Sad Politics

The so-called “Birthers,” making the claim that Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya rather than in Hawaii, embody perfectly the worst sort of politics. They want to show that since the President was not born in the United States, he is in ineligible for his position. Their strategy may have some political and legal validity since U.S. Presidents must legally be born in the United States, but it has been destroyed by Obama’s birth certificate. What seems most pathetic about this strategy is their inability to think the issue through. I’m left asking: Would it have been so bad if our President was born in Kenya?

The fact that these “birthers” have employed this strategy against President Obama is glaring evidence that they’ve run out of politically interesting things to say. The presidential ability to lead seems unaffected by the place they spent their very early years. To say Obama would be less effective as a President simply if he was born in Kenya is intellectually void. What bearing does this really have on his Presidential qualities? To answer this question, consider the following two possibilities: (1) A presidential candidate was born in country X, and at the age of 5 moved to the United States; (2) A presidential candidate was born in Hawaii and grew up in the United States. Legally, (2) would be the eligible candidate. But what presidential abilities would (2) possess that (1) wouldn’t? Some strange and empirically meaningless “American!” trait? Implied in our decision to declare (1) ineligible for the presidency is the insistence that (2) has some inherent quality making him or her more qualified for the presidential task. Or perhaps it is that (1) will have more sympathy towards country X than (2), leading him or her astray from American concerns. But don’t we live in an increasingly global society? Don’t we want a president who can sympathize with people other than Americans? I do.

The political atmosphere of angst and retribution after the September 11th attacks was understandable considering the tragedy, but was horribly shortsighted. The attacks should have been a wake up call, one which forced us to look inward and examine U.S. policies. As a nation, we wanted so desperately to return the blow dealt to us that we missed the opportunity for reform. The important question to ask was: What political reasons did the terrorists have for attacking the United States? A full and responsible answer to this question would have included the history of U.S. policy (i.e. occupation of Islamic Holy Land) that fueled the attacks. A blindly American President—like the one we had—struggles to answer this question honestly because such an answer requires scrutiny of “the greatest country in the world.” Such an inward look, one which notices the blemishes and mistakes, can be politically embarrassing for a President who thinks their country is undeniably great. So why require that the president be purely American? With the political and economic atmosphere becoming increasingly global, the view that American’s are inherently better is becoming increasingly embarrassing. For example, in his political campaign, John McCain asserted that American’s are the greatest workers. What does this mean? Is there some empirical data available to us that allows for this calculation? America has hard workers, but so does Columbia and China, nations which provide America with cheap goods. Are American’s really better than these workers? If so, then why? Would a Kenyan-born American President be so bad? If so, then why? Yes to either of these questions requires seemingly impossible explanations. In the end, it seems these "birthers" want a president who is blindly American: An overly patriotic president with little world-perspective. This is a dangerous desire.

But It's the Constitution...!

“Existence precedes essence,” the existential formula posited by Jean-Paul Sartre, is potentially relevant to more than just the struggle of self-definition (i.e. who am I?) If existence does precede essence, then we are born undefined and develop our essence as we live. It seems the birth of a nation entails a similar pattern of self-definition. Admittedly, a nation is born with some standards (constitutional laws, bills of rights, ect.), and these form the nation’s DNA. But the nation defines itself as it breathes, reacts, and experiences. So, the essence of the United States is much more than what the founding fathers wrote. Perhaps some of the constitution is still relevant and useful, but the founders could not comprehend the whole of the country’s future. So it is nonsensical to apply original constitutional laws to a modern context without first asking whether the original constitution is still relevant. For example, the context that inspired the right to bear arms is vastly different than the modern context of weapons development and control. With this view, we might realize that the right to bear arms should be amended, and at the very least, some unnecessarily dangerous automatic weapons should be banned. Indeed, the nation can and should redefine itself, forever moving towards an ideal.
This redefinition seems especially important when we note what portion of the population possessed authentic rights under the country’s founding documents: Slaves certainly lacked the right to anything (besides perhaps the right to a religion which kept them at least somewhat passive and accepting of their position in life); women were hardly allowed an education. In our modern context, women and African Americans—as well as other minorities—are political leaders, intellectuals, and cultural icons. Undoubtedly, the essence of this country has changed dramatically. I can’t help but question the motives of those with blind faith in the constitution; those “originalists” who reach back into our past and hold tight to the words of our founding fathers as if they are the words of God. I equate this with an attempt to preserve a less free world: A world where men make the decisions and Gay’s stay quiet. Hence I think President Obama’s living document theory of the constitution—a theory which admits the value of the constitution, but insists that it be altered to maintain its relevance—is a more suitable approach to modern law.

