Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiPresident George W. Bush has proved to be as much of a disaster on foreign affairs as on domestic issues. More, if possible. And not just on Iraq. On many other issues, including global warming, missile defense, population growth, and now Iran, he has been just as flagrantly wrong as he was on the supposed weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Hussein. It's not just that he's getting bad advice: his narrow worldview is upside-down to begin with. Combine that with his desire to seek advice only from people who will fortify his prejudices, rather than from the ones who know and understand the issues, and you get a dangerous combination.
It was a national tragedy that we had this kind of person at the helm when the terrorists struck on September 11, 2001. Bush used the attack to justify a foreign policy aimed at world domination, accompanied by an even more systematic and thorough attack on our civil liberties, all in the name of "protecting" us against further terrorist assaults. As a result we are no longer admired abroad--we are feared and hated--while on the home front we face an erosion of our rights, an extraordinary accession of executive power, and an assault on the wall separating church and state.
I think it was Henry Kissinger who once observed that absolute security for any one country meant absolute insecurity for its neighbors. The Bush response to a serious, but not existential terrorist threat, has been entirely disproportionate. We built up our conventional military forces and then used them against Iraq, a country that wasn't even threatening us. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda continues to regroup in the frontier regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan while we stride across the globe like some modern colossus, threatening anyone who disagrees with us, turning a deaf ear to their arguments.
There has to be a better way, and of course there is. We need to lead by example, not threats. We need to listen to others, learn what their problems are, and exercise our talents and ingenuity toward finding solutions that help everyone to the extent possible. We need to take the dawning environmental crisis seriously and show that we're willing to make our share of needed sacrifices. Above all, we need to recognize that we have to sacrifice some of our national sovereignty if we are to cooperate effectively on global problems with the rest of the world.
This last point is critical and is least understood, not only by Bush and his accomplices, but by many, if not most, Americans. The fact of the matter is that we can't have it both ways. We can't insist on total security for us and us alone, and expect full cooperation from everyone else. Cooperation requires some sacrifices, some concessions, from each of the partners.
LIBERTY VS. SECURITY
The tradeoff between liberty and security is as old as humanity itself. Any human society that endures has rules that constrain its members in ways that make cooperation possible. So we prize liberty but fear anarchy. We are all for free choice but insist that everyone should respect the law of the land. We recognize that there's a contradiction, or at least a tradeoff, between our yearning for as much individual freedom as possible, and the maintenance of public order, but we also believe that a just society can have its cake and eat it too. We admire societies, including our own, to the extent they have worked out institutions and attitudes and principles that maintain order while maximizing freedom. We deplore both failed states, where chaos reigns, and dictatorships, where order is maintained only by force. Isn't that what democracy is all about?
Until now, there has been no such thing as a global society. The most complex societies have been nation-states. There is a global authority, the United Nations, but it has no teeth. On the most important issues, a sovereign nation can ignore any UN attempt to constrain or control its behavior. It's true that many international and regional organizations, buttressed by treaties and conventions, bring a modicum of law and order into specific areas of international relations. They are useful and respond to real needs. But on the most important issues, any member of the UN can defy its authority, and the only recourse the UN has is to try to persuade other nations to put pressure on the miscreant. This sometimes works with small and powerless countries, but the big ones can behave as they please. When the chips are down, the current global society resembles Dodge City from the mythology of the cowboy movie, where victory goes to the fastest draw.
EVOLUTION OF A GLOBAL SOCIETY
Humanity is now in a transitional phase, moving reluctantly from Dodge City to a global society ruled by law. We've seen this kind of transition before, on more limited scales. Some combination of circumstances alters the environment and the existing social order comes under great stress. People get desperate enough to commit to a substantially different order that involves cooperating with former competitors, even enemies, in a larger society. There are problems of adjustment but eventually almost everyone is integrated into the new order and few want to go back to the old one. Our own nation's history tells the story: thirteen colonies, each of them filled with pride at its particular history and character, hesitantly agreed to form a confederation. From that, the tighter bonds of a federal republic were created and now here we are. Who wants to go back?
Our history of morphing from thirteen small societies into a subcontinental giant was extraordinary. Usually the process involves more trauma, more false steps (I say this even while acknowledging that our civil war was a thoroughly traumatic affair). European history is more typical in that respect. How many wars have been fought on European soil since the Roman Empire collapsed? And how difficult is it still, when all the disadvantages of narrow nationalism have been revealed, and all the blessings of union are being unveiled, for the several national parties to agree on the institutions and modalities of union?
