LOOK WHAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT (OR, HAS AMERICA LOST ITS MORAL COMPASS?)
Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 6-26
It is curious that in our modern-day political divide in the U.S. we are not discussing fundamental questions but instead fighting about some arousing aspect or implication of these issues. If we cannot reach maximum understanding of the bases of an issue, we can certainly never develop rational policy or find satisfying compromises.
Immigration is a good example. There are important points about this issue championed by each of our major parties, but the fundamental aspects of the issue (how many immigrants do we need for the economy, how should we promote assimilation, if at all, what is a reasonable path to citizenship, should we allow immigrants to bring entire families) are not in our public discourse (not in the news, internet media, newspapers or journals). Instead, what we hear and debate publicly are the border wall, every major crime committed by an immigrant, and how ICE pursues and handles immigrants. The resulting emotionally inflamed assertions (they are not discussions) put us at odds with each other and do not lead to improvement. They are attempts by each side to vanquish the other or at least get the upper hand. Useful policy could result from discussion of the more basic issues.
Our blockade of Cuba, preventing it from receiving oil, is strangling Cuba’s economy and will eventually cause its complete regression to citizens living in the forests. The blockade is certainly illegal according to whatever rules have been internationally agreed upon and would be considered an act of war by most nations. Cuba can do nothing about it since it is so much weaker than the U.S. This is an example of the Administration’s general approach to all relationships—might makes right, which makes us bullies in the eyes of the rest of the world. Cuba has not been harming us, and America is not benefiting whatsoever by the blockade. Cuban citizens might benefit from a change to capitalism, but the U.S. gets only opportunities for a few Americans to invest there (and Pres. Trump gets a “win”). There has been no public discussion about our use of an illegal blockade—it’s not even a controversy. Americans appear to have accepted “might makes right” with no problem in this instance, which takes us out of the category of moral nations. (There may be times when a “moral nation” chooses in exceptional circumstances to do something immoral, but this is not one of those times.)
The blockade of Venezuela—also illegal—and the kidnapping of its President was a test by the Administration for whether Americans would tolerate such behavior by its government. Most media discussion, though, was about how wonderfully performed the operation was, rather than about whether it was legal or “right.” Just because we encounter a long-standing “wrong” in the world does not give us any right to correct it, except by legal and moral means.
Our Iran venture is another example of “might makes right” and signals that the U.S. is ready and willing to do whatever it wants in the world, regardless of whether it is moral or immoral. The world may be better off if Iran does not achieve a nuclear weapon, but there is no discussion of the real reason that Iran is a problem—its objective of eliminating Israel, for religious reasons. Open discussion of this and forcing Iran to publicly justify its peculiar use of religion would be highly appropriate and diplomatically useful. And, has there been any discussion of the legality or morality of the current attack on Iran? Almost none. All discussion has been about the battle and the hoped for outcome. It appears that Americans lack the understanding of religion sufficient to generate discussion and are unable to participate in giving moral feedback to our government, except by protesting.
The U.S. is engaged in a titanic struggle with China for supremacy in the world, but there is no definition of supremacy and no discussion of its worth. Why must we be supreme? What good is it? Is it fair or simply another assertion of might makes right? We could be as well defended by our armaments as #2 than as #1 in the world, so what is the struggle about? This struggle is too dangerous for citizens to be left out of the discussions.
The President wants to take over Greenland and has been stopped from doing so only by the negative reactions around the world to this move, which the U.S. could accomplish overnight if it decided to. There was more amazement and outrage over this move in the U.S. than about the other issues above (!), and there may even Q9A09 have been some amazement and outrage about it even within the Administration itself.
“America first” is the Administration’s mantra, but there has been no public discussion of the rightness or the desirability of having this be the mantra of our country. The claim that we are doing this because other countries have abused or misused us is absurd. If we were misused by other countries’ tariffs, we could have used counter-tariffs years ago. It appears that “America first” is a justification for doing whatever we want—legal or illegal, right or wrong, which is simply selfishness. Is this really how we want to be known around the world? “America first” offers implicit justification for doing whatever we want and calling it right.
The arguments here may sound to some like I want the President and Administration to listen to me and do what I want about these issues, and no individual citizen can hope for that, but my concern here is our surprising failure to involve all citizens thoughtfully in considering them. Is there some alternative? We have a few interview-type programs on the internet provide commentary from mostly left-of-center experts, but the public view of the right consists solely of pep talks and mutual congratulations for being so strong. (A good psychologist would interpret this as indicating that the citizens do not feel strong at all but are seeking a leader who seems strong and will make them feel more secure, by moral or immoral means.) Perhaps the President was correct that he could kill someone on New York’s Fifth Avenue and suffer no consequences!
No doubt some of these issues are being discussed substantively by some Congresspersons and by some in the Administration, but their various ways of looking at the issues do not make it to the public, and the public could in some cases have reactions that would empower Congresspersons to do the right thing rather than simply calculate votes. Our media could do meaningful polls of citizens’ ideas instead of only reporting on demonstrations and scandals. Our churches could sponsor discussion groups about a religious view of our country’s actions. Our academics could publish on the legality and morality of our country’s actions. The President is behind a push to revive religion in the U.S. Discussions of the morality of all of the Administration’s actions are overdue!
Essays\fundamentalissuesavoidance