Friday, June 8, 2007

Contents


VI. Torture: A Fall From Grace

VII. On Muslim Americans & and Jihad, Too

VIII. The Late, Great Post Office? Implications for Health Care Reform?

IX. Darwinism After 150 Years

X. The Self-Indulgent Generation

XI. Exiting Afghanistan


XII. Financial & Banking Reform

XIII. America's Flagging Creativity

XIV. End Game: Pakistan & Its Taliban Strategy

XV. The Right: Agree with Us or You're Un-American;
The Economist: Phooey to the Right!

XVI. Healthcare & Cost Reduction, Market & Public Realities

XVII. On Public Goods: Providing Education & Healthcare

XVIII. Of Coal and Energy and Leadership:
China's Broadening Advance, America's Deepening Dysfunction 

XIX. On Opinion Formation & Change

XX. An Education Solution: Balanced, Year-Round Schooling

XXI. "Direct" Democracy's Erosion of Representative Democracy--and the Republic

XXII. American Dream Easier to Realize Elsewhere: The Failings of Education, Government Investment & Upward Mobility

XXIII. It Depends On What You Mean By "Free Will"--And What You Do With It

XXIV. Former Republicans & Their Republican Friends

XXV. America's Crisis of Democracy


© Gregory E. Hudson 2007, 2011
Naples, FL and East Greenwich, RI

I. See Me, Help Me

The Limits of Merit & Choice

It’s not a fabrication, a lie. It’s just not the whole truth. And the part that’s been omitted—or is it just ignored?—should provide the basis for us to consider providing better for those most in need. I’m speaking of our unwarranted overemphasis on personal merit and, as we’ve discussed elsewhere, freedom of choice.

It really does appeal to us, all of us. It panders to our self-esteem, our sense of self-determination and self-sufficiency, our self-congratulatory tendencies. We want to believe that we earned what we have—that we pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, mapped out our plans, prepared ourselves, then worked hard, harder than the next guy, earning our way to our definition of success. And in a very real, experiential sense, it is true. (Most of us feel that’s exactly what we've done!)

We also want to believe that it’s not our fault if the next guy wasn’t as ambitious, didn’t prepare himself as well, didn’t work as hard, wasn’t as able. It’s not our fault if he was too lazy or irresponsible, lacked discipline, character or interpersonal capability. It’s not our fault if he wasn’t intelligent, talented or savvy enough. It’s not our fault if he was too different, unstable or disabled. We each get what we earn, what we deserve. (Isn't that right?)

And what of the poor, the competitive failures of whatever stripe? Why, they just suffer the natural consequences of their own failings and failure. And that's not our fault, either. How could it be? (So, why should it be our responsibility?)

Of course it’s not your fault or mine—at least not most of the time. But most often, neither is it theirs. Notably, in a most real sense, we are no more the author of our successes than they are of their failures. Heresy, indeed! But let me briefly explain why, in more empirical terms, this is also true.

You understand the continuing discussion and research about nature and nurture, of course. We discussed it in Choices. You’re familiar with the debate about how much of the way we are is the result of the genetic legacy of our parents and forbears, and how much is the result of the way we are conditioned and schooled, what we learn in our families, communities and cultures. What is not in doubt is that the combination of our genes, family, culture and education determines who we are, how we act, and the likely limits of our potential and achievements. And if most everyone still has some alternatives, some choices, those afforded the least able of our brethren, the least fortunate, are so many fewer and so much narrower, and their ability to act on them is so much less.

The irony is that we discuss it, make casual affirming observations about it in everyday life, even ponder it with personal satisfaction or dismay, but then go about our lives dealing with each other, making personal and organizational decisions and crafting public policy as though we didn’t know it or didn’t believe it. The truth is that the power and perceived importance of our public, cultural half-myths trump what we instinctively know and what science more resoundingly than ever confirms. The truth is inconvenient and unwelcome to our sense of independence, accomplishment and self worth. It can coexist only uncomfortably with those cultural values.