All this suggests that creating some kind of law and order that will include the whole globe will be an enormously complicated task, one that certainly will not be fully accomplished during the lifetime of anyone alive today. But it's equally plausible that some such order will evolve eventually, if humanity is to survive at all. Right now we are living in a fool's paradise, based on an uneasy equilibrium backed up not by an effective international rule of law but by a balance of terror, known as mutually assured destruction. No nation-state is mad enough to use nuclear weapons first, not so far at least, and all are concerned lest some of those weapons fall into terrorist hands. But is this the best guarantee of stability that we can leave to our grandchildren? If this is the best we can do, will there be that many grandchildren left to receive our inheritance?
HUMANISM'S ROLE
I think there is a special role in all of this for the humanist worldview. There are other voices being raised on this theme of world togetherness, like the descendants of the old world federalists, and some environmental groups. We can welcome their interest and cooperate with them as the situation demands, but we need to keep our own voice and perspective. Most humanists would support the view that the world needs a stronger UN and more effective means of controlling conflicts, and especially nuclear weapons. But we need more. I envision an active, explicitly humanist policy centered on a renewed dedication to certain basic rules of good conduct and an insistence that they apply to interstate relations much as they do to relations within the family, community, or nation.
Support for the concept of universal human rights is already an integral part of the humanist worldview, as is opposition to genocide. But for the most part, our concern has been directed at governments mistreating their own citizens. What I propose here is more general and more inclusive. I think humanists should judge the way all nation-states deal with each other by the same basic rules of good conduct as the ones that operate at lower levels of social organization. That is to say, the rules and taboos that make societies at all levels function harmoniously and efficiently. At the level of the family and the community, they can be defined loosely as: Don't kill people, especially if they belong to your own group. Don't try to cheat them, or steal from them, or run off with their spouse. Share, when you can, with the less fortunate ... sound like the Golden Rule? Of course, for these are basic rules governing human social behavior that evolved long before religion--though religions falsely claim them as their own.
There are many different ways of formulating these rules. They take different forms when applied at the family level, for instance, as opposed to the state. And they are culture-bound to a great extent. But there is some form of them in every society that exists above the level of anarchy. They provide the social glue that keeps most people behaving decently toward other members of the group. They operate parallel to more explicit codes and institutions--the law, police, courts, and jails--that enforce the unwritten codes and back them up with explicit penalties for cheaters.
But how do we translate "do not kill people, or cheat them, or steal from them" into the language of interstate relations? Allow me to make a very preliminary stab at it here:
Do Not Kill:
- • No nation shall go to war against another nation unless first attacked in a clear act of aggression. No state shall join in a war except when authorized to do so by responsible global authority (in contemporary terms, the UN Security Council).
- • Genocide shall be considered a crime against humanity and its authors shall be tried and prosecuted accordingly.
- • Targeted political assassinations shall be considered crimes and both the leaders authorizing them and the persons carrying them out should be treated accordingly.
Do Not Cheat or Steal:
- • "Black" propaganda is a form of cheating and shall be condemned as such. "White" propaganda, where authorship is correctly attributed, comes under the heading of freedom of speech, and should be allowed.
- • Bribery is inherently a form of corruption.
- • Elections should be open and certifiably fair.
Fairness, and Helping the Less Fortunate:
- • The disparity between the wealth of the rich nations and the poverty of the poorest should be of concern to all, and addressed through bilateral and other aid programs and other measures.
- • Development of resources in common areas, especially the deep seas, Antarctica, and outer space, should be regulated through international agreements and controlled by impartial international authority.
LIBERTY AND SECURITY FOR ALL
If Americans can rise above selfish, chauvinistic nationalism and recognize that global problems demand global cooperation, we ought to be able to agree that we have to have an international rule of law with teeth. Furthermore, if we honestly believe democracy is better than dictatorship, we should hold as a very high priority the objective of achieving a future world order that achieves peace and harmony, primarily because people everywhere want peace and harmony and are willing to sacrifice some of their narrowly nationalistic interests, when necessary, to make that possible. In other words, we don't want some highly coercive world government telling everyone what they can and cannot do, even if it's one we initially impose ourselves. What we do want is a more orderly global system based primarily on shared values and arrived at freely, through consensus. We want nation-states to cooperate primarily because they know it's the right thing to do, not because someone threatens to punish them if they don't.
