LOVE AS A BASIS FOR FOREIGN POLICY
Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 5-26
Disputes among nations, often with accompanying violence or wars, seems to be the lot of human beings regardless of century or culture, but what if leaders approached other groups with love instead of with fear and acquisitiveness, hoping to take territory, exact tribute, gain acquiescence, or destroy? Would this not be a preferable situation, leading to more trust, comfort, acceptable compromises, and peace? This kind of love would not be romantic love, kindred love, or sexual love, but a positive view of and attitude toward the other group, with a wish for positive outcomes for all nations concerned (instead of a desire to compete, win, and dominate). What keeps us from this more desirable state?
Human beings were first adapted to living in small groups (tribes/villages), and these groups sometimes and perhaps inevitably had border disputes (for hunting and gathering territory) with each other. The disputes were generally more symbolic than dangerous, but blood was often shed. This competition supported a fearful and angry attitude toward other groups, along with the negative statements and lore (often false) that adults create and share with the young. Having only negative contact with other groups prevents seeing them objectively and foments a generally negative attitude toward all outsiders (“them” vs. “us”). (Fear and language differences are always the prime enemies of getting to know those of other groups.)
Humans learn how to live from the others in their group, and our predominantly associative learning inevitably associates sustenance and survival (and all things good) with one’s own group and its ways of doing things. Never experiencing any other way of doing things (and following the lead of traditions that tend to make “the way things are” seem like “the best way to do things,” other groups’ ways of doing things come to seem dangerous or even heretical. Many citizens still believe that their own groups’ ways of doing things are the best and that the ways of other groups are dangerous, and they therefore have a predetermined negative view of other groups. Over time, groups got larger and larger until we now have nations with hundreds of millions of members playing out the same disputes and attempted resolutions as in those small tribes. Given our “advances” in ability to kill others and harm other nations, it seems inevitable that sooner or later a leader of a country with nuclear arms will use those arms in response to genuine threat or to just respond to an insult.
Threats to one’s group and resulting war arise as people perceive (1) threat to their survival individually or as a group, (2) intent of another group to take their territory or exact tribute, (3) intent of another group to pillage and steal money and belongings, or (4) insult and demeanment by others. Some politicians preach fear and hatred of other groups for their own advancement, and citizens who have no better source of information about others can easily believe these lies, since fear is human beings’ most fundamental emotion.
These issues in individual and group psychology describe how things are in the world, but even more important is asking whether things must continue to be that way. There is no reason that people in one society could not get along almost as well with those of other societies as they do in their own society, except for the instinctual fear of difference and the handing down through the generations of fear and contempt regarding foreigners, both of which are “curable” through education and exposure. If it is not the citizens in general who seek war, then it seems that it must our leaders, which raises the question of why they we choose them and why they so often involve us in wars. Perhaps if we could soften the fears and the tendency to view foreigners as outside of our social rules (and so subject to theft and murder in ways that we would never use on people in our own societies) as well as electing leaders who were not ultra-competitive and aggressive themselves, we could reduce the prevalence of wars significantly.
Given our tendency to personally defer to those bigger and stronger than we are, given the tendency of many to crave possessions (including land and slaves) without limit, and given the tendency of most humans to wish to have more control over their lives than they feel they have, it seems inevitable that persons who are bigger and stronger, persons who crave more possessions, and people who want more control will rise toward the top in terms of governance and politics. (For example, there is clear evidence that people who are taller and speak more forcefully are the most likely to become wealthy.) These people in powerful positions, unfortunately, are more likely to start wars than ordinary people would be (due to their acquisitiveness, their desires for dominance, and their sensitivity to insult), and ordinary people continue to respond to the call to “defend the group” in the wars caused by the elites, even at the cost of their own lives and often not even knowing what the cause actually is). (In the modern world, leaders often do not lose their lives even if they lose their power, so it is only those who actually engage in combat who are at risk.)