So, just how right, how defensible, then, is that laissez-faire foundation on which we stand? How fair or egalitarian, how ethical and moral, how humane and intelligent are our assumptions about getting what we earn or deserve? How even is the playing field, how just the result? Is it not true that there, but for the deal of the genetic cards, the spin of the birth-place roulette, go I—dross in the crucible of our competitive society, failed or failing, and much in need of the help and support of my community, my more fortunate brethren? Shouldn’t the integrity of an accountable, civilized society demand a full understanding and honest acknowledgment of this reality? Wouldn’t it respond honestly, responsibly, and effectively to the needs of the innocent poor, infirm and unable? Wouldn't health care, education, and subsistence living be their right as it would everyone's?

(My Christian faith informs me that we are each just who God intended us to be based on the dictates of our singular spiritual paths—and the genetic endowment and life circumstances that deliver us there. And more, that we have responsibilities and accountabilities for one another. That is the signal characteristic of faith community, and any real community.)

First written: July 2006


See Me, Help Me

So deny it with rationalizations, or ignore it if you must. But there is a social responsibility that accrues, a moral obligation that must be continually honored, in recognition of the generous provision made to the successful upper and middle classes by our open, competitive market economy. And it is owing to those unable to compete or defeated in the competition: the poor, the infirm, the unable.

True, there is no doubt that market opportunities and competition bring out the best efforts of the able and well prepared—but it is just as true that they defeat those least able and least prepared. And while it’s also true that other economic systems or approaches often result in even greater numbers of poor and unable than our own, does that alone justify our willingness to look with acceptance on the circumstances of our poor? Or do we think that the fact and clear evidence of those less successful or failed are necessary in order to acknowledge and pay tribute to our relative success? A tough, hurtful question, perhaps, but one so often too close to the truth—an unavoidable, if disavowed, aspect of human nature.

And just for the record, there are also economic systems in other nations more friendly and generous to the poor, ill and unable than we are--the Nordics and Germany come first to mind--strong economies, but more balanced combinations of open, competitive markets and helping social programs. But for ideological or selfish reasons, some among us have demonized them by labeling them more “socialist” countries. A more accurate characterization might be more socially advanced, more accountable, more humane—and for those seeking or abiding with God, more in keeping with His heart and His counsel.

Surely by now the pejorative use of the term socialism must be understood as an anachronistic red herring, a purposeful diversion from social responsibility and effective problem solving. At worst, it is merely an excuse for ignoring the needs, the pleas for help, of many of our countrymen and neighbors—and avoiding the cost that goes with it. Why not eschew, dismiss with prejudice, such misleading references and ad hominem attacks for what they are: just bogie man politics, just setting up an ideological straw man, just selfishly trying to avoid accountability? Why not focus on being a more caring, accountable society, on communities seeing to the basic needs of their own?


Questions?

Okay, you have some questions of your own: Aren’t there already sufficient incentives and public assistance programs for the poor and unable? And what about the valuable work of private charities and church ministries? Is there any more we can realistically, practically do? We have so often managed these programs so poorly, aren’t we just pouring good money in after bad? Aren’t we already at the point of diminishing returns? And regardless, won’t the poor always be with us?

Your questions are fair questions, all, and I once embraced the same, seemingly rhetorical questions myself. But they are not rhetorical questions. There are better answers.

Yes, nongovernmental organizations, private charitable trusts, faith-based ministries, and other nonprofit charities, too, are all part of the answer. But a relatively small part. They do complement government assistance programs notably, importantly. Their passion, their roles in identifying need and leading in innovation are unique and irreplaceable. And by all means available, please do your part to support them as generously as you can. But broad-based government assistance programs are still the only way to comprehensively, competently serve all our people in need and at risk. And yes, there is always need for better management, more accountability—and more money. And, it is important that we regard our taxes rendered as an important part of our giving to those in need. (But that is such a reach for so many, isn’t it?)

