Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Politics

  • The Danger of Ineffective Intervention

    In February of 2003, just before the invasion of Iraq, I wrote an essay entitled Revenge! in which I made some comments on the justification of violence. I think what I said then reflects well the situation in Iraq now. I’m not claiming special prophetic gifts here, but folks, I told you so!

    Sometimes that will mean war. Saddam has certainly provided justification through his own actions for someone to deal violently with him. I have no sympathy with a suggestion that somehow the Iraqi government doesn’t deserve to be removed. But I believe there is a second part to the justification of violence. How can things be better when it’s done? In this case that includes the question of who will rule Iraq following an invasion. Will there be a power vacuum left in its place?

    You see, no matter how bad a government is, there is a possibility for something worse. The possibility has been raised of Iran developing nuclear weapons. Does that make us feel more secure? Would we prefer that Iran became a power dominating the region? That is only one scenario, but it is something that must be considered.

    I’d like to expand a bit on those two justifications for violence. In my view, first there must be a reason for a person to take action, for example that they are threatened or attacked, and that the attacker is not receptive to peaceful means. The second, however, is more difficult to meet. I think you need to ask two questions: 1) Will the violent intervention be successful? and 2) Will the resulting situation be an improvement over the previous situation.

    I would add a corollary to these. If you are going to use violence, you have to use enough violence to accomplish your goal. Applying less than that to the situation only results in worse conditions, thus the resulting situation will not be better. It will generally be much worse.

    Let me illustrate. I don’t keep a gun in my house. Some of my friends think having a gun is a simple and ordinary part of being able to protect their families, and would wonder why I would not take this precaution of being prepared to defend myself. Others would congratulate me on my commitment to non-violence. Neither view correctly identify my reason for not having a gun. I’m convinced that my skill with the weapon is not sufficient to make it more likely that I will successfully defend my home than that the weapon will be used by a criminal. I am not committed to non-violence. As a veteran of the U. S. Air Force, I’m willing to see violence used in the pursuit of national goals. In my household I would feel fully justified in putting a bullet between the eyes of an intruder. I just rate the odds of my actually doing so rather low.

    In many of our recent wars (I’m a veteran of Grenada, Panama, and the first Gulf War) I have seen violence applied, but I have not seen the expected results accomplished, bar the result of Kuwait no longer being under Iraqi occupation. That’s the result of applying violence, but applying it either improperly or in insufficient amounts to accomplish one’s goal. Panama after Noriega was removed was not such a nice place for a very long time. Please note here that I’m not saying that each of these situations would have been better with more violence applied. Especially in the case of Panama, all justifications for the violence failed. Panama (and Noriega) had not provided an appropriate justification for foreign intervention, and no amount of violence applied was going to make the situation better. It was one of the clearest cases I know in which violence was a totally incorrect solution.

    All these thoughts came to mind this morning when I read the story Exporting Chaos from Newsweek. Rami G. Khouri, editor-at-large of the Daily Star in Beirut writes about the fear that he and other middle easterners have whenever us westerners get together to try to decide or influence their fate. There are some things in his article with which I disagree. For example, I don’t feel that we have some duty to provide aid to a Hamas led Palestinian government. Nonetheless, I think his remarks are almost all very well directed, and we in the west would do well to listen.

    Despite my belief that we have no duty to provide aid to Hamas, we were the ones who urged the elections. We wanted to deal with a “democratic” Palestinian government, but we wanted them to elect the “right” people. Well, folks, that is not how democracy works. You can want democracy, and you can want the “right” people in power, but if you want both, and think you can have both, you are toying with insanity. I think our foreign policy is doing precisely that.

    We want democracy in Iraq, we want human rights. We want a unified state. We want that state to be friendly to us. We don’t want it to be an Islamic state. Hold it a second! Have we considered that the people who are going to vote in that democracy might not want the same things we do? Their concerns may well have little to do with protecting the United States from terrorism. They are more concerned with how their neighborhoods are run. One aspect of the way many of them want their neighborhoods run is Islamic standards and Islamic law. We are not going to be successful in accomplishing all those goals that I listed.