Ordinary people seem stuck in the attitude of wanting the stronger to lead them, particularly when it is a question of violence or survival, but we no longer have leaders riding into battle at the head of an infantry, so perhaps having the strongest and most aggressive as leader is not necessary for the best outcomes now, even if it was in times past. Perhaps now ordinary people (the voters) could elect people who are most likely to achieve good outcomes for them through understanding and compromise. Of course, a leader who was capable of leading with reason and compassion would also have to be strong at the same time.
To be clear—to get leaders who can both protect and defend the country and approach other counties with a positive and loving attitude, we need leaders who can (1) be strong and (2) be positive and compassionate—both at the same time! We must have a military that is ready to go and is properly supplied at all times, and we must conduct foreign policy at all times in a positive and compassionate way.
People often assume that a person can only be either strong or compassionate but not both—that strong people look down on compassionate people as being weak and confused about their emotions toward others, and compassionate people look down on strong people as being uncaring about the welfare or feelings of ordinary people. I believe that we have some citizens who can do both well at the same time and that of those people, the ones who have the cognitive, emotional, and executive skills adequate for leadership would be our best leaders (as opposed to celebrities, saber-rattlers, racists, and those who promote fear of other countries).
A necessary change to make it possible to elect leaders who can lead objectively and with positive emotions and motives is for all citizens to have more knowledge about the government and how it works, as our federal government is now extremely complex, and people who wished to lead and to approach other groups with a positive attitude would have to have some knowledge of how to get things done in government (even if they could acquire some of this while in office). At present, this knowledge is acquired through years of holding positions at different levels of government–i.e., a lifetime of government work, first locally, then statewide, and finally at the federal level. Anyone who understands how large organizations work could gain much knowledge of the Federal government through studying the various government departments and their charters and subsidiary parts, and of course, it would be necessary for the newly elected to have as advisors several people who have worked in the federal government for some time and have experience with its workings.
One possibility that would help ordinary citizens gain better knowledge about the workings of government and about their fellow citizens would be for every voting precinct to hold a monthly get-together (“Citizens’ Information Forum”?) where important issues could be discussed. Citizens could express their views, civilly question each other, and get reliable information from the citizens attending who seem to know the most (and can explain their sources of information).
Besides those who see gaining power as more important than the welfare of citizens, other people who should not be leaders because their personality needs and abilities would almost certainly cause unnecessary trouble for citizens, include—
- those who are unable to love
- those who favor one group of the citizenry over others (like the rich over the poor and the middle class)
- those who seek power mainly for revenge
- those who cannot be consistent from day to day regarding policy kinds of decisions
- those who cannot emotionally and cognitively understand the relationships between various groups of citizens (races, genders, wealth, socioeconomic statuses)
- those who put personal advantage (and the advantage of those close to him/her) above fairness and adherence to the law
- those who cannot compromise (includes many who promise to “fight for” their constituents).
HAVING A POSITIVE AND LOVING ATTITUDE TOWARD OTHER GROUPS
Being able to have a positive and loving attitude toward other nations would involve having a positive attitude toward other people in general, feeling warmly toward those in other nations, feeling like a basic equal to those in other groups, treating everyone fairly including other nations, and wanting good things for people in all nations.
A POSITIVE ATTITUDE TOWARD ALL OTHERS
A loving attitude is first of all a positive attitude and embodies the desire for the other person to be happy and not to be suffering. This positive attitude toward others is marked by (1) a hope of positive relating with any and all others, (2) openness to positive relations with others, (3) approaching others in a manner that encourages positive relating (including assuming the best about others until proven otherwise), (4) interest in others’ lives and methods of coping, (5) treating others in ways that promote positive relating (honesty, responsibility for one’s emotions and behavior, acceptance, fairness, equality, compassion, self-control, autonomy), and (6) willingness to engage in cooperative, mutually beneficial projects and to be helpful to others, as possible. “Positive relations” refers to the affective quality of the relating—i.e., that the relating is pleasant, comfortable, accepting, and encouraging.