Getting there will be a long and laborious task, but we humanists can start now by insisting that the same basic ethical principles that govern human behavior in families and communities should be binding on our country in conducting its affairs with other nations. If we can set an example in this regard, who knows, an enlightened public might follow. In the end, our country's moral authority could be multiplied. In time, this seed could blossom into a universal moral code for the planet. Perhaps this is too visionary, but it is consistent with the broad pattern of social evolution we have seen in human society. Therefore, in the long run, this serves as the most practical possible alternative.
A world at peace is and should be the primary long-term goal of our movement. Using criteria such as those previously listed, humanists can establish a collective position on topical international issues, particularly those that involve U.S. foreign policy. Those criteria may not provide explicit answers, but it is better to have general guidelines than none at all. Most of the rest of humanity is floundering at this point, too involved in parochial concerns to see the big picture. We humanists are unencumbered by religious prejudices and as open to objective consideration of interstate ethical principles as most. Let's get out in front with a clearly defined, well recognized posture in favor of a world at peace, governed by law and not brute force, with the values we hold most dear undergirding that law, and shared by all.
Carl Coon is the vice president of the American Humanist Association and a former ambassador to Nepal.
© 2008 The Humanist
43 Comments so far
Show AllI wonder how proud Papa Bush is of junior's reign of destruction. I wonder if he thinks he may have spawned a demon.
neither jesus christ nor ET are dropping down from the heavens to solve our global problems.
it's very simple human problems require human solutions, the survival of homo sapiens on planet earth is a human problem.
first these issues must be recognized as global problems (notice how the elites denied the existence of peak oil theory, the reality of global warming, the effectiveness of family planning programs that utilize contraception), then the masses must be included in the formation and application of policy solutions. this will be very challenging, educating the masses and the relinquishment of power by the traditional beneficiaries of the status quo (businessmen).
i don't know if i believe humanist consciousness raising is sufficient in and of itself to change the tide (it definitely is part of the equation). violent revolution (russia, USA, france) historically has been responsible for the conditions that bolster humanist ideals that we as european/americans cherish (human rights, marxism, environmental awareness). although the changes in eastern europe 15 years ago were relatively non violent. although i would hope for a Gandhian approach to broad social change, i can't say with certainty that will happen.
---------------------------
3 points about the article..........
first, how can neoliberal global institutions (IMF, WTO and Wld Bnk) be coopeted into the UN or how can these global institutions be bent/reshaped to support humanist goals??
second, the author's perception of the evolution of US society overlooks the carnage imposed on the indigenous people in north america. ironically all of the values which percolated during the enlightenment emerged as european powers (england, france, portugal, spain) were exploiting people en mass (slavery, colonial plantations). the leisure time and safe environments necessary for the evolution of humanism occurred in societies that were exploiting others. the idealists and academics (including many of my heroes) were the direct beneficiaries of the exploitation.
"Our own nation's history tells the story: thirteen colonies, each of them filled with pride at its particular history and character, hesitantly agreed to form a confederation. From that, the tighter bonds of a federal republic were created and now here we are. Who wants to go back?
Our history of morphing from thirteen small societies into a subcontinental giant was extraordinary. Usually the process involves more trauma, more false steps (I say this even while acknowledging that our civil war was a thoroughly traumatic affair)."
i noticed a glaring omission of the genocide of the indigenous peoples who were victims of genocide in North America (i'd consider that trauma at least worth noting). it's critical we re-compensate the victims of our own atrocities (native americans, slaves, former spanish colonies in US sphere) as we promote human rights globally.
third, the authors statement about nukes....
"No nation-state is mad enough to use nuclear weapons first, not so far at least, and all are concerned lest some of those weapons fall into terrorist hands."
correction one nation state has used atomic weapons, and despite the fact 'nuclear' weapons haven't' been used in 63 years; i'm not convinced that nation states are so reasonable/responsible that they won't use nukes on their neighbors (a few examples israel and iran, india and pakistan, US, russia and any number of countries.) before a functional world government is established.
sad to say, i've believed, for 25 years, that a limited nuclear exchange (say lahore/delhi or tehran/tel aviv or washington/islamabad) would be the primary catalyst for world disarmament and the creation of a functional international security response team. if hiroshima had been broadcast live in new york, moscow and london, i wonder if the masses would have been willing to accept the nuclear build up of the cold war. the development of instant global communications has given us more possibilities. what will it take to alarm the residents of planet earth to wake up and embrace humanity as one people.
the transition to a truly world government will take many more generations to overcome cultural biases...
despite my criticism, i agree w/ carl coon....