    Saddam Hussein maintained a government that was more friendly to western values than anything we are likely to see by means of an election. If we wanted western values established in Iraq, we should have followed a different strategy. I suspect we would have to occupy the country with substantially larger numbers of troops and rule with a ruthlessness that would make Saddam Hussein’s rule look positively heavenly. We aren’t that ruthless (at least I hope we aren’t). It’s not a practical policy. But what we have done is exercised violence in pursuit of that sort of a goal, but done so in a way that will not be successful. That means that those who die in this war will, in the end, have died in the process of making things worse. It’s not their fault; I’m not criticizing the American troops on the ground. I’m criticizing the planning and goal setting (or lack of it) that put them in that place.

    I’m also not very happy with the democratic response to the planning. It has always seemed to be more or less that we should do something that is very much like what the current administration has done only a bit less of it. Democrats are just as infected with the bug of solving everybody else’s problems with American solutions as are Republicans. Democrats seem to be even more muddled on how we should do it.

    Violence is sometimes necessary. War is sometimes necessary. But it is a tragedy when we resort to violence, and fail to make the resulting situation better.

  • Life goes better without legislation

    A citizens’ commission in Oregon thinks there is a need for rules against drunken legislating. In a story titled Resolved: Legislating goes better sober, MSNBC tells us that this commission would like to protect Oregon voters from the drinking habits of those they elect to their legislature.

    I kid you not, drunken legislating. They suggest rules should be enacted against conducting the business of the state of Oregon while intoxicated, and to provide possible penalties.

    Now I am not advocating the benefits of legislating while drunk, though after reading some of the stuff these guys put out, one might suspect it was written while drunk, or at least that it would be easier to read while under the influence of something or other. But I do think we have a problem here. We are progressively shifting more and more responsibility off of the voters. First we had term limits. I thought they were a bad idea when they first became law, and I think they continue to be a bad idea today. We had term limits already, and we still have them: Elections. But somehow we assume that the voters can’t really choose the right candidate (a view with which I have some sympathy), and that providing a bunch of laws to make it safer for stupid voters will somehow help.

    The drunken legislator or staff aid is not threatening anyone’s life unless he gets behind the wheel of a car. Well, he could be threatening somebody’s life by passing stupid legislation, but who believes that we’re safe from that even with allegedly sober legislators. Unless he goes out and gets behind the wheel of a car, the proper people to hold him accountable are the voters. And the proper people to let the voters know about such behavior are those in the media.

    All we do with increasing numbers of laws about these things is take responsibility away from the voters. We have here a republic. The foundation of that is the will of the people. If the people are stupid we’re stuck with it. Adding detailed regulations won’t really help.

  • Dealing with White Collar Crime

    I’m glad to see that people who have committed fraud are convicted. Such things should happen for free. Newsweek (via MSNBC) interviews Allan Sloan, editor of the Wall Street Journal on why the government succeeded in this case. I think he has some good points. Some of the accounting material in this case, and the rules and methods of investment are so complex that it is doubtful you could find a jury that would understand. (I would note, a bit off-topic, that I think this brings up a 21st century problem with the concept of “jury of one’s peers.” Peers of whom? Could we get a jury of accountants or business managers to hear a case like this? I think the idea of either an expert or “qualified” jury might have some merit.)

    But my concern is with the penalties for white collar crime. We’re likely to send these guys to jail, probably at some low to medium security facility, and not only will we have the expense of what they did to the country, we’re going to have to care for them for a long time. I think we should examine the penalties for non-violent crime in general. Technology is such that people can be monitored inside society. Prison was, at one time, a more humane option for punishment than certain corporal punishments. I think we need to ask just what it is accomplishing at this point.

    I’m not talking about letting white collar criminals off. I would suggest that there might be a way to monitor them in society, allow them to make an income at a job that is monitored, and require some additional financial penalty, proportionate to what they did. If they can’t pay that off in their lifetime, so be it.

