Down with the Fantistical

We just watched Nikita, a show about super spies. Other shows involve fairy tales, vampires, superheroes and a huge array of magical characters and settings. I can’t help but think that there are now more magical shows than ever before. It is as though, in this time of recession, unemployment, and general economic hopelessness the populace is delighted to fantasize about magical powers coming to their rescue. Augmenting the trend are electronic video games which allow a player to have magical powers, fight enemies and, using a combination of real military weapons and magical fantasy weapons to mow down armies of robotic zombies. Some TV shows start out built on plausible premises with engaging characters who win the audience with their human charms and faults. But most of those shows become more and more extreme in their externals—that is their outrageous plot lines and fantastical electronic tools. Their plots depend on events which, even when they could happen, are statistically improbable to the point of the absurd. In order to keep high ratings from initial success they drift away from their characters into amazing events which create momentary excitement but long term incredulity. There is even a term for taking the “fantastic” too far. It is called “jumping the shark” from a show where the hero avoided the jaws of a giant man-eating shark by jumping on its back and on to safety. It went beyond the incredible to the ridiculous. Why is all of this happening? It will be interesting to see if it calms down as the recession fades and the next economic boom takes hold. Escapism will be less of a temptation. But a second factor may be the ever increasing complexity or our world and our technology. As it becomes less and less possible for one person to master all aspects of a home computer it is tempting to throw up ones hands and think of technology as magic. And since progress in technology is not a trend likely to fade away, magical thinking may not disappear anytime soon either.

OK I am trying to run through this thought experiment—to think it through to its logical conclusion. Suppose if, after 9/11, we did not launch a conventional war but instead spent the same resources tracking down all of Al Qaida’s financial connections and prevented them from accessing or moving any money; and at the same time we supported the building of a bazillion schools in areas like Afghanistan and Pakistan where ignorance and fundamentalism are rife, schools to counteract the madrassas by teaching basic skills and knowledge that could lead to better jobs in a better economy; and finally we put on a full court press diplomatically to get the Islamic governments and Islamic leaders to vigorously condemn terrorism (which they have not done).

The quick, easy (and shallow responses) would be to say either that the plan above is naïve and wouldn’t work, or that the military approach we’ve taken has done more harm than good and left us less safe than we were. When making these meta-judgments about the state of affairs it is so easy-- and so tempting-- to fall back on political prejudices instead of trying to make an honest evaluation of the best plan. The goal is to keep us safe without betraying our values. If we can have a positive impact on the world, that is a bonus.

America's Defining Problems

Since 1930 there have been many problems with which America has struggled. But there have been only a few defining problems—issues that were the top problem of the time . The first such task it was resolving the great depression. After that World War II imposed itself as the unavoidable top problem. Then the threat of annihilating all life on earth by thermonuclear war –the need to keep the cold war cold—forced all other issues into second place. But the civil right movement took the issue of the treatment of blacks, a major theme from the earliest days of the nation, into the forefront of issues that defined the American character. Despite unmistakable progress through the sixties and seventies the racial issue persisted because of social, economic and judicial mistreatment of blacks. It endures as a major American problem but I have come to believe that it has been knocked out of the number one slot by a new issue.

Conflict between factions of American life—between liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans—has become so intense that it has nearly paralyzed the country politically, rational debate has faded to an inaudible hum in the background. Now each side hurls angry talking points at the other side. We no longer look for rational ideas and people of good judgment and character, but we see only which side someone is on, then we support or hate them because of that.

Certainly political argument was vehement in the past. Citizens voicing their political opinions have always been passionate. And there have always been crazy participants—those who were not rational and appealed only to prejudice and ignorance. But that disorder is now the norm. Rational individuals are viewed as disloyal in the Republican Party while in the Democratic party there are a minority of angry fighters and a majority of calm rational folks who are struck dumb, stymied, not knowing how to act or how to deal with the vehement anger all around them. They suppose they ought to fight so they don’t get eaten alive. But a furious battle is not what they had hoped life would be allabout.

I thought the anger and irrationality had peaked in the 1990’s but it grew worse in the first decade of the 21st century and worse yet in the second decade. Where will it stop?

That is the defining problem of America today.

