Just finished reading Barack Obama's book on Life, the Universe and Everything (the real title is "The Audacity of Hope", of course, but with chapters called "values", "race", "faith", "politics" and "family", among many others, a wink to Douglas Adams is not out of place), and I have to say I am pleasantly impressed. He really seems to have thought things through. There is just one thing that gets my hackles up. It is not even a criticism; it is more a question of picking up where the book leaves off, and of giving the perspective from the outside.
My concern is the assumption, implicit in some of the wordings in the chapter on "The World Beyond Our Borders", among others, that the rest of the world poses a threat to the livelihood and security of U.S. citizens. This bothers me because it indicates the extent to which fear plays a part in determining U.S. policy (foreign and internal). Even for its allies or friends, the idea that this economic and military giant is not always able to control its own knee-jerk reactions is quite scary.
Having spent an important part of my childhood in the U.S., I am quite familiar with this fear. In my case, it was the the generalised and unchallenged belief that an "evil empire" (usually the Soviet Union and/or China) was out to attack and subdue the "free world" (the U.S. and its western allies). All around me, there were all kinds of different expressions of this fear, either explicit (spy novels), slightly veiled metaphors (most science fiction series and movies), or implicit (the things left unsaid). And the response (the nuclear arms race), though understandable, did not make much sense in the longer run. Now, of course, the main source of fear - international terrorism - is different, but the kind of response it engenders is similar in that it is again assumed that (1) military action and repression is the best (or possibly even only) way to "win the war" and (2) the U.S. must do something about it, or at very least lead the way.
As for the first assumption, I think the spectacular failure to "win the war" on drugs is evidence enough. The problem of drugs, and of terrorism, is complex, and cannot be solved by ouside force alone. But U.S. policy seems rife with overly simplistic beliefs and short-term solutions (presumably again because of fear and/or because it is much easier to sell a quick, simple "solution" than admit that a long-term committment is necessary). Most issues are not just black and white, good or bad, and there is a middle road between isolationist or interventionist.
As for the second point: of course it is difficult to "just stand by" when things around you are going wrong, even if you do not perceive these changes as threats. But just as a parent's failure to intervene may in certain cases in the long run be better for his or her children (see this entry), intervention is not always necessary or useful. In some cases, intervention may provide short-term solutions, but trying to "make the world safe for democracy" by force is a bit like a parent yelling at his children to stop yelling. It might work for a while, but the underlying message is that yelling is an acceptable and useful way to get what you want.
I am sure the above parent/child analogy could ruffle the feathers of lots of people across the globe, because (like me) they see the U.S. as a younger (though larger and stronger sibling), and not as a parent. And as such, there is always the issue of whether or not that sibling has the right to stick its nose into the internal affairs of other countries. I would say they do not. However much I can sympathise with the need to "look out for number one", I draw the line at pre-emptive strikes. I think that in most cases, we would all benefit if the U.S. were to apply the simple rule to "do unto others as they would have others do unto you".
There is of course much, much more to be said on this, but it will have to wait: my children need me.
My concern is the assumption, implicit in some of the wordings in the chapter on "The World Beyond Our Borders", among others, that the rest of the world poses a threat to the livelihood and security of U.S. citizens. This bothers me because it indicates the extent to which fear plays a part in determining U.S. policy (foreign and internal). Even for its allies or friends, the idea that this economic and military giant is not always able to control its own knee-jerk reactions is quite scary.
Having spent an important part of my childhood in the U.S., I am quite familiar with this fear. In my case, it was the the generalised and unchallenged belief that an "evil empire" (usually the Soviet Union and/or China) was out to attack and subdue the "free world" (the U.S. and its western allies). All around me, there were all kinds of different expressions of this fear, either explicit (spy novels), slightly veiled metaphors (most science fiction series and movies), or implicit (the things left unsaid). And the response (the nuclear arms race), though understandable, did not make much sense in the longer run. Now, of course, the main source of fear - international terrorism - is different, but the kind of response it engenders is similar in that it is again assumed that (1) military action and repression is the best (or possibly even only) way to "win the war" and (2) the U.S. must do something about it, or at very least lead the way.
As for the first assumption, I think the spectacular failure to "win the war" on drugs is evidence enough. The problem of drugs, and of terrorism, is complex, and cannot be solved by ouside force alone. But U.S. policy seems rife with overly simplistic beliefs and short-term solutions (presumably again because of fear and/or because it is much easier to sell a quick, simple "solution" than admit that a long-term committment is necessary). Most issues are not just black and white, good or bad, and there is a middle road between isolationist or interventionist.
As for the second point: of course it is difficult to "just stand by" when things around you are going wrong, even if you do not perceive these changes as threats. But just as a parent's failure to intervene may in certain cases in the long run be better for his or her children (see this entry), intervention is not always necessary or useful. In some cases, intervention may provide short-term solutions, but trying to "make the world safe for democracy" by force is a bit like a parent yelling at his children to stop yelling. It might work for a while, but the underlying message is that yelling is an acceptable and useful way to get what you want.
I am sure the above parent/child analogy could ruffle the feathers of lots of people across the globe, because (like me) they see the U.S. as a younger (though larger and stronger sibling), and not as a parent. And as such, there is always the issue of whether or not that sibling has the right to stick its nose into the internal affairs of other countries. I would say they do not. However much I can sympathise with the need to "look out for number one", I draw the line at pre-emptive strikes. I think that in most cases, we would all benefit if the U.S. were to apply the simple rule to "do unto others as they would have others do unto you".
There is of course much, much more to be said on this, but it will have to wait: my children need me.
No comments:
Post a Comment