There are many who might also rethink some of the judgments and labels they’ve so easily come to embrace. And I would like them to reconsider the hasty, incomplete analyses so often done, and the self-serving economic judgments that always seem to follow from operation of our half-myths about merit. I would like them to reconsider whether bottom-line economics might not actually support spending more public money on people at risk in our competitive economic, education, and healthcare systems. But, one might ask, how can that make economic sense—and how is it right or fair?

It’s just so hard to get past a selfish perspective on the fairness issue—isn’t it?—even when we understand. But understanding should push us further on to questions about the limits of merit—shouldn’t it?—that, and how we define ourselves as community and society, what our standards are for what a competitive, wealthy, often charitable society should provide to it’s least able and least prepared to compete. We’ll return to these issues presently; but first, I know you would rather hear more about how it could be in society’s best economic interest, yours and mine, to spend more money to improve the lot of so many in need.


The Economics of Helping Others


The basic answer, of course, is in turning many more users of public resources (the poor and unable) into providers of public resources (gainfully employed taxpayers). First, consider the social costs of the poor, undereducated and chronically unhealthy. Tally the cost of long-term welfare, prisons (which are the resulting long-term residences of too many of our failed poor), and a broken, misdirected healthcare system that too often provides only the most expensive emergency care to those most in need, those growing more unhealthy day by day.

Then, consider the opportunity cost: the lost productivity, of those same people were they well-fed and clothed, healthy, and sufficiently educated or trained for productive, tax-paying employment. In the longer term, the additional cost of a healthy, better educated, trained and gainfully employed person, a more stable and contributing family and community member, will most likely be less than the social costs of failing to provide the needed aid, health care or education—and it will likely decrease over time. And the upside, the economic benefit to all, is the added economic productivity of the increasing numbers of new taxpayers paying increasing amounts of taxes.

But, no, it will not happen over night. Most likely, it’s a multi-generational investment. We know that parents, first, and then local culture, schools and peer experiences, are the principal determinants of a young person’s aspirations for education and vocation—and of his or her success with both. We also know that successful programs must address all these elements if they are to succeed.

As a first principle, there seems to be overwhelming evidence that we best reduce the numbers of poor by providing them competency and command over the subjects of a comprehensive education. Our experience to date tells us that leaving poor families inadequately supported and education spending limited to the amounts spent in suburban school systems is often not nearly enough, fair or not. It tells us we have to spend more money on more accountable inner city and rural preschools, elementary, middle, and high schools--and on the most able, best trained teachers. They must be smaller schools with smaller teacher-student ratios, higher expectations, and more personal attention and guidance—whatever the necessary means or cost for a particular community or state may be. And the school-supported involvement of a parent or parents will often make all the difference in the success or failure of the effort.

But, as Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” would also suggest, we cannot get to that place unless a subsistence living and basic healthcare are as much a right of all as they are a need of all. Only then might poor children also be healthy children, and in their best state of readiness to learn. Only then might poor children be likely to grow up to be healthy, well-educated and productive citizens. And then it would be reasonable to expect that the number of criminals and prisoners produced by poverty—and the number of prisons to house them—would be significantly reduced in number, as well. It is easy enough to see how it all could unfold, but a lot of work and persuasion must be done before it can become a national reality. (And these are also the policies and programs that will give new groups in our society an easier stake, a greater, earlier sense of productive contribution and identity in the greatest society of immigrants on earth.)

But it will all cost more money now, even though and especially because the break-even point may take a generation or more to reach. But, if we start investing more generously, more intelligently now, then our grandchildren and each of the succeeding generations will likely see a notable reduction in the number of the poor and unable. Successively, each will inherit lower costs of more effective programs, many more productive citizens, and a corresponding lower individual tax burden. Is it a promise? No, but it appears likely. And it has to be the responsible approach, the right approach, doesn’t it?

You still have doubts and concerns, I know.

Defining Fairness?

But if the long-term economic promise does not resonate with you, if you’re not inclined to invest in the deferred benefit inuring in time to your grandchildren and future generations, then please, tell me more of this social or ideological tenet of faith that is so often, so ardently and self-interestedly espoused: the unfairness or inequity of adequately, effectively providing for those in need.