Our positive attitude toward others (and toward other countries) should be infused with understanding, based on life experiences that have led us to empathically appreciate the difficulties that everyone has in coping with life, the inner struggles that we are all engaged in, and the imperfections of us all. (Many people develop habitual suspicion of others, various “relationship testing” procedures (like being nasty to see if the other person is nasty back, at which point the relationship can be abandoned), and other barriers that are used to ward off the harm that they fear from relating (based on past negative experiences.)
In order both to create and to nurture positive relating, it is necessary to treat others in ways that promote positive relating. Being honest with others and being responsible in your relating to them makes it possible for others to trust you and be comfortable with you. Treating others with respect and courtesy at all times shows them that you value them as human beings, rather than making life a contest of who can be superior. Always seeking agreements and cooperation that benefit both self and others tells others that you take their welfare seriously. Treating others well also includes being responsible for managing your emotions, rather than expecting others to change so that you won’t have to feel any unpleasant feelings. Demonstrating empathy shows them that there is at least a chance that you can understand their experience and situation, and demonstrating appropriate self-control shows them that you may be able to manage your behavior so as not to hurt them. Accepting others as they are allows them to relax with you and to feel welcome and valued. Treating others fairly tells them that you will apply the same rules to yourself that you apply to them, so that they don’t have to worry so much that you will take advantage of them. Treating them basically as equals tells them that you understand that they have the same basic value in the world and the same rights as you do, which once again underscores that you recognize their basic value. Treating others with compassion tells them that you understand their struggles and that you place a high value on their welfare. Taking care of yourself happily and effectively shows them that you are not likely to seek to be dependent on them.
A President with a positive attitude toward others would, for instance, make more opportunities for alliances and cooperative projects with other nations than a President with a negative, suspicious attitude toward them. He/she would also be quicker to help during crises experienced by other nations and more likely to keep his/her word with them. He would approach other nations with an attitude of basic equality rather than finding ways to be “one up.”
Feeling warmly toward others is a natural offshoot of a loving attitude. If we like and have loving feelings toward another person, and if we want the best for that person, we are almost certain to feel warmly toward him or her. This warmth is love radiating from us. It flows from love and is not something that can be produced or sought independent of love.
A President who felt warmly toward other nations would make interactions with them more productive by caring about their citizens and conveying the sincerity of that caring with his/her attitude.
WANTING GOOD THINGS FOR OTHERS
If we have loving feelings for others, then we want them to be happy, have a good life, and not to suffer. If we have loving feelings for others, then we want things to go well for them. We want them to succeed and be happy.
A President who wanted good things for other nations would make the U.S. more popular with them and secure better agreements and treaties with them through his/her greater trustworthiness and caring. (This would not mean giving the farm away out of over-compassion but would be fair to all, including U.S. citizens.) Such a President would also strive for agreements that were reasonable and fair enough that they would not likely be overturned by succeeding Presidents and Congresses.
THE PROBLEM OF DIFFERENCE
Human beings are instinctively afraid of persons they cannot understand (and therefore whose behavior they cannot reliably predict). The more another person is different from us, the more frightened and insecure we become, or conversely, the more effort we must make to preserve our sense of security and to maintain comfortable relations with the other person (by making special efforts to understand the person and predict his/her behavior or by accepting the risk and putting aside our worry). Some people come to understand the similarities between us all that underlie the differences, since most of these differences are simply differences in how a given culture attempts to solve our universal human problems. For example, we all want to feel good about ourselves, but since some cultures emphasize individual successes (of individual goals and motives) and some groups see helping the group (or restoring harmony) as individual success, people from these two types of cultures will have difficulty truly understanding each other. It is possible, of course, to understand this difference, but that requires focus and willingness to evaluate behavior for its outcomes instead of just how it appears. In a similar vein, those who believe in following the instructions of authority figures (parents, police, teachers, etc.) will distrust and fear those who comfortably decide things for themselves, sometimes contrary to what authority have said. Even small differences in customs, such as eating sitting on the floor instead of at a table or eating with one’s fingers instead of with utensils, can annoy us and make us suspicious of others.