The Torture Game

In the face of new evidence regarding the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA to obtain information regarding potential terrorist attacks, President Obama must be bold in his resentment and disgust. The GOP has—for the most part—purposefully painted the debate regarding these techniques to allow for only two mutually exclusive choices. Either, (1) the techniques did not work and therefore it makes sense for us to be against them (though it seems many will still support them), or (2), the techniques did work and we must therefore support them. If the evidence supports the effectiveness of these techniques, couldn’t President Obama and the Democrats still stand up against them? Couldn’t they say: “Sure, they seem to have worked, but nonetheless we find the whole thing appalling and certainly do not approve. Find better methods which do not contradict our principles as a country.” This produces a third possibility, the one least talked about: (3) The techniques did work, but we find them appalling and do not support the CIA’s use of them. Because of this, we want new methods which “save American lives” but do not make us—at least the more sensitive among us—uncomfortable. The GOP wants to say that if the methods were effective, the CIA was immediately right for using them. But this presupposes that enhanced interrogation techniques (i.e. simulated drowning, or worse) were the only methods available to the CIA, or even the best methods available. But how could they prove this? Did they exhaust all other methods? This issue has been incorrectly painted as a last resort scenario in order to justify the use of harsh techniques. This is a popular game among philosophers, who argue that perhaps it would be justified to torture if we could unlock necessary information to stop a ticking bomb that would kill many civilians. This hypothetical, though possibly useful in some rare scenario we have yet to experience, is really irrelevant to the current debate on torture. But many supporters of torture have improperly presented the debate in this manner, making everyone unnecessarily nervous so as to produce consent. For the most part, President Obama has acted as a President of values—values I sometimes disagree with—and I hope he can continue to stand tough against the GOP’s support of barbarism.

Is Water a Form of Wealth?

President Obama’s assertion that we should “spread the wealth around” was met with disgust from free-marketers and other economic conservatives. For them, what you earn—what is rightfully yours—should not be redistributed to others. Their belief is not unfounded, and I do believe there is something to be said for personal gain. Nonetheless, I do think the Capitalistic desire for excessive wealth is unhealthy. I can’t help but ask the question: What social benefit will manifest from your excess in wealth? That is not to say that the poor do not deserve the money they earn, or that in general a drive for money is unhealthy; after all, money is necessary for survival and even enjoyment. Unfortunately, more than ever, money is necessary for basic human survival. Hence we see a distribution of water; a distribution based upon wealth rather than on need. Ironically, it is those who can least afford this water that need it the most. For this reason, a redistribution of water is necessary. The one billion people who have little or no access to water need it much more than the wealthy bottled-water drinkers could imagine. But this produces a more fundamental question: Is water a form of wealth? It seems that the redistribution of water supplies currently being sold as commodity would entail both a limitation of free-market/capitalist principles (i.e. the limitation of private enterprise) and a redistribution of wealth. But water is not itself a form of wealth, it is a source of wealth. Furthermore, because water is a basic human need—only second to oxygen—it is immoral to make it a source of wealth if others are being deprived of it. Now certainly some of this water deprivation is environmental in cause. But this does not take away from our positive duty to supply water to those who are deprived of it. Proponents of economic freedom must make an exception: We should not deny other human beings a basic human necessity (in this case water) so that we may increase our wealth. Water is not wealth, it is life.

The Impermissibility of Collateral Damage

One of the most significant problems of Just War Theory is the non-combatant immunity tenet. This tenet works to protect civilians from the violence of warfare by distinguishing them from warring soldiers. Though the non-combatant immunity tenet has good intentions, it fails to effectively protect civilians. This failure stems from the term “collateral damage,” which seeks to separate intentional and unintentional civilian kills. Thus, when a military target is attacked and civilians are killed, these civilian deaths are labeled collateral damage. In cases such as these, it is not clear that we can firmly label the deaths of military personnel as intentional and the deaths of civilians unintentional. After all, the attack itself was absolutely intentional. If just War Theory is inadequate, it is because it does not place due responsibility on the attacker for what is often labeled “collateral damage.”
A noteworthy change in warfare has been the location in which wars are typically fought. The historical conception of the battlefield is generally inadequate for describing the location of modern battles as they are often fought in heavily populated areas or cities rather than on distant and unpopulated terrain. Furthermore, it is becoming much less common for soldiers to wear a standard uniform identifying them as the enemy. These two facts have increased the usage of the term collateral damage. If the wars are fought in populated areas and the enemy looks more like an ordinary citizen, can we honestly blame the soldiers for killing non-combatants? Traditionally, and even in the context of Just War Theory, we haven’t been able to blame these soldiers for such kills. As James Turner Johnson notes in Morality and Contemporary Warfare, “indirect, incidental harm to noncombatants as a result of military actions directed at an enemy’s armed forces, however, is not the same, either morally or legally, as harm caused by actions that directly and intentionally target noncombatants.” But when bombs are dropped on a military target located in a populated area, a calculation may be made regarding exactly who will be harmed by the attack. And generally, such a calculation will realize that civilians will be harmed or killed. With this calculation in mind, such kills seem much less incidental and unintentional. Twenty-first-century Just War Theory must require this calculation and curtail the use of collateral damage as an excuse.
This unintentional harming of non-combatants can also manifest itself more subtly. Marla Rose, in describing the often violent food-politics, notes in “Food Inc.” that “there was military(US) in Nicaragua, vigilante squads in Colombia, and, in Guatemala, the US-sponsored overthrow of Central America’s first democratically elected leader” in order to control the prices of U.S. imported produce (VegNews 41). Even if no civilians were killed in these attacks, their quality of life was still harmed. With such price control, the wages of foreign farmers are kept to a minimum, leading to a decline in living standards. This type of warfare, even when it doesn’t directly kill the innocent, is not merely collateral damage and is morally impermissible.
In working to diminish the usage of the term collateral damage, Just War Theory can further tighten the non-combatant immunity tenet. This tenet must be extended to question the permissibility of unintentional attacks that kill innocent civilians. Furthermore, it should consider how military attacks affect the quality of life for the civilians living in the attacked area or country. Just War Theory must reach further toward the ideal of peace, even if such an ideal is forever slightly out of reach.