Have I not made a fair case? Aren't there relatively clear, functionally-defined limits to the notion of merit as arbiter of everyone’s basic opportunities, successes, and quality of life? Are we talking about anything less than what a truly civilized, humane society of great opportunity and wealth should in good conscience provide to those who are ill-equipped or not equipped to compete effectively? Now those are rhetorical questions.


But if your notions of fairness are uncomfortable traveling companions with mine, and if you find my economic considerations unwelcome or merely irksome, then how do you feel about the importance of maintaining social and political stability in America? How do you feel about the shrinking middle class and growing chasm between those Americans who have the most and those who have the least? Are you concerned that America’s working middle class are falling further behind economically and losing increasing numbers of jobs with each passing year? Aren’t these also good questions?

For those who have jobs, our corporations and other businesses can no longer be relied upon as adequate providers of health care and retirement incomes. And our political parties and government have been too polarized in recent administrations to deal with reforming social security and Medicare financing—never mind fashioning a workable national healthcare program. The increasing numbers without jobs or underemployed, including many of our young adults, increasingly can only register despair at their situation, and wonder how it has come to this. These are uncomfortable signs and measures, and are there for all who would recognize them. And history informs us that social despair visited upon increasing percentages of middle-class and poor people can easily lead to social and political instability.

Equal, effective education, basic healthcare, unemployment and retirement incomes, and vocational training and retraining are the least we must provide to all Americans if an acceptable, stable social contract and political process is to be protected in America today.

So, I’m naïve, Pollyannaish, you say; I tilt at windmills. And especially with regard to basic healthcare: it’s just a larger, more complex and expensive undertaking than I appreciate, you say. Perhaps. But if that is so, how do Germany, the Nordic countries, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, and most all advanced, industrialized countries in Europe and Asia manage to provide it to their people—and, on average, at approximately half the cost per capita as the U.S., as well? Oh, you’ve heard that medical care in those places is less advanced, less effective, less efficient than ours. For whom? Tell that to so many of our poor, working middle class and young adults who have limited health care or none at all—right here in the good old US of A. (In 2005, over 47 million people had none.)

This is merely one more example of how poorly competitive markets provide, allocate and manage public-interest goods and services. Consider our manufacturing, professional and service companies, whose response to competitive pressures has been to continually reduce further their contributions to employee health care coverage, while more and more provide little or none at all. Our “efficient, cost-effective” companies are turning out to be very poor stewards of their employees’ health care, much as they have been of their retirement incomes and our shared environment. It is to them just another cost to be reduced, if not eliminated.

And if you think our U.S. healthcare system is so competent, so accommodating, so efficient—for those covered or who can afford it, that is—then you might come and visit some of the doctors, clinics and other healthcare organizations to which so many Americans have had the misfortune of entrusting their medical care. You might also consider whether you haven’t been too long, too much influenced by the steady drumbeat of self-interested propaganda and lobbying by the American medical establishment: profits-first health insurers and pharmaceutical companies, to be sure, but also the AMA, hospitals and other health services providers. Then I would have to ask you, who is naïve?

And as to cost, consider this: more and more high-tech, pharmaceutical, and other new but very expensive methods continue to be developed that extend the end of life for only short periods of time: days, weeks, or possibly months. And I’ve read that about 30% of health care costs now go to the relatively few in the last year of life. For many, it may seem worth it, regardless of the cost, if the decision involves their life or the life of a loved one—but only if they are among the fortunate ones adequately covered by health insurance, or are people of considerable means.

But how can private and government providers of health care insurance reasonably elect to provide extraordinarily expensive short-term extensions of life for the elderly or terminally ill when those resources could be more equitably, more ethically, more responsibly used to provide basic health care for so many with little or no coverage at all. These are the policy decisions for strong, socially responsible government leaders. They are the critical economic and social trade-offs that must be made by a community or nation that attempts to best provide for and protect all its people. It’s a matter of social economics and responsibility, social and medical ethics, and good government.

