is becoming a growing problem in the United States, and it is becoming apparent that the fines are insufficient to discourage cocaine dealing. The FBI, in response, decides to include a notice in the letters to dealers that warns of prosecution if their illegal activity continues. Would there be any question as to the legitimacy of the FBI's actions here? Would the FBI not be well within its rights to enforce laws against cocaine dealing? Could you imagine an organization bringing a lawsuit against the FBI, citing a threat to the rights of cocaine addicts? Then try to imagine that when the court hears this suit, it decides it needs two months of "breathing room" in order to decide whether or not it is legal for the government to enforce the laws against cocaine dealing?

It does not take much thought to come to the conclusion that the lawsuit is ridiculous, and that Judge Chesney's decision to delay the letters, even temporarily, is patently absurd. Let us hope that come October 1, the four weeks that will have gone by will be enough time for the courts to come to the same conclusion that I came to in about four seconds.

**Read the full CNN.com article here: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/08/31/immigrant.employers.ap/index.html

The Shortcomings of Our Political Discourse

I have chosen to lose my blogger virginity on the topic of the presidential primaries, in an attempt to address a deeper issue that is as current as it is important.

It is that wonderful time in the political season when a handful of candidates from the major parties are vying for our attention and support. They are working strenuously to separate themselves from their like minded presidential hopefuls in order to win nomination. The electorate, meanwhile, is left to separate the truth from the spin and identify the candidates it will support. On a personal level, prospective voters will examine candidates in relation to the issues, and draw conclusions that will eventually lead to a choice on election day.

Pessimists will quip that the general election (and indeed the primaries) always boils down to a choice between the lesser of two (or more) evils. This is true to some significant degree, however inevitable as a consequence of our system of government and the inescapable shortcomings of human beings. How, then, do we choose to support one candidate or another when all of them represent stances on some issues that we cannot square with our own? A popular sentiment is that no candidate is perfect, so voters should either focus on one issue that is important to them and choose their candidate accordingly, or support the candidate that identifies with the greatest number of issues they support. Sort of a quality vs. quantity method of choosing political candidates. I would submit that these approaches are flawed, and contribute to the misguided nature of our political discourse.

What does the average voter consider in preparation for an election? Our discourse manifestly shows that issues of abortion, gay marriage, taxes, health care, the environment, and foreign policy dominate the conscious of the electorate. Voters will ask of their candidates: "Do you believe that life starts at the moment of conception?" or "Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?" or "Will you raise the minimum wage?" Questions of this sort are legitimate, insofar as they are important to such a large percentage of the electorate. The problem is that something fundamental in our discourse is lost in the smoke of our moral battles. The right questions about key issues are simply not being asked or discussed with the amount of frequency or vigor they deserve. Instead of "should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?", we should ask our candidates: "should the federal government have the power to legislate marriage?" Instead of "will you raise the minimum wage?", we should ask our candidates: "should the federal government have the power to impose a minimum wage, and should there be one at all?"

Of course, many people will have to ask themselves these questions before they ask them of their candidates. This is a consequence of the widespread acceptance of our system of government without sufficient examination or criticism. Not enough people ask the fundamental questions, and this blurs the lens through which most of us examine our candidates. Should it matter to you, for example, what Mit Romney believes about the sanctity of marriage? Maybe. Certainly not to the extent our discourse suggests. It should matter just as much to you what Mit Romney believes about the role of government, or lack thereof, in regard to marriage. The criteria with which we judge our politicians (and, indeed, our own political beliefs) is top heavy. The structure of our political discourse is a house of cards that will topple violently unless we begin honestly appraising the foundations of government and politics. Let's start asking the right questions of our own political beliefs, and ultimately, those of our candidates.