We tend to automatically think that our way of doing things is better, usually without any reflection on whether it actually is better or whether we simply think it is better because it “feels better” to us to do it that way (which is only because that is our already established habit). Culture is the set of understandings, beliefs, customs, and rules that all members of the cultural group use to organize their behavior and goal attainment efforts. (Culture is often viewed as sacrosanct, even though it is only made up by human beings, probably because people transfer the awe they felt for their parents as virtual gods to the society as a whole and its forms and rules.)
If we are to have positive feelings about others, we cannot relate to them primarily through fear of differences. Here are some principles that can be used to minimize the fear and allow us to deal better with differences systematically.
1. In order to minimize difficulties arising from difference, stop wanting others to change so that you can be more comfortable or get what you want. This works miracles in relationships. Stop wanting people who are different from you to be more like you. Trying to get others to change for your benefit is usually a losing proposition, since they are just as attached to their ways of doing things as you are to yours. If both parties stopped trying to get the other person to be different, much of our fighting would stop!
2. Allow others to be who they are, within reason. Approach all relationships with the assumption that it is good for people to be who they are and who they want to be.
3. When you feel “difference discomfort,” recognize your discomfort with difference in the moment, immediately review your commitment to accept and tolerate difference, and immediately implement your methods for accepting and tolerating difference.
4. If the behavior of the other person seems puzzling or different from what you expect from those you are most familiar with, raise the possibility within yourself that your usual ways of understanding the behavior may not apply. If you insist on applying your typical expectations to everyone, whether or not they feel, believe, and act the same as you, you will engender much conflict with others. Give “live and let live” a chance!
5. Inquire of the other person what he is thinking, feeling, and intending to communicate, until that is clear. Interact with people whose opinions are different from yours. Size them up as people, not just opinions.
6. Reexamine and if possible revise your emotional reactions to the other person’s behavior in the light of what that person actually meant and intended, instead of in terms of the signals that you usually receive from those with whom you are familiar.
7. Search within yourself for why a difference of opinion seems like a threat to you. Is it really a threat or only an exciting opportunity? What do you actually believe? Redefine “enemy.” If you feel that someone is an enemy, ask yourself why? Before thinking of someone as an enemy, think about the ways in which he/she has things in common with you. You may have many more things in common, as citizens and persons, than you have differences of opinion, and this may mean that you disagree but are not really enemies.
8. Work on your own confidence in your opinions and positions until you can allow others to have theirs without you feeling threatened by that.
9. Use differences as opportunities to learn about human beings in greater depth. Pay attention to the fact that all human beings have basically the same needs and motives (physical survival, somewhat pleasant life experience, feeling good about themselves, the affirmation and support of others, raising offspring, feeling secure in life). If we understand the other person’s feelings and motives, we can empathically appreciate what he or she is doing, even if the behaviors are very different from what we are used to. Learn as much as you can about other cultures and other ways of looking at and feeling about different aspects of living. Travel and reading and classes on other cultures and religions are good ways of doing this.
12. Do not support political appeals to hatred or violence toward those who are different simply because their difference is threatening or offensive. These issues are capable of non-violent and understanding solutions.
SEEING OURSELVES AS BASIC EQUALS WITH OTHERS
In order to feel the full measure of the concern and loving feelings that we are capable of having toward others, it is necessary to see ourselves as basic equals with others–not to feel superior or inferior to them. If we see ourselves as superior to them, we will also think that we deserve love, approval, and goods more than they do, which will limit our ability to treat them fairly. If we see ourselves as inferior to them, we will almost certainly have resentment over this, which will restrict the free flow of loving feelings that we could have for them.
Treating others as equals communicates our respect for them, and the good will and trust that flow from this minimize conflicts and allow others to feel comfortable with us. If we view ourselves as equal with others, then it follows that we will treat others fairly.
A President who viewed the U.S. as a basic equal with other nations would dispel much of the suspicion and pessimism created by a negative, suspicious President who wanted to take advantage of them and would get more done with other nations by keeping his/her word and by not viewing them as inferior.
RESPECT AND COURTESY
If we view ourselves as basic equals with others, then we would naturally be aware of the feelings and experience of others and wish for that not to involve any more suffering and discomfort than that which is unavoidable in life. Treating others with respect and courtesy is one way to smooth others’ path in life.