1 people 1 planet...
....peace......
Good ideas, where do we find a party that will endorse them and put them into being. Being a member of a "mainline" church they embody my beliefs as to how we should treat each other and ourselves.
The 11 commandments have acquired all manner of qualifications in their application in countries that bleat about the judeo-christian basis of their laws, like this nation. Can we not form a party that includes these principals and make it work for us, it has to be citizen based as no corporation with deep pockets would subscribe to principals that would see to its demise. Is there any such party in sight?
"Don't Push the River,
It Flows by Itself"
Lucitanian: most of the questions have been asked and most of the answers are known but it is up to the individual human to follow the "wise" path as apposed to the "easy" path. Most people... just cannot get the "machines" of power they work for and with to change direction. They feel they are tied to the train...
Why take the wise path when the petro-fired gravy train is carrying you just fine along the easy path?
Mordechai -- I love your passion and wouldn't want anything less.
In fact, we really want to read much more or you, but perhaps you are a rare spice, that must be savored over an entire week of otherwise dull "sustenance".
Without yeast, the bread is really ya'know FLAT, and tastes weird too …
We believe that sugar was that way for the ancients > 1,000 yr ago, and perhaps this generation will discover those truths anew.
Namaste
Thomas Moor, you write "I would guess you have not been out of the country, have never faced an armed enemy nor faced someone that is hungry or afraid. If you had, you'd know that to fight is the first instinct and to kill is a natural follow up.
History emphatically validates my point."
Bad language is a modicum, an expression of frustration, compared to bad thinking, which is the tool that perpetuates the ignorance and the evil which we face.
You have no idea of what I have seen and if you did, and if you knew, violence, fear and starvation and faced a crazed and armed threat you would know its cause and its cure as I do. But above all, you would know the stupidity of answering violence with violence, or fear with terror, or hunger with pain and despair.
As individuals, history is normally grasped contextually relative to our own lives and experiences. History is replete with the humanitarian actions. Most go unrecorded. We record the atrocities also to remind us of our folly not as an example to follow. There is no glory in war. That is the myth they tell children in the schools of imperialists. Please do not try and justify the evil that man can do as his "nature".
Sociopaths are natural, yes, especially in a society that abuses their young and deprive them of affection. But, that doesn't mean that when threatened we must all become aggressive, promote the clever and manipulative ones to lead such aggression. Killing is difficult and traumatic. Any individual or group can be trained to do it and or accept it as having to be done, but anthropologically speaking the human is more naturally equipped to "cooperate" and thereby progress. As I wrote, it is not always the easiest way, but it is the wisest in the long term.
"Mordechai Shiblikov"
I understand your fervor, but couldn't you and some others perhaps use cleaner language.
* * * *
As they used to say, and still do: If you're not angry, you're not paying attention. And if you are paying attention then my question is - what's worse, profanity or the abomination of George Wanker Bush? Long Live Lenny Bruce!
We have to kinds of people on this planet: Capitalists and humanists.
That's an illogical statement, specifically a False Dilemma. One doesn't have to trust either people or money. Money, after all, is a human invention.
By the way Goose2 March 31st, 2008 10:12 am
Excellent point.
"It should be a law that any Congressperson or Senator that votes for a war will have at least
five members of his or her family sent to fight in that war."
What a wonderful idea! A law I'd vote for, but I'd surely include the President and vice President.I use small caps for VP because its Cheney.
"Mordechai Shiblikov"
I understand your fervor, but couldn't you and some others perhaps use cleaner language.
Secondly I'd suggest to you that if you go to other parts of the world you'll find a lot of people that are glad we showed up and many others that wish we would. At the same time you have a very valid point.
"People do not "learn to NOT kill". Not killing is natural. They have to be trained and obliged to kill."
I would guess you have not been out of the country, have never faced an armed enemy nor faced someone that is hungry or afraid. If you had, you'd know that to fight is the first instinct and to kill is a natural follow up.
History emphatically validates my point.
Black and White in this context mean absence or presence of the light of day. The terms are as old as mankind and these references are in ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and Roman mythologies.
I remind you of John in the bible "...and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it." and Genesis "earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light." (apologies for quoting Christian lit. Take or leave the behind the scenes context there. It is representative of the ancient concept and similar to Roman, Greek and Egyptian lit that I cannot find without more searching.)