    This is just an embryo of an idea, but I think it should be considered. Along with finding a way to get out of the failed drug war, this would be an excellent way to reduce the prison population, thus reducing expenditure, and at the same time find a profitable way to harness this class of criminals. Perhaps the time has come to seriously reconsider the prison system.

  • Boycotts and Chinese Voodoo Dolls

    Every few days I get an e-mail from one or another Christian group that wants me to boycott something or try to get someone else to boycott. Though most of the e-mails I get are from conservatives, liberals are by no means immune to the urge to boycott. I’m not a boycotter. I don’t even think official “boycotts,” as in economic sanctions, generally work all that well, and they don’t have the publicity and “forbidden fruit” effects.

    So here we have the Chinese government, upset that people are sticking pins into dolls, and thus creating a black market, raising the price, and increasing the popularity. They have the force of law, but the force of culture just may be stronger. (Newsweek story Curse of the Bureaucrats.)

    Boycotts create publicity. It’s a simple fact. If you say, “boycott Walmart,” and then explain that even though their prices are lower, one should avoid shopping there because of higher moral values, what you have done is given Walmart priceless publicity for their lower prices. My wife recently worked for a short period of time at a grocery chain that competes with Walmart in our area. Of course the employees would all hear the talk about bad Walmart, and the much better service at their store. But when we bought groceries at Walmart we would frequently encounter other employees of this chain. Bluntly, we, and they, bought groceries where we could most afford them.

    One conservative boycott I was invited to join was against the NBC show The Book of Daniel. I was supposed to urge my affiliate not to carry the program because it was so bad. Instead, I blogged about it, told people they should watch the initial episode (assuming they were even vaguely interested) and decide for themselves. I e-mailed my local affiliate and suggested they should air the show and let us, the viewers, decide. Well, The Book of Daniel was not a good enough show for even the publicity effect of a national boycott to help. I suspect they had many more viewers of that first episode, but most of us decided we didn’t really care that much. On the other hand there was the show NYPD Blue, which also was the target of boycott calls, and which succeeded and prospered, substantially due to the publicity generated.

    Boycotts make a show “forbidden fruit.” Face it, ever since the Garden of Eden, people have an attraction for things that are forbidden. I don’t think just permitting everything is necessarily the answer, but we do need to consider the attraction of forbidden things when we are trying to make rules. This is likely what China is running into with the voodoo dolls. A craze like that would probably pass on its own, but you make it illegal and see how hard it is to root out, even under a repressive regime.

    There may be occasional, rare times when such action is actually profitable. I’m not certain of the figures, but I think that South Africa under apartheid was one such case. The government’s activities were so universally condemned, and people could easily enough find alternative sources, so boycotts did likely help bring the government down. But I think such things work rarely and irregularly, whether privately or government sponsored.

    Besides these political boycott campaigns, I hope we’ll think about sanctions and how they are likely to work in international relations. We just came off of some 10 years of economic sanctions prior to the invasion of Iraq. Just how did anyone benefit? We’re looking at sanctions on Iran. Will they really work, or will they just make certain politicians feel better and let them tell their consituents, “Yes, we’re doing something about Iran. We’re calling for sanctions.”

  • Praying to be Seen

    A few years ago a number of my students in an introductory Bible study class arrived very excited. There was a town coucil here in Florida (I forget precisely where), that had invited a Wiccan–a witch!–to offer a prayer opening a public ceremony. My students were discussing what they would have done about this obviously heathen prayer, and were cheering folks who had turned their backs on the person offering it.

    “I bet you would have done something good!” said one of them to me.

    “I would have stood silently and respectfully as she prayed,” was my response.

    Why is it so difficult to respect someone else’s spirituality, their prayers, or any other religious activity they pursue? Now we have a story of a school at which one student did not want to sit through a Christian prayer at the commencement, and the ACLU filed suit on his behalf and got an injunction to prevent it. I understand the student’s position. It can be very uncomfortable to be in the minority, especially a minority of one. At the same time, I must say that I have a problem with the ACLU position on this one. I think student initiated, student led prayer, even in a public ceremony should be regarded to some extent as free expression, though at the High School level there would be some limits to this. (See the story at Judge Blocks Prayer at High School Graduation, thanks to Ed Brayton, Religion and the Majoritarian Impulse for calling my attention to this.)