So, can we solve all our problems, prepare, heal or rehabilitate every person for the better, more productive life? No, you’re right, that is most unlikely. Some, whose circumstances or disabilities are most daunting, will remain in one sense or another in the care of the state. Some will continue on paths that lead to long-term support and care, some to prison. But we can be more intelligent, timelier in the way we identify and address the problems of people most in need or at risk, from both a humanitarian and economic perspective. And we can also be better neighbors, better countrymen, more compassionate, more charitable—and more accountable.

And so, if you would herald with awe and pride the power of our open, competitive markets—and why wouldn’t you?—and the handsome provision it makes for you and the vast majority of us who thrive under it, then please, likewise acknowledge that those who fare poorly under its winner-loser realities are most often no more the authors of their failures than the rest of us are of our successes. And that it is in our best interest—all or ours, together—to extend the open hand of responsible, accountable community to them, bearing the extra expense to help them, providing for them to the extent necessary, so that a sense of success and a productive life is more likely their legacy as it is ours.

But, the answer is still no, isn’t it?

(In the context of both Christian identity and final judgment, my faith also informs me that we are called to an attentive and generous orientation toward the poor, ill, aged and disabled, and also toward our prisoners and the strangers in our country and community. It is not so much the practicality or potential success of the service that matters spiritually, but rather the spirit and heart that responds compassionately with assistance and resources to help those most in need. That is second in importance only to our love of God, and our gratitude that He first loves us. But this orientation too seldom seems to find its way into the everyday expressions of many Christian lives.)

First written: July 2006, updated February 2008

© Gregory E. Hudson 2007



II. Strangers, Different Folk

There’s at least a little xenophobia in all of us—including you and me. And it is too often exploited and heightened by populist demagoguery, and worn brazenly, a badge of ersatz patriotism. Yet nothing could be more dysfunctional, more damaging, in the continuing advancement of American society and culture. We have to get over it.

Of course, I am not talking about the fear of foreigners invading us in the military sense, or the antipathy toward them that is born of generations- or centuries-old territorial, racial, ethnic, or religious antagonisms between one country and another. I am talking about the more benign process of immigration into the United States, and more particularly about immigration of Central and South American Hispanic people across Mexican borders. Although to many it may be cast as an invasion and seem like one, too, it is really just this century’s next major influx of immigrants into this great American land of immigrants.

That is not to say there are not major issues and problems associated with it, problems that distinguish it from prior cycles of immigration. There are. Each cycle has always created its own unique problems and issues. But primarily there has always been the same issue: they were strangers, different folk, from different societies and strange lands. And always there has been the fear and resentment of America’s working class that an influx of low paid immigrants jeopardizes their jobs or their pay scales.

And that is not to say that I don’t have my own concerns and fears about the unique problems posed by this cycle—or the weak responses and poor answers that have so far been forthcoming. For example, I don’t think immigration policy should be a matter of default along the Mexican border. And I don’t think it should be a matter of who is brave enough, strong and fortunate enough, to survive the torturous journey over forbidding lands, or the often dangerous, cramped and dehydrating, cattle-car passages by those often abandoned in the process. Each has taken its toll in injury and death to brave, desperate seekers after work and a better life.

We will talk about problems and policies: the need for reasonably secure borders, a realistic process for legal immigration. But—agree or not—a necessary part of any workable answer is a one-time amnesty and immediate legal re-entry process for qualifying illegal immigrants. Of course, those who are employed or seeking employment would have to make the appropriate commitments to bring them into conformance with the expectations of new, legal immigrants—to do what it takes: whatever is practicable, whatever is right.

But let’s be realistic. There are more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. right now, and repatriating them would be near impossible, logistically and financially. And the truth is that most are employed and needed by American businesses. Confirming that, studies indicate that on a national basis, their presence has not increased unemployment of American citizens. That is not to say there aren’t issues of unemployment and competition for jobs in some areas, but that is more a matter of matching immigrant job seekers with areas of job opportunity, and assuring that all job applicants are paid the same, full, minimum or competitive wage. And notably, amnesty assures that all qualifying illegal immigrants become U.S.taxpayers, as well.