Claiming not to understand the metaphor is a bit disingenious especially in a well written article that provides good context. Not everything that is black and white is race related.
US foreign policy can still be useful, as what not to do.
The USA is totally incapable of a humane foreign or domestic policy. That kind of thing is for cowards, yellow-bellies, pussies, losers and faggots. Uncle Sam struts around heavily armed and kicks ass. Our national motto is FUCK YOU!
Remember these lines from the late, great Stevie Ray Vaughan:
SAVE THE STRONG
LOSE THE WEAK
NEVER TURN THE OTHER CHEEK
TRUST NOBODY
DON'T BE NO FOOL
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE GOLDEN RULE?
Firstly, reading this article and these comments one has to say, "the world is not the USA" (thank heavens) and that country, if anything "is" the problem, and with or without Obama it has a less than average likelihood of offering any solution, economically, politically, or socially to mankind's self destructive decline, or contribute to any "enlightenment".
What this article points out to me anyway, is that most of the questions have been asked and most of the answers are known but it is up to the individual human to follow the "wise" path as apposed to the "easy" path. Most people, in fact all people, in their hearts know this, even employees of giant corporations and government elected officials and bureaucrats. They, the people in power, which is all of us to some extent, know it but just cannot get the "machines" of power they work for and with to change direction. They feel they are tied to the train, to the wale, to the mast of the wreck.
The contradictions and hoops that a political leader must jump through and the compromised positions he must accept, to placate the ignorance, stupidity, myopia, and greed of the different sectors of power in delusional democracies, that he needs to convince in this or any countries, deny him any possibility, be it in "America", Britain, France, or Japan for example, to lead people to any rational solution. By not accepting and compromising the obvious, is how their own and their neighbours destruction is assured.
Thow shalt not…… is simply asking one to see the Universe as an integral unit and yourself as part of it. Do you chop off your own hand for steeling? Do you blind yourself for lust? There is nothing more gained in killing another as in killing oneself. Understand the law of Karma.
People do not "learn to NOT kill". Not killing is natural. They have to be trained and obliged to kill. They are brainwashed and indoctrinated to see theft and murder as "liberation", as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Once you realise that the evil among us is weak and small but clever in deception and can easily be defeated by wisdom and patience, it is not such a big deal to live the rules of humanity that have existed since the dawn of time and that prevent our real disintegration.
"Do not kill!" means you just stop killing. You do not justify it in ANY way; genocide, targeted assassination, punitive action, war, defence, murder, capital punishment, collateral damage, or whatever new word you wish to invent. No killing!!!
Stone; Paper; Scissors; stone can never defeat stone! It is that simple.
Daniel David, we would all do well to complain about Obama, Clinton, and the Democrats as a whole. Giving cover for these sell outs only helps them to sell us out at great expense to much of the world, ourselves included. I think Tom Hayden did a reasonably good job of making that point last week:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/26/7893
I am not getting any clear indication that Obama would be any less awful than they other corporate ordained contenders to occupy the White House. He may be less forthcoming, less enthusiastic about continuing a long reign of shame and torment, but that is hardly a guarantee that he will be any better. After all, it was George Bush who said he stood against nation building and military adventurism. How's that working out?
Know them first by the money they take, second by the company they keep, and least by their glib words while courting the vote.
I can't read the author's mind, but I think by "Black Propaganda" he might be referring to phenomenon like the "astroturf," or phony "grassroots" organizations formed by corporations and/or their lobbyists, that pretend to be authentic citizen's groups. Another example would be the "experts" invited to provide soundbites on the burning issues of the day to the mainstream media, whose membership in or affiliations with groups with a specific agenda are not cited or otherwise made clear by their interviewer. So we see lobbyists for Big Oil presented as "energy experts" or "experts on climate change," or lobbyists for right-wing Israeli or Israeli-American organizations are introduced as merely "experts on the Middle East." This sort is subterfuge is standard operating procedure within the American propaganda system. Even on NPR!
Unfortunately the new "Golden Rule is: "He who soever haveth the Gold rules!"
I think that the U.S. has had a Humorous Foreign Policy for decades. It's been a terminal joke.
Rune,
I said Obama will give you "the NEAREST thing you can get to humanist foreign policy". This is in part because only he, Clinton and McCain remain running. Hillary will lose if nominated. That leaves you with McCain. Your litany of complaints on Obama does not help change this reality at all.
