Prevention Is Better Than Cure

Do you remember those video games where your player was at the bottom of the screen while numerous 'baddies' flew downwards, and you had to stop any from reaching the bottom? It occurs to me that our current strategy in the "War on Terror" is only slightly more sophisticated than this.

We stop people from taking guns on planes, then knives, then scissors, now liquids. NYC police randomly search bags on the Subway, the government taps phones and locks up suspected terrorists, we all become paranoid and on edge.

In reaction to specific threats these measures are no doubt reasonable and justified. What is lacking, however, is any real understanding of why a young man would strap dynamite to himself and get on a train. We have failed to move beyond glibly simplistic answers like "terrorists hate freedom" and politicians do us all a great disservice when they recite this nonsense. It is beyond implausible to think that a man wakes up one day, says to himself 'I hate the fact that women in America can vote', and decides to blow himself up.

Conservatives may reject this kind of thinking because it seems to somewhat justify terrorism, but a little more thought could avoid this misunderstanding. Explaining is not the same as justifying, just as prevention is not the same as punishment. In terms of punishing people who plan to, or do carry out terrorist acts, the reasons that led them down that path are largely irrelevant. No reasons excuse terrorist attacks nor should they affect sentencing of convicted persons.

If, however, instead of simply reacting to the 'baddies' coming down the screen, we hope to stop them before they start, then intelligent, thorough, and impartial analysis of catalysts and greviances must be undertaken. There are many things that could be done to slow or even stop this wave of attacks. Glib recitations about God and freedom are not among them.

We should remember that in the video-game world, the longer you play the game, the harder it gets. I suspect the real world shares this characteristic.

A Free Market Isn't Free

Conservative economists have always argued for a free market by pointing out that it rewards hard work, punishes laziness, and removes the government from people's lives.

Far from being 'free', this system is actually a very tightly regulated national banking system that is specifically designed to keep the economy on an even keel.

The Fed keeps a watchful eye on economic growth and inflation and if the former accelerates too fast it will raise interest rates to limit the latter. The consequence of this is that where market forces (the conservatives' favorite!) might at certain times lead to full employment, the Fed actively and deliberately prevents this from happening so as to control inflation.

There are arguably universal benefits since inflation does harm the poor as well as the rich. But let's not forget that in a system where we are told that hard work, guile, and perseverance can allow anyone to get ahead, the government actively prevents some people from doing this in order to allow the rest to have a chance. An acceptable unemployment rate is 4-5% - many millions of people.

In the absence of another system, monetarism may be the best available. This does not mean, however, that we as a society have no responsibility to those who we throw to the wolves of the market in order to save our own skins. This 4-5% are not necessarily lazy or unwilling to work. Rather we deliberately hinder their ability to improve their lives so that we can have two cars and send our kids to college. We then decry welfare efforts that would mitigate the effects of this policy as encouraging laziness and dependence on the state.

Conservatives hate to see the money that they believe they earned solely through their our own hard work being given to those without employment. They should remember that their success is only made possible by keeping millions of Americans unemployed.

If we are happy to hold 5% down so that we can prosper, surely we have a responsibility to alleviate the consequent suffering? America comprises 5% of the world's population. How would we feel if the other 95% put in place a system that ensured their continued growth at our expense, and then called us lazy for not keeping up?

Unwilling to Compromise

One of the reasons that conservatism is having such a resurgance in America is in response to 9/11. This is not a particularly insightful comment, it is simply meant to lead me into an interesting allegory.

Many, previously moderate, Americans have become more hawkish over the last five years, in large part because they perceive (and not unreasonably) the enemy to be intransigent, unwilling to compromise, and unable to be trusted to act in moderation. This, of course, means that many Americans who might otherwise be willing to act moderately, feel that if they give up anything, the other side will exploit this 'weakness' rather than reciprocate.

If we consider the less deadly but very real conflict between liberals and conservatives over social, domestic issues we see a very similar pattern. Many on the left, for example, are not ideologically opposed to cutting abortions or allowing expressions of religious faith in public areas. Many on the left are themselves strongly religious.

The problem arises in large part because we on the left believe (again not unreasonably) that if we were to compromise on issues like spousal notification or 24-hour waiting periods for abortions, anti-choice advocates would not reciprocate by moderating their stance, but would use it as an opportunity to press home the advantage, such is the absolute nature of their beliefs.

This amounts to little more than saying that extremism begets extremism, which is an age-old truth. More to the point it reminds us that absolutism and an unwillingness to compromise will never be a likely course towards peace either domestically or internationally.

Peace though War

There is a thread of thought within conservative circles that peace movements are not only wimpish but actually cause wars.

Typically, in these arguments, the UN comes off as an ineffectual or corrupt body, seeking diplomatic solutions is an indication of naiveté, and anything less than all-out attack is a sign of weakness. The most frequently-cited example to bolster this point of view is WWII. Chamberlain tried for diplomatic 'appeasement' and failed (proving that diplomacy always fails) while Churchill advocated a military solution (proving that attack is always the best form of defense).

It's worth remembering, however:

1. Because diplomacy could not stop Hitler doesn't mean it never works. Cuban Missile Crisis anyone?

2. It is easy to choose the military option after someone else has already tried diplomacy and failed. We cannot know that, had Churchill been PM in 1939, he would not have acted as Chamberlain did.

3. WWII was won by one side's military defeat, this is true, but so was WWI and every war that preceded it. It is how one deals with the populations of defeated countries that largely determines how lasting the peace will be. In the case of WWII, the international community, led by the USA but strongly in concert with the UN, undertook a huge program of de-militarization, de-nazification and reconstruction that took years to accomplish. It was this that ultimately kept the peace in Germany, not the outright defeat of the army.

4. Most importantly, if one looks at the history of the 19th century and 1st half of the 20th century, what one finds is one increasingly deadly war, ending in military defeat for one side, followed by another even deadlier war. Since the creation of the UN and the EU, these widespread conflicts have decreased both in frequency and death toll and this is not a coincidence.

If the history of the human race has taught us anything it's that defeating your enemy on the battlefield does NOT guarantee a lasting peace.

The Impossible Dream

It has been suggested by conservatives that a robust welfare system is detrimental to America because if welfare becomes something that people can live on, people have little incentive to try to get off it.

Strong unions have been opposed for similar reasons. In both cases the argument is that harsh conditions encourage people to work to avoid those conditions, and that it this work ethic that accounts for America's previous greatness.

The existence of unions is troubling for those who subscribe to the Horatio Alger American Dream, where anyone can become rich and successful simply by working hard and playing by the rules. If unions are necessary it implies that a person can work hard and still expect to live his or her whole life on the lower rungs of the ladder. It is this challenge to the idealized conception of America that those on the right cannot stand, and why they reject the idea that there is a need for unions.

Ultimately, what these typically wealthy conservatives would prefer is for millions of Americans to suffer a meager, poverty-stricken existence, so that a handful can find the strength to fight their way out. This apparently makes America better and stronger.

Who are they to decide this for everyone else? The government exists, among other things, to 'promote the general welfare', and I always took this to mean that a concern for the quality of life of all Americans should run through all the actions of the federal government.

The ideological conservatism that has taken hold in America has made it paramount, not to make the lives of all Americans visibly and tangibly better, but to make the country conform to a mental picture held by a handful of wealthy Republicans. Coincidentally, this idealized America also involves low taxes for these people.

Universal Healthcare

Recently a conservative friend asked me whether having universal healthcare would negatively impact America's place as a world leader in medical technology. The point of the question was to suggest that if that was the case then it was a good reason not to implement such a system.

We cannot say that implementing full-access healthcare would not eventually knock America down to, 2nd or 3rd in the world, but in many ways it's beside the point. We should ask ourselves if the measure of a system is solely what occurs at the 'top end'? After all, America has more millionaires than any other nation, but it also has greater levels of poverty than any other industrial power.

Many would argue that the advances brought about by American medical research have benefited not just all Americans, but millions of others around the world. Were we to slow that progress down, we would find our efforts in fighting disease hampered by lack of funds.

This is a misleading argument. America may produce a large number of the world's medical breakthroughs but it is not the only nation making drugs and performing operations. Moreover, it is highly debatable whether all Americans, let alone the rest of the world, sees tangible benefits from this research. More than 40 million Americans have to wait years or even decades for the benefits of this research to trickle down to them, if it ever does.

This, of course, is the 'trickle-down' theory of market capitalism and the evidence of the last few decades proves it to be false.

There seems to be something profoundly selfish in rating a society only by the successes and luxuries of the wealthy. Is it more important to be Number One than to protect the health of all Americans? Frankly that sounds more like Number Two.

Polarization

It occurs to me that I, along with many others on the left, may be playing right into Ann Coulter's hands.

Many of us have written posts and articles in which we have been critical of the Christian Right. As we see the evangelicals push their intolerant agenda with ever greater success it is difficult not to.

We have to be careful, however. These arguments only strengthen the conviction among those on the right that liberal politics is antithetical, even hostile to Christianity. The more that liberals argue against religious politics, the further we push ourselves from mainstream America - the very people we must win over in order to reverse the hardcore evangelicals' successes.

The greatest conservative success in recent years has been associating their policies with Christianity. When pundits talk of reaching out to 'values voters' they mean advocating anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science policies, all laced with Christian dogma. This is troublesome for us because most people are Christian, and therefore, susceptible to politics dressed as religion. The more 'Christian values' becomes synonymous with bigotry and intolerance the harder it is to talk of equality and tolerance. Turning this around is possibly the greatest challenge facing the left.

We shouldn't be disheartened though. Most people are not anti-gay, anti-abortion or anti-science, at least not yet. We may never win over the hardcore evangelicals, but politically speaking, this doesn't matter - it's the moderates we need. Liberals must embrace the religious values that most people hold if we are ever to have a chance at holding power in America. We already know that liberal politics is extremely concordant with the core values of Christianity (brotherhood, community, helping the weak & vulnerable, etc), we just have to remind moderate Americans of this in language that they understand!