    I think that there are much better ways to deal with a situation like that, including finding ways during the year and at various school ceremonies to acknowledge the beliefs of students who are in the minority. I’ve been in the minority religiously, growing up as a Seventh-day Adventist. “Do you go to church on Sunday?” asks someone. “No,” I reply, intending to continue with “we go to church on Saturday. But I see the “you heathen” look, and I know this is not a person who is interested in hearing about alternatives to the expected Sunday spent in church. That, of course, is very minor, but Seventh-day Adventist businessmen often had considerable problems with Sunday blue laws. Their faith required them to stay closed on Saturday, and the law required them to stay closed on Sunday. The majority felt it had the right to enforce its brand of spiritual life.

    So back to this high school. What do the students do? About 200 of them stood up during the principals opening remarks and recited the Lord’s prayer. Now I have a serious problem with this. Whether the judge was right or wrong about the law, his injunction was the law. Those students said that they didn’t really care about that, they were going to make their prayer demonstration anyhow, disrupting the ceremony. They announced loud and clear that they were the majority and they didn’t much care what the minority thought, or what a federal judge ordered. Others at a rehearsal booed the student involved in the suit.

    Now how does a prayer demonstration fit in with Matthew 6:5: “But when you pray don’t be like the hypocrites, because they love to pray in synagogues and standing on street corners so people can see them. I tell you truly, they have their reward.” How does the attitude of rebellion stand up against Romans 13:1-7? I do believe there is a proper time to protest, but is the use of prayer as a mode of protest really something we want to do?

    But I have a better idea for us as Christians. Consider Philippians 2:4: “Let each person not look after his own interests, but after the interests of others.” What would the Christ-like attitude be in this situation. I’m not talking about the law here. What would our Christian standard be? I would suggest that Christian students–or better Christ-like students would seek to find a way to make the one in the minority feel more comfortable. Perhaps they could acknowledge his faith in some way during the ceremony. Such an approach might prevent a case like this from going to court in the first place.

    The Christian majority in this country is whining about persecution quite a bit these days. We’re dealing with words, folks, and as Christians we’re in the majority. No, your own little sect, or big sect, whatever that may be, and my sect, are not all by ourselves in the majority, but Christians are. We are mostly putting up with one another, and most of the claimed persecution seems to be cases in which we don’t get to do precisely what we want, or what we’ve always done, because there is someone pesky outsider to object.

    It’s not that we’re not free to pray; we are. Our children can pray in public school right now! They can do it legally. What is not permitted is having the state sponsor it. So the real problem is not that your child can’t pray. It’s that you can’t have the teacher force him, and other people’s children, to pray in some specified way.

    But prayer as a demonstration is just noise. I suspect, based on the words of Jesus, that God is not particularly pleased with that sort of noise.

  • My Reaction to the Da Vinci Code

    There are some things you just can’t get away from no matter how hard you try. The Da Vinci Code, book, movie, or simply passing comment, is one of these. I have a friend who is much more interested in these things than I am, and I’ve even promoted his willingness to talk about it, and his published materials (the Consider Christianity Series, by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.). Today I got an e-mail from Christianity Today, wondering if I was making the most of it. (No, I’m not personal friends with someone over at CT–it’s an e-mail notification I’ve subscribed to.) Now Christian groups in Asia are protesting the movie, and in at least one country, Thailand, have gotten it cut.

    So here comes my short response to the DaVinci Code, book, movie, or casual comment. You may wonder how I’m responding this morning, when the movie is released today. Again, I have no special friends. I haven’t gotten a preview of the movie. In fact, let me confess–no, let me proclaim–I haven’t even read the book!