Humanism is one of the healthiest anchors for society.
I would not have known to call it that, but the small business I founded, DoughNation Services LLC, is a successful model of a humanist business.
At DoughNation, we get paid to pick up things our clients want to donate, evaluate and document what they are worth as tax deductions, and then bring them to our community nonprofits. We give our clients full documentation of the donation, make it easy for them to help people, and they usually gain back a good deal more than they pay us in tax deductions. It's sweet all the way around.
DoughNation takes it's inspiration from Ben Franklin, who put forth 'doing well by doing good' as the central ethic from which to conduct business. I think Ben Franklin qualifies as a humanist.
My broader point, as it relates to Mr. Coon's article, is that I'd like to see a more humanist domestic policy, as well as our policy abroad.
From what I have seen, Obama has not even hinted at a humanist foreign policy, let alone soft-pedaled it.
He hired a defense industry lobbyist early on, now he is raking in more defense industry cash than Hillary Clinton (almost $100K over the past 6 weeks, according to OpenSecrets).
His top foreign policy adviser is an old cold-warrior who has no compunction about arming the Taliban and Osama bin Laden so long as the kill some reds while they are oppressing, torturing, terrorizing, and killing innocent civilians far and wide.
He has said that he would follow George W. Bush's example of conducting missile strikes and assassinations in, for example, Pakistan, if a given country did not agree to carry out such thuggish tactics itself when Obama told them he wanted it done.
And he has announced that he will follow the examples of JFK, George H.W. Bush, and Reagan--all of whom were involved in secret or falsely represented wars against commies and dark skinned people, arming illegal militias and death squads, CIA black opps, telling lies to sell wars, and building up the Military Industrial Complex while claiming that doing so would somehow yield peace, justice, and prosperity, among other anti-humanist endeavors--when crafting his own foreign policy, which will involve compromising with the remaining GOP backers of Bush's doctrine of preemptive military strikes in pursuit of global hegemony.
He is a member of the CFR and, as such, he has pinned the blame on the Palestinian conflict on the Palestinians while suggesting the illegal occupation and human rights abuses of the Israeli government are defensible and not a basis for enforcing U.S. laws prohibiting military aid to countries engaged in such war and human rights crimes. Similarly, he blames terrorists for the debacle in Iraq, even after he pointed out to John McCain that there was no terrorist problem there until the U.S. invaded and armed and orchestrated a civil war, which creating a training ground and recruitment center for terrorists and unregulated militias that continue to kill the U.S. invaders to this day.
And, finally, Obama says he wants to continue building up a military and spy force that is already sucking up more than half of the federal budget, which runs hundreds of billions in the red each year.
How, exactly, does that convey any interest or intent to develop a humanist foreign policy?
I was glad to see that I was not the only one baffled by the black & white propaganda. Thank you VFTW for probably explaining it....but it assumed knowledge of defense terminology that not all of us have and so sounded dangerously racist! And to the reader who inquired about Obama's advisers - Samantha Powers, who certainly exemplifies a new order of world politics was a chief adviser (before her "monster" quote) and will, I am quite sure be a main adviser when he is elected!
Daniel David March 30th, 2008 5:30 pm
Daniel,
I believe you're right about Obama being the nearest to embracing humanism. He's playing his cards like a shark.
Obama will give you the nearest thing you can get to the "humanist" foreign policy some desire. The trick is to soft-pedal use of the word "humanist" before the election.
Otherwise, you lose the election to reactionaries (mostly the tax cut crowd) who use "secular humanism" as a scare word tantamount to devil worship to scare voters to McCain.
Perhaps the black/white propaganda comment is using the terms as they are understood in the defense industry as secret or open. Then the juxtaposition about sourcing makes more sense. Black propaganda would then be that which is annonymous or at least whose intent is to deceive while white propaganda would be attributable to a person or at least to an organization.
In response to John Benston's question on Sen. Obama's advisors, I would refer him to Spencer Ackerman's article on TruthOut, "The Obama Doctrine." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032808F.shtml
"... he has been just as flagrantly wrong as he was on the supposed weapons of mass destruction held by Saddam Hussein"
I don't think he was wrong in his assessment of Hussein's WMD. It might not have been what he said, but he knew perfectly well that Iraq was all but (apparently) defenceless or he would never have gone near the place.
It should be a law that any Congressperson or Senator that votes for a war will have at least
five members of his or her family sent to fight in that war.