Isn’t this what it comes down to: America needs its continuing flow of immigrants seeking a better life? We need the additional labor resources, the intellectual and creative potential—and the challenge to us to become more than we are. We need the personal and cultural growth and enrichment, the increasing strength and resiliency it brings to America as a nation. And right now, we need the illegal immigrants that have been absorbed into productive work and life in the US.

And, yes, we also need better policies and practices regarding illegal immigration from Mexico. There are real and practical limits to our need and our ability to offer opportunities to legal immigrants. Illegal immigration, if continued, will exceed our ability to assimilate or finance services for the throngs who will continue to slip unnoticed across our borders. But would they continue to take such risks to enter The U.S. illegally when there are no jobs or opportunity?

We know that many who enter the U.S. illegally through Mexico are here only for the work and higher income, while others also enter harboring hopes of finding residence and becoming citizens. We have also learned that when the U.S. economy is poor and jobs are difficult to find, when companies no longer need their services, many illegal immigrants return to Mexico or their countries of origin. Surely, then we could identify some areas for needed change and some intelligent, useful initiatives based on those facts. For example:

  • Creating a credible ongoing process of polling potential employers and estimating potential employment for immigrants would be a helpful first step.

  • Then, creating a clearinghouse for this information and providing it through public media to Mexico and all countries of potential immigrants would be an intelligent next step.

  • Lastly, reforming our immigration process, creating a guest-worker program, increasing our immigration limits to meet the varying needs of our employers, and spreading those new immigration quotas across an appropriate range and number of foreign countries would seem to address a lot of the problems.

Then, the decisions of potential immigrants would be far better informed based on whether or not job opportunities may await them. And pursuing a process of legal immigration or legal guest-worker status might seem more attractive than illegal alternatives. And policing the Mexican border might become an easier process and less of a national and political issue.

We also know that most of Mexico’s sociopolitical elites, its wealthy class, would rather see the US and its taxpayers bear the expense of better educating, compensating, and providing healthcare to as many of their overwhelmingly poor population as possible. Many on both sides of the border view it as an unstated policy and undeterred practice by the Mexico government. But a more realistic and thoughtful reform of our immigration policy and process may force them to be more responsible public leaders and more reliable U.S. neighbors.


So we can sort out more effective ways to secure our borders, in part by providing for a well-informed, fair and efficient immigration process. We can increase the numbers of immigrants or guest workers granted entry based on the potential needs of our employers. And we can find a reasonable, practical way to extend legal status to those of our 11 million-plus illegal immigrants who make the appropriate commitments. And, yes, if our resolve is real and our actions effective, the government of Mexico will have no choice but to work with us more constructively—and also take more responsibility for a progressive tax system that will finance the education and other services its many poor desperately need.

What we shouldn’t do, what we can’t do, is be moved by the disingenuous voices with narrow cultural or ideological axes to grind, or the opportunistic demagogues with political ambitions. Look past these angry, misleading people with their own selfish, xenophobic and exclusionary goals. Think past their rhetoric that is intended to stir, inflame and divide people. Be the great people of promise, opportunity and community that we have the potential to be and often have been.

Only if the pose we strike is as welcoming as it is practical and realistic can we minimize the problems that inevitably arise. Only then can we marshal the good will and intellectual power, see the common cause and join the mutual effort, to solve these problems and continue to grow this country of immigrants in a way that serves us all best. That’s called community, the human family growing closer and stronger. And we can do it better. A lot better.

Our heart for people and community, like my faith, calls us to reach out to the strangers, the different folk, to invite them and welcome them in. But there will be complications. There will be issues of our national need or ability to assimilate, practical limits on how many we can welcome and the conditions of the invitation. Nevertheless, we must hold tight to that impulse, that leading, toward an open mind and welcoming spirit.