    I’m not in any sense trying to say anything bad about those who have read the book or seen the movie, or want to do so. My bottom line on this book is that it is entertainment, it’s fiction (wow! whoda thunk it?), it’s supposed to be fun. If you think it’s going to be fun, go see it. If not, stay home, like me. If you think you can share your faith through discussion of the movie, go ahead and do so. That’s not my style, but I think it’s good that people do so.

    So if I think it’s fine to read the book, watch the move, to discuss it both literarily and historically (to the extent one can), what’s my problem. Let’s see. Oh yes . . . it bores me. That’s all. I’m just not interested. I’ve read dozens of books on the historical Jesus, ranging from volumes by authors who claim Jesus never existed, to fundamentalist defenses of the finest details of the story. I’m interested in that type of thing, but over time I’ve gotten to the point where I need something that challenges me intellectually. Books as wide ranging as John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant and Darrell Bocks Jesus According to Scripture have great interest for me, as they both challenge my way of thinking and my understanding. But it just happens that right now I don’t want yet another theory about Jesus presented as fiction.

    I don’t know how good of fiction it will be, but the indications I’m hearing aren’t all that good. I’m absolutely not saying, “This is a bad movie, which is why I haven’t seen it.” I’m just telling you it’s OK not to find the whole thing all that interesting and to just continue to live your life. If The Da Vinci Code is your kind of movie, enjoy it guilt free. Use it in witness. Discuss it historically or literarily to your heart’s content. If, like me, you don’t plan to bother, don’t feel guilty. There really are people who just aren’t that excited about it.

  • Let Gas Prices Rise

    While I’m at linking to Steve Reuland’s Blog, let me call attention to his entry on gas prices, and note that I agree 100%.

    But let me add a few of my own comments. We need to develop alternative sources of fuel. There is no single technology that solves all things, and there is no technology that is yet fully developed. Research and development requires money, and there has to be an incentive. The easiest way to provide that incentive is to allow gas prices to rise. This encourages people to conserve fuel, by driving less, using more public transportation, and looking for more efficient household appliances, amongst other things. In addition, it provides an incentive to those who can provide alternative sources of energy.

    This may sound insensitive. But if we continue to behave the way we have been we are going to keep seeing larger and larger problems in the future. The time to get started on this was at least 30 years ago; now is hardly to early to get to work. The new sources of fuel will not be developed, combined with the infrastructure to produce, store, distribute, and use them, without the expenditure of resources, and those resources have to come from somewhere. In addition, efficient options for reducing our use of fossil fuels also require development, production, and distribution. Again, all that requires money. In economics, there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

    We can continue to be irresponsible and pass the problem on to our children (though it probably won’t wait that long), or we can behave like responsible adults and deal with it now.

  • Wal-Mart Advertising Anyone?

    Shane Raynor takes a brave approach to issues about Wal-Mart over on Wesley Daily, by putting his post Wal-Mart Observations right next to a Wal-Mart add. I guess we know where he stands!

    I wanted to call attention to this, because while I’m not running any Wal-Mart ads, I agree with Shane’s comments, and I don’t always do so. It is tremendously easy to criticize successful businesses, and Wal-Mart qualifies. I recently visited an art show in a small town that did not yet have a Wal-Mart. One was planned, but there were protests. But alternately we saw protest signs of those who wanted to keep Wal-Mart out, and then those who said that Wal-Mart meant jobs for the community.;

    While I believe it is quite possible for a business to behave in a manner that is unethical–and such behavior should be condemned–I believe most of the arguments about a powerful business “taking over” a community and running out local business have to do with who gets the money and who gets the power.that results. Wal-Mart is an example of competition in this country. What do local businesses need to do in order to compete? You have to offer better service. I have noticed that local businessmen often try to sell themselves as giving better, more personal service, but when it comes right down to it, they don’t really provide. On the other hand there are local businessmen to whom I’m willing to pay a little extra simply because I know that the level of support I will get exceeds what I will get from anyone else. It is worthwhile to deal with them.

    The competition simply needs to get smarter. In the meantime, it’s not my job to pay extra for someone else’s lifestyle, unless I choose to do so as a charitable donation.