"Humanism cant work because humans are involved."
Yeah, your right. Creating states that don't recognize or respect Humans as capable but merely "evil" has CLEARLY worked throughout time. Just take a look at China or Soviet Russia.
"First issue that needs to be dealt with is the myth of being special. Humans have to stop believing that the universe was created for them."
I can either look at an Infant as "special" or I can realize that is irrational and realize it's just "Organic Chemistry" and merely assume that love is just a survival mechanicism rather then a "hope". (What gets me though, is by not treating Humans special, they are doom to fail, yet in their failure, they should not be treated special????)
"because how many times do you read about family members whacking other family members, or committing incest, or abuse against loved ones?"
We must treat individuals with suspicion and irrevence because if they can fail they ALWAYS will. Capability=Inevitability
After all, if some of the Humans fail, regardless of what goes right, then all Humans must fail.
"Attack the notion of regarding your group as special. See that you are no better than any other. Humility is the first step."
And reverence toward all of Mankind, even the most despicable and foul, is not a form of Humility? Rather, balantily assuming that all Humans are incompetent regardless of anything is the first step toward the great big Humble Pie where we are just a crumb rather then a person.
IMO, we are entitled to every person just as every person is entitled to us. Social Interest, not Self Interest, is the defining moment that understands that we are a species, that cannot live alone, or in prejudice, because if we fully committed toward this path we would not survive.
People at Common Dreams are wise but so negative, it's time we change that outlook lest we damn ourselves to our reality.
As shitty as this decade is, I could defintely understand where your conclusions could come from, but deep down inside,
How can we expect a better tomorrow if we do not embrace it?
We have to kinds of people on this planet: Capitalists and humanists. The former will never change its stripes and will remain dominant over the rest. The latter will forever be killed, enslaved or kept in check and on their knees. As a species, the capitalists have risen to the top (literally) of the food chain -- mostly at the point of a gun. Humanists aren't willing to do anything but be slapped around, therefore, things will probably not change.
Forever turning the cheek will not do anything but keep you down.
Gandhi had his limits, too.
Like anything else on this planet, the strong survive and prosper.
Right?
I just finished scrolling through the discussion and was wondering if anyone else was befuddled by the statement...
""Black" propaganda is a form of cheating and shall be condemned as such. "White" propaganda, where authorship is correctly attributed, comes under the heading of freedom of speech, and should be allowed."
Lo and behold "Peoria Teacher" caught this too. Excuse me? What on earth does this statement mean? Many heads must have twisted sideways when it was read... maybe?
"We need to listen to others, learn what their problems are, and exercise our talents and ingenuity toward finding solutions that help everyone to the extent possible."
Yes, we do!
As Caroline Myss pointed out: "Each nation on this planet is an organ of one body, and the health of this body rests upon each organ receiving the same care and respect."
She also said that this truth is very "difficult for the world population to grasp, much less to represent through its politics."
This reality is all too obvious in the way individuals and nations conduct themselves: ME first; FAMILY second; TRIBE third; and then there's the rest of the world that might deserve a glance but is viewed as something far removed from us and our self-centered goals of immediate and long-term gratification.
In short, we have become so focused on economics and HAVING things (we don't need or use) that we have lost our sense of BEING. Many of us are not in touch with our inner spirit because we are constantly bombarded with outside stimulus that prevents us from experiencing the necessary silence where we have an opportunity to listen to our own inner voice so we can develop our sense of being. If we can't listen to our own inner voice with the consciousness of our heart, we can't possibly listen to the voices and needs of others.
Our global value systems must change if we want a more peacful future where our children can pursue their dreams and make important contributions to the betterment of humanity.
The "Us vs. Them" mentality will not bring peace and hope to this world. We first need to imagine what peace and a brighter future would look like and how it would feel,and then work on policies that will take us there.
Humanism cant work because humans are involved.
Secular humanism does have one jarring prejudice in its religious system, it tends to regard humans as the most important item on the planet. This is exactly the same sort of supremacy myth and discrimination that leads to nationalism, racism, and every other ism.
First issue that needs to be dealt with is the myth of being special. Humans have to stop believing that the universe was created for them.
The idea that we need to regard all of humanity as one big family sounds nice but cannot work--because how many times do you read about family members whacking other family members, or committing incest, or abuse against loved ones? A global family does the same thing. The results are just more catastrophic.