First written: September 2006


© Gregory E. Hudson 2007

III. When War?

Some people seem to believe God prosecutes wars. And why shouldn’t they? So many wars have been prosecuted in His name or have claimed justification under the banner of faith. War and religion have such a troubling, unhappy shared history. But in most cases, it has been so hard for me to recognize a foundation in Jesus’ teaching or see God’s guiding hand in the reasons for the continual warring of mankind. And it so often troubles me now to encounter friends, even Christian friends, who are so eager, so ardent, to prosecute and defend our warring adventures. For me, the justifications, presumptions, and purposes have too often been questionable, unsettling, or wrong. (But how can they be wrong when God’s on their side?)

Other people believe we have a social obligation, if not a moral imperative, to impose our cultural and social values, even our form of government, on other peoples or nations. And they will search out justifications and means for becoming change agents, including force of arms. They accept only their definition of freedom and choice, and the legitimacy of lifestyles and government that resonate with them. They fail to recognize that even if another nation elects such a change in direction, it takes time and a process of social and economic evolution to move toward different values and notions of freedom, toward Western notions of democracy. And that change has to come from within. (But how can they be wrong when freedom and right are on their side?)

Then there are those desperate to move more quickly to take up arms to defend innocent peoples attacked and murdered by aggressor nations or oppressor governments. These are often the most heart-wrenching circumstances and dispiriting challenges posed. When do we come to the defense of a neighbor in the larger human community, wherever they may be located? When are we justified, even compelled, to intervene in the name of humanity, community and justice? And when are our good intentions and concerned haste misguided, naive, and wasteful sacrifices of our own resources and people? (But how can they be wrong when humanitarian good intentions and justice are on their side?)

In the face of those questions, I am compelled to ask these questions, as well: When are we justified in going to war at all? When is it acceptable and justifiable to initiate offensive actions, and how much aggression can credibly be argued as defensive? And if defending community and nation is usually justified, what about foreign neighbors or oppressed peoples? Then, under what circumstances do we acknowledge error and extricate ourselves? And under what circumstances, do we respond by saying, “Never again"?

Answers & What Informs Them

I cannot offer answers to these questions without conceding that they are informed by my faith understandings as well as pragmatic realism—and in most cases, they are not only compatible counsel, but have much in common. This should not surprise you.

You are likely familiar with the teaching on the good shepherd, a prominent teaching of Jesus that makes clear that the good shepherd protects and defends his sheep—every one of them—and in the process is ready to sacrificially give up his life for them. Although there could be a narrower point of view taken that the story only foreshadows His atoning sacrifice, and nothing more, that interpretation is far too limited and limiting.

An interpretation that denies the message of sacrificial defense of others would require a level of spiritual and community detachment inconsistent with the notion of a functioning community based on faith, hope and love, on support and trust. It would be inconsistent with any sense of responsibility and accountability for the defense of our families, communities and those in our charge. It would also suggest that the sacrifice of my Lord was not a worthy example to emulate to protect or save others. And if the story prescribes that a good shepherd should give up his life in defense of his sheep, how much more compelling the case and the virtue of giving up your life in defense of others—your family, friends or community. If there could be any further doubt, Jesus makes clear later in the same Gospel of John that, “Greater love has no one than this: that one lay down his life for his friends.”

Surely it is not hard, then, to see appropriate application of the story to any meritorious situation involving defense of those in our charge. The shepherd is easily seen as a parent or guardian, an organization or community leader, the leaders of states or nations, our elected congress and president. It is reasonable to understand the application to include as shepherds higher authorities leading or sending others in defense of the larger community. The sheep, in turn, are easily seen as members of families and organizations, the citizens of communities and nations, those under the charge or within the responsibility of others. But does that extend even to our foreign neighbors who we are also called to respect and love?

Jesus said we are to love our neighbor as ourselves, but then was challenged to answer the question, who is our neighbor? By way of consciousness-expanding example, He gave us the story of the Good Samaritan—a visiting foreigner who came upon a half-dead, beaten and robbed Jew in a dangerous situation. Other Jews, including a priest, would not venture in to save their brother. But the Samaritan, the foreigner, did venture in, risking his own life or well-being to save the abandoned Jew—and later even paid for his further care and recuperation. So, as a nation among nations, as a citizen of the world, who is our neighbor?