Everything is Connected...

How alarming must the predictions of scientists be before we act on their warnings? Furthermore, how much of our inaction stems from our apathetic viewpoints regarding not only our fading plant and animal life but the suffering of the world’s poor? Consistently striving for more, it seems we acquire less of value. Yes, we’ve reached the immoral age of gluttony and slothfulness. We may have passed two thresholds. The first threshold is scientific, and deals with the planet’s ability to recover from years of mistreatment. Once this threshold is passed, the return to a healthy planet may be impossible. The second threshold is psychological and economic, and speaks of our rate of consumption. Most simply, human beings need more—or at least think they need more—than both society and the planet are able to produce. Notice how the two thresholds affect one another. As we exceed the consumption threshold, we reach closer to the planet’s threshold. Thus, by consuming in a more ethical manner, it may be possible to prevent the planet from reaching the point of no return. Questions of how we may consume more ethically are abundant but are certainly answerable. Purchasing U.S. grown foods, abstaining from meat consumption—for science has shown that the meat industry is just as responsible as transportation—using renewable resources, avoidance of plastic and other unnecessary production (do we need plastic water bottles?), and so forth, are all ways to consume in a more ethical manner.
The motivation to make these changes should come from our care for human beings and other creatures. As noted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “it is the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people in even prosperous societies, who are going to be worst hit” (Environmental News Service). This is true for many reasons. First, economic deprivation entails the inability to react to climate change. While the rich will have the power to relocate and build more proper infrastructure, the poor can only sit and watch. Furthermore, the poor often live in the areas most susceptible to climate change effects. Island nations or other low lying lands will be the first to experience the numerous problems brought on by rising sea levels. Similarly, animals which are currently being impacted or will be impacted in the future by climate change are dependent upon human action to curtail this impact. As awareness of this problem becomes increasingly universal, the excuses for inaction become more limited. Certainly we can’t expect the world’s poor—including the poor living in affluent nations—to bring about the necessary changes. Therefore the responsibility falls into the hands of the wealthy (here wealthy refers to middle class and above). A sort of “double effect” is at play here. First, the wealthy are responsible for bringing about the necessary change because they can afford to. Second, the wealthy are responsible because they often benefit from the economic institutions which create and perpetuate poverty throughout the world. Thus, they are responsible because of their ability to bring about change and because they benefit from economic institutions which prevent the world’s poor from bringing about change. Therefore environmental concerns are simultaneously economic concerns, and both are vital concerns for human nature as we know it.

Terror Attacks in Mumbai: First reflections

Despite a history of violence, human beings actually have a natural resistance to killing. Dave Grossman's On Killing reveals that there are various mechanisms that work to break down this resistance. Slightly irrelevant to yesterday's terrorist attacks in Mumbai—but nonetheless revealing—is the oppressive military training which desensitizes the modern soldier. By exposing the soldier to prolonged physical and mental exhaustion along with relentless violent simulation, the desensitization process is completed. On the battlefield, the solider no longer fears death and is less resistant to killing fellow human beings; fortunately there are exceptions to this generalization. How is this relevant to terrorist attacks? Documentation of terrorism reveals that persistent hopelessness breaks down the natural resistance to killing. Terrorists often live in poverty-ridden areas of the world and they struggle to live meaningful lives. This lack of comfort and meaning leads to the above mentioned hopelessness. For terrorists, this void is filled with radical doctrines that lead to the violent acts we witness. Hence, the natural resistance to killing is destroyed or at least partially veiled. This process is observed throughout the Middle East when ordinary Muslims become radical fundamentalists. The manipulation of jihad results in the following transition:
FROM:
Inner Jihad: The struggle to remain pious. This struggle exists largely inside the individual and involves the accurate observance of holy scripture and practice.
TO:
Outer Jihad: The struggle to defend Islam. This struggle includes violent acts and in the most radical cases the proliferation of Islamic doctrine via terrorism. Furthermore, this jihad includes acts of retaliation in which Islamic radicals right a wrong committed by non-Muslims—for example, many argue September 11th occurred as a result of the failed United States policy which upset Al Qaeda.
As the dust settles on Mumbai, it will be noteworthy to discover the intentions of the perpetrators. What psychological process occurred to break the natural tendency to resist murder? Conversely, were the perpetrators natural born killers (only two percent of the world population)? One thing is for sure: we live in a violent world in which human beings find motivation to kill—regardless of some inborn resistance to violence.