Also-humans dont follow some sort of biological path in terms of determining who has value and who doesnt. There are humans who will kill for money, religion, the flag, entertainment. People will even sacrifice themselves for a cause. There is no consistency to it.
The most fundamental ethic people should shoot for is to avoid believing that their group(as they define it) is superior to others based upon a set of criteria conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination. Racial supremacists do it, human supremacists do it, religious supremacists do it.
Attack the notion of regarding your group as special. See that you are no better than any other. Humility is the first step.
john bengtson, Obama's leading foreign policy adviser is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the guy who prides himself for arming the Taliban and Osama bin Laden in a gambit to bog down the USSR in its "own Vietnam," not caring about what that has done to the interests of the U.S.
Yesterday he said he would follow the foreign policies of JFK (who presided over a host of CIA black operations that included torture and death squads, and the Vietnam escalation, not to mention starting Saddam Hussein on his rise to violent power), Ronald Reagan (Iran-Contra, among other illegal, and immoral operations), and George H.W. Bush (Mr. CIA Black Opps, himself). See http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Obama_aligns_foreign_policy_with_GO... for verification.
He is leading Hillary Clinton in donations from the defense industry as of the beginning of February. And he is pledged to cutting some "wasteful" military programs, but overall continuing to build up the military and spy budgets.
Bad news, people.
I see nothing here that says anything about learning from other, more successful societies. Americans still believe that the US is the most advanced, most intelligent, most highly evolved nation on earth---which means that Americans don't have to listen to anybody.
There are several societies that are more advanced, more enlightened than American society---for starters, the Scandinavian countries. If Americans and the Canadians who ape them were a bit more humble, we would be asking other nations to help us out here.
"Imagine that Obama were not a devout Christian and his foreign policy was imperialistic and militarist."
Wtf.
The most supposedly "Devout" Christian president has killed over one million Iraqis by lying about WMDs. Then preceedingly makes money for his friends. And is given no flak by a minority of the population because he is Christian himself. Gee, I really hope we get more Christian presidents like that, I really, really, badly want to see more eighteen year olds get splattered all over Iranian deserts.
Then again look at the source material.
Deuteronomy
7:20 Moreover the LORD thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the LORD thy God is among you, a mighty God and terrible.
7:23 But the LORD thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Gee, killing people in the name of Oil, Blasphemy.
Killing people in the name of God, Well Done!
(Plus, just look at all that Oil laying around)
Generally a thoughtful article but what in the world does the author mean by this?
• "Black" propaganda is a form of cheating and shall be condemned as such. "White" propaganda, where authorship is correctly attributed, comes under the heading of freedom of speech, and should be allowed.
It's no more complicated than this: stop consuming and take care of one another.
"There has to be a better way, and of course there is. We need to lead by example, not threats. We need to listen to others, learn what their problems are, and exercise our talents and ingenuity toward finding solutions that help everyone to the extent possible. We need to take the dawning environmental crisis seriously and show that we're willing to make our share of needed sacrifices. Above all, we need to recognize that we have to sacrifice some of our national sovereignty if we are to cooperate effectively on global problems with the rest of the world.
This last point is critical and is least understood, not only by Bush and his accomplices, but by many, if not most, Americans. The fact of the matter is that we can't have it both ways. We can't insist on total security for us and us alone, and expect full cooperation from everyone else. Cooperation requires some sacrifices, some concessions, from each of the partners."
#############################
This is as clear a statement of the relevant issues facing US foriegn policy as I have seen and ought to be the basis for further exploration of possible resolution of issues facing everyone in the world.
"It was a national tragedy that we had this kind of person at the helm when the terrorists struck on September 11, 2001. Bush used the attack to justify a foreign policy aimed at world domination, accompanied by an even more systematic and thorough attack on our civil liberties, all in the name of "protecting" us against further terrorist assaults."
I continue to mourn that so many otherwise sentient, reasoning beings have yet to consider the connections and consequences among the first and second sentences above.
If one takes into account the stonewalling, lies, deliberate and conflicting misinformation and illegal actions of governmental agencies and authorities all the way to the top during these past 6 plus years, there is only one conclusion.
Anyone out there have any knowledge of who might be Obama's advisors if he becomes president? Or who are his advisors for his campaign?
Imagine that Obama were not a devout Christian and his foreign policy was imperialistic and militarist.
Then we would have change.
Imagine if a US Department of Peace and Cultural Understanding would have spent $500 billion, or even a fraction of this -- what kind of world it might be today.