Iraq, For Example

At the risk of irritating or alienating some of you, I believe our venture into Iraq is instructive. Although I supported pursuing the enemy that attacked us, al Qaeda, into Afghanistan, and rode that wave of patriotism and defensive zeal into Iraq, it was soon hard for me to see the case, the defensive justification, for our offensive initiative against Iraq.

There was at best a highly questionable basis for arguing that our war on Iraq was defensive, that their weapons of mass destruction, or programs to develop them, so threatened us or the western democracies that offensive action was warranted. First of all, the intelligence and other evidence were always weak, and the WMD unsurprisingly turned out to be nonexistent. And the fact that we were not taking the same offensive action against North Korea and Iran—and did not against China, Pakistan or India—put the lie on that rationalization for war. Certainly, skeptically, one cannot avoid questioning whether the reason we have not militarily confronted Iran or North Korea over their developing nuclear capability, yet did Iraq, is because we took seriously the capability of the first two, but not Iraq. No, it is difficult to see Iraq or Saddam Hussein posing any real threat to the United States or the Western democracies.

And there was never any credible evidence that Saddam Hussein’s secular Ba’athist government materially supported or harbored al Qaeda or other radical Islamist terrorists. They are there now, however, attracted as to a magnet. But rather than a place to defeat al Qaeda, it has become the Islamist terror group’s most effective recruiting and training ground, drawing inspired young Muslims from far and wide.

Was there a compelling argument that we were going in to defend or save the Iraqi people—our foreign neighbors—from the murderous, oppressive despot, Saddam Hussein? It would seem unlikely. Isn’t it clear that if it were merely a matter of ousting malevolent, murderous despots, we would be waging war against tyrants across the globe? But we haven’t the resources, capability or defensive interest to take on that charter, even if we were so unwisely inclined. More than unwise, it would be folly. And we and the world have always understood that. So that puts the lie on that rationalization for the Iraq War, as well.

But does that adequately answer the question of whether the long-suffering Iraqi people are our foreign brethren to be saved or defended? Even if the pragmatic question of whether we could defend or save them were left open, the revealing first question is this: who are the Iraqi people to be saved, and from whom? Are they each of the three separate and long-contentious sectarian factions, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds—all of whom want their separate, self-governing states—or all of them together? And given their long history of disputes and armed conflicts among themselves, who are they to be defended against or saved from, Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athists, al Qaeda, or—as is now so distressingly clear—each other? Too often we find our principles unavoidably frustrated or compromised in the gray areas of complicated cultures and history, realpolitik, and pragmatism, don’t we?

And so I can only surmise that the initiative against Iraq was more an opportunistic one, and the principal reasons that motivated it were not defensive in nature (and were unlikely to find approval with the American people if made known). Some claiming inside knowledge have suggested the defensive move against al Qaeda into Afghanistan set the occasion and provided cover for Mr. Bush to settle unfinished national and personal business with Saddam Hussein. Also troubling are reports claiming we had worn out our welcome in Saudi Arabia, and so used the opportunity and cover to try to secure Iraq as a friendly base of operations in the Middle East.

Regardless, whatever it was, it was not defensive in the sense that it related in any way to the 9/11 attack on the US or pursuing the attackers, however reasonably defined. It was not done at the invitation of the Iraqi people—or with the support of the United Nations, or even many of our traditional allies. And since deposing Saddam Hussein, the breadth of our welcome has grown razor thin with the resulting escalation of sectarian conflict and violence. Our image is tarnished. Our prestige and respect in the world have suffered; our power and influence are more suspect. And the body count continues to rise, ours and theirs.

Rethinking Next Steps

So what now? Neither pragmatic secular analysis nor the Bible has clear, unequivocal answers for every discrete situation. But there are always greater principles and lesser principles, broader, guiding directions and narