LOVE AS FOREIGN POLICY
Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 1-26
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 the always 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 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.
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 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 only 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 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 other 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 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 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.
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 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.
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 easily 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 and would get more done with other nations by keeping his/her word and by not viewing them as inferior.
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.
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.
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