The Moral Right to Kill ref bin Laden

The one issue I have struggled with is the US’s use of violence—killing—to deal with Osama bin Laden. I have heard several people within the UU community condemn any use of violence. The solution to the problem of violence, they say, is not more violence. On the other hand I am inclined to identify bin Laden as an extremist-fanatic perfectly willing, even eager to continue killing. The use of violence against him puts an end to his killing of innocents. It is, in a sense, self-defense is, as such, defensible. I don’t think that we can say that in the real world we would never use violence. For example with the insane gunman was shooting an Az. Congresswoman and her group, force was used to stop him. I think that was justified. In the bin Laden case it is entirely creditable to me that if the soldiers had given him the benefit of the doubt and tried to take him alive, some could have been killed. That being the case then killing him could again have been justified as self-defense. Unlike the Az. case he was not actually psychotic, but he was potentially lethal and in many situations one must act without knowing if someone is actually psychotic. It is back to the question of whether we ever have the right to use force, and whether we have the right to kill, usually based on a self-defense or defense-of-others rationale.

One basis of the argument, it seems to me, lies with the idea that life is valuable and that more life can be preserved by killing one killer than by allowing him to go on killing numerous others. On that basis the killing of bin Laden would be justified.

However, another line of argument is that the act of killing is a primal violation a moral code, and that by killing we forfeit our sense of being in moral harmony with the universe. Once that code is so brutally violated we have so soiled our moral record that we are never again to be morally creditable.

Let’s take a closer look at that argument. For one thing it assumes there exists, as a part of reality, a moral code. It would not be a code based on survival as a value. For most people it would not be based solely on a sense of loyalty to the human species. For some it would be based on submission to some form of spirit or deity and that deity’s moral rules. Some sects of Christianity and most Hindu sects might argue for such a position, but I am neither—nor am I a believer in deities or mystical spirits, so beliefs based on them do not appeal to me. So, while I have some sympathy for the idea that a sense of moral purity would exclude killing people, I am not persuaded by this line of reasoning.

Finally I am left with the notion that a creditable source of morality on the issue of killing would be our inborn sense of wrongness at the idea of killing a human being. Most humans have that reaction. But we also have both an urge to defend ourselves and our loved ones as well as our friends and neighbors. Further, rationally we can see the advantages to protecting ourselves against those who would do us harm.

One further rational argument is that we can understand that for the good of humanity we need rules against killing, among other things, and there is a clear need to have a way to enforce those rules. Sometimes the only practical method of enforcing our societal contract is with the use of force—sometimes even killing. Of course I would be quick to add that we are never justified in the use of force or killing when it is not necessary. It is even justified to take some risk in order to avoid the use of force when feasible. That much is probably agreeable even though there would be disagreement in different situations as to what is appropriate risk.

Finally, I believe that most people in bin Laden’s shoes have decided to forfeit their lives in the cause they pursue. It is essentially a suicidal course of action and they pretty much know that. That does not change our calculations as to, for us, what is right or wrong, but it doesn’t feel like a totally irrelevant point either.
Conclusion on the question: is it ever morally acceptable to use lethal force against human beings? Answer: yes, when it is necessary to preserve life. It is not acceptable when there is a satisfactory alternative, when it can be avoided while still preserving life. It is, essentially, a last resort to be taken with regret.

Truth, Belief and the Absolute

Today was Easter. After a slow early morning we went to church (Unitarian Universalist). The minister, Lora, gave a sermon about resurrection saying that it didn’t matter what was true, it was a story and what mattered was the interpretation we took from the story. Our interpretation was the important truth in it for us.

I am not so sure that is the whole truth. Certainly the ‘truth’ we take from the stories for ourselves is a part of what is important. But I cannot forget the fact that many believe in the absolute truth of the bible and its stories. As Billy Graham’s son said, he believes in the absolute truth of every word of the bible. He had a strange demeanor when he said it. He wanted to convey that he was holy and good because he believed it, but also that he had power, creditability and authority because of his belief. What nags at my awareness is that literal belief and the demands for authority and power that go with it. That is that mentality that causes men to kill non-believers, to believe absolutely but to be absolutely intolerant of those who would not agree.

It is the absolute believers who would not tolerate a different meaning others might take from a story. They would subjugate women, those with a different sexual preference, even those with a different political philosophy. The rigidity of belief of many who belief in the literal truth of their stories is what makes it hard for me to have an easy tolerance of the true believers. The truth I would take from a bible story is one thing, but knowing what some others take from it and impose on others makes it hard for me to rest with the easy belief that my interpretation is the only important thing.