The dictionary defines “respect” (in the sense that we are concerned with) as holding someone in esteem or in high regard. “To esteem” means to set a high value on and to regard highly and prize accordingly. We crave being respected and treated with respect, because being respected tells us that we are valued enough to be given basic recognition of our right to be alive and to be a part of the group. Even treating those we do not like or approve of will have a positive outcome, because being treated with courtesy and respect makes everyone feel better, which will improve relations in general.
When we respect a person, we respect her rights and try not to cause her distress or discomfort. We try to make it pleasant for the person and try to make her comfortable, by treating her with courtesy and consideration and paying attention to her feelings and needs.
To be courteous an respectful, tailor your words and actions to convey positivity and concern and avoid words and behavior that could hurt or harm others. View yourself as a basic equal to others, which means that you won’t assert or even intimate that you are better than them and deserve more than they do. Everyone deserves basic respect at all times, since all of us are basic equals and have the same fundamental value in the group. No one is more special or intrinsically valuable than anyone else.
Treating others with respect elicits the same from them toward us, and being treated with respect causes others to view us more positively and to be more willing to cooperate with us in our efforts to reach our own goals. Treating others with basic respect makes society a more positive and comfortable place and makes all social relations go more smoothly.
Many people grow up learning to use disrespect as a means of inducing others to conform (implying that the other person is inferior or essentially a non-person to scare them into conforming), but more can be accomplished and more of the basic conformity by all that society needs can be gained by treating others with basic respect at all times (even murderers and rapists), thus holding open an invitation to them to be liked and more highly valued as members of the group by changing their behavior, and by making our negative reinforcements of them separate from our attitude toward them.
TREATING OTHERS FAIRLY
Fairness is applying the rules and expectations to everyone equally and without bias. This means applying the same rules to yourself and your loved ones that you use with others, and the same ones to other nations that you apply to your own. Doing this tells others that you realize the need for equal treatment and that you will try to give equal treatment without bias.
We treat others fairly even when it means that we will not get exactly what we ourselves want. We empathize with how others feel about fairness and refuse to feel better or to benefit unfairly at the expense of others. We approach negotiations with a goal of everyone getting as much of what they want as possible, not an attitude of getting as much as possible for ourselves at the expense of others.
In a practical sense, the advantages of treating others fairly (having them reciprocally treat us fairly, having them like and cooperate with us more readily) are worth more than the advantages that could be gained by treating them unfairly.
A President who treated other nations fairly would create more good will toward the U.S. than a negative, suspicious President, by not treating other nations as inferior and in “the out group.”
To maximize your ability to relate to others (and other nations) in a basically loving way, examine your internal sense of fairness and equality and how you apply them in daily life.
COMPETITION
If we have a positive, loving attitude toward others, then competition becomes “friendly competition”—i.e., competition no longer aims at the defeat or annihilation of the opponent but becomes a way of testing ourselves in the medium involved, with the competitor posing as an interesting and worthy test. This would require people having enough self-esteem and confidence to “lose” in meaningless comparisons without undue pain.
CAN THINGS BE DIFFERENT?
Every citizen can make a difference in our world, even if they are only living out their values in their daily lives. If you exhibit brotherly love in all your relationships—feeling positively toward others, wanting good relationships and good things for others, feeling warmly toward others, and treating others fairly—you will make the world a better place. Love can overcome fear, and many in our country live in fear much of the time—fear of people who are different from them as well as fear that they won’t be able to reliably put food on the table and pay for housing. (Regarding fear of other nations, see my essay “The Problem of Difference” at www.livewiselydeeply.com, under Human Nature and Characteristics.)
You can also contribute by paying attention to what leaders are doing and evaluating those who aspire to higher leadership with respect to their abilities to have a basically loving attitude toward other and to care for others and at the same time be strong and absolutely determined to protect the country and its people. Take the time to pick the leaders who can do the best for all Americans before you vote!
Essays\loveasforeignpolicy