  • Speaking Out on Darfur

    In his regular column in Newsweek, Rabbi Marc Gellman comments on the need to speak out about the situation in Darfur. I want to call attention to his column, Responding to Evil, and suggest you read it, if nothing else so that you will see this:

    The most important thing I have taken from Wiesel’s incantatory and luminous work is that we must speak out, not necessarily to change the oppressors of our world but so that the oppressors do not change us.

    This is good writing and to the point. I have little to add. Let’s tell our political leaders!

  • The Best Place to Teach the Bible

    See You in Bible Class says the MSNBC/Newsweek headline on a story that informs us that the state of Georgia has decided that having a Bible class is a critical part of the public school curriculum for their state. They’re going to mandate that it be added. The story is headed by the picture of a woman praying while officials in Odessa, Texas debate a similar proposal. Then from The Lady Speaks (Oh, Here’s a surprise, we have the comment that the Bible is OK in public school, provided that it is in the mythology section of the literature class. And therein lies one of the problems with having a Bible class in public school.

    Now let me provide a couple of links. The Newsweek article refers to two different groups that have prepared materials for use as Bible curriculum in public schools. One is the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which is endorsed by numerous Christian conservatives. There is also a review of their curriculum, done by Mark A. Chancey, Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University. I strongly recommend reading Dr. Chancey’s review of this curriculum. I haven’t had a chance to look at it, but assuming that he has read the material fairly, I would be extremely concerned about some of the content issues he raises. Moderate and liberal Christians need to be careful how they are counted in political issues. Frequently supporters of marginal positions claim the large number of people who are members of Christian churches as a reason to support their very particular Christian position, irrespective of the likelihood that all those people would support such a position.

    Alternatively, the Newsweek article mentions the The Bible Literacy Project, which has apparently received some criticism from conservatives. I don’t have any outside review of their material at hand.

    Personally, I oppose the use of either of these options in the public school. The Bible, as such, is a faith document. It collects a particular set of literature, known as the canon which is regarded as authoritative by a particular religious community. Not only does this canon differ for Jews and Christians, but it differs substantially amongst Christian groups. Whatever selection of literature you choose to call “The Bible,” on which to offer classes, it will be the faith literature of a particular group, and not be precisely the faith book of another group.

    I understand that the courts have ruled that this type of Bible course is legal, though I would note that the material from the National Council on Bible Curriculum could well face significant problems in court. I am not arguing here that having a Bible class in public school is illegal. I’m arguing that it is a bad idea. It is not a good way to advance the appropriate activities and function of government, and it is not a good way to advance the cause of religion. That picture of a lady praying for the action of the school board that heads the Newsweek article troubles me. There was the time that we, as Christians, prayed that the government would leave us alone, and not persecute us, so that we could carry on the work of the gospel. Now we are praying that the government will use the force of law to do our job for us.

    The simple fact is that any curriculum on the Bible us such will be religious in nature. It will be perceived as religious. It will function as a religious exercise. In those states that adopt a more liberal curriculum, conservative Christian parents are going to be angry when they find a more liberal approach taken in the curriculum than the one they prefer. In some more conservative areas, the class will become little more than a Bible class based on the views of the dominant group in the area.

    I believe that some elements of the Bible can be introduced in public school, and not just in the mythology section of literature class. There is some material in the Bible that belongs in a class studying mythology. But there is also material that could be involved in studying general poetry, history (with proper attention to historiography), and also as an example of religious literature in a comparative sense. This allows various elements of Biblical literature to be used without the government committing itself on the boundaries of the Bible as such.

    The Bible as a book of faith should be taught in church, at home, and in private religious schools. If you want the Bible as the basis of your child’s education and you want the Bible integrated into every day in the classroom, private school is your option. You can choose the school according to the curriculum it offers. On the other hand if you support the public school system, as I do, keep your public schools out of these controversies. Use the wonderful Sunday School, Wednesday night, and retreat opportunities to teach your child religion. This will be good for religion, for the quality of public education, and for religious freedom in this country.