Even David Brooks, in the NY Times, in critiquing the play “The Book of Mormon”, runs true to his conservative view of things by saying that the message of the play is wrong because absolute belief is an important and positive thing for civilization. He claims that individuals cannot develop for themselves rules and values needed to govern their lives and the life of the community. We need, he believes, the absolutist beliefs that are refined over time to guide us in a consistent way. I think he is wrong for several reasons. One is that the young are quick to learn to get along in our society because of a genetic predisposition to do so. We have a natural capacity for empathy and consideration for others. While that does not always play out with breathtaking consistency, still it does serve as bedrock for civil behavior. Additionally we have laws that are developed and refined over time that do not require belief in the supernatural. Our ever changing mores and folkways are really what keep us on track in a civilized society. Certainly any one religion is not indispensable, and I do not see that the absence of a religion is a detriment.

No, I do not think we need religion or absolutist beliefs. However I do recognize that there is a “faith instinct” as Nicholas Wade terms it. Many people have an urge to believe in religion, and even for those who don’t there is sometimes an urge to see things in spiritual terms. For example Emerson would talk of the divinity in living things. We will sometimes spiritualize the human race, or all life, or even the entire universe. I don’t object to holding such things in reverence even though I’m not sure it does any good. Still, it seems to fulfill a human need. We also have a driving need for a sense of purpose and meaning and the notion of reverence gives balm to need.

I’ll continue to be as tolerant as I can be—I have a reverence for tolerance. But I’ll believe that the stories of the bible are important not only for my interpretation but also for the effect on the world of the interpretation of others.

Government by the Gullible

I just saw an episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. He became caustic about Obama and how he doesn’t blame the republicans enough. I had issues with what he said. The solution is not to hurl blame, even though much might be deserved. I share Maher’s fear that Obama will give in too much, but I don’t fear a situation in which we don’t get all of our way and the conservatives don’t meet total destruction. After all a good deal of the country goes along with the conservatives so a realistic compromise is to be expected and is the best way to preserve democracy. I just don’t want them to win in getting healthcare eviscerated. I also wish that Obama would define the issues rather than let the conservatives do it. Krugman is right in saying that conservatives oppose any safety net and are trying to unravel it. Obama should make that clear and see if the public is on the side of no safety net at all. I think the conservatives would lose that one. Of course, it is a gamble. But if the conservatives could be shown to stand for just what they do stand for, then the meanness of their position would be clear to them and others.

Of course if Obama pulled it off and painted the conservatives as opposed to any safety net, they would say it is not true they just want a smaller one. In other words they would say what is acceptable to the general populace. That is a game all sides play. Liberals would like a government run health care system (Medicare for all) and a drastic reduction in the availability of guns. But that goes further than the general populace will accept, so we say that we just want a little more regulation of guns (assault rifles and big clips for pistols) and we say that we just want government to set the rules in the marketplace so that everyone gets decent healthcare. And conservatives say they do want a safety net when they really want no government involvement in the economic sphere at all. And, for both parties, the public believes the version that is designed for public consumption.

So that is how our current system of government works. The activists are very split and the middle ground, the less active and less informed voters shift from first supporting one, then the other bunch of partisans just to keep them both guessing. The irony for many of us is that the country is governed by our less informed, less interested and less biased citizens. I don’t think that’s a good thing, but, as Churchill said, we haven’t come up with a better system yet.

Time to Fight and Lead

For the time being I’ve given up on politics. It is Obama who has discouraged me. The right wing is fighting and he is not fighting back. At least President Clinton fought back even though he had a lot of baggage to weigh him down. But I feel as powerless as I did when Bush was in office. I can only watch as Obama talks about making concessions but doesn’t really fight back. I still think that the thing for him to do would be to titrate up his rhetoric until he regained control of the national dialogue. I wish that he would bring to the fore a dialogue about what is appropriate in political discourse and what is not appropriate. Public talk about defeating the president, as the primary goal of the opposition, is simply not appropriate and that fact should be underscored and bolded. The president could then pick an opponent who is least appealing and set him up as the symbol of the opposition. It would probably be the leader in the house, John Boehner. He could focus sharply on the issues and attack when the discussion wandered off target. Then he could state the case for the democrats as forcefully, as eloquently and as repetitively as possible. If other prominent democrats could be enlisted to support the talking points, that would be all the better. If he could do that he could inspire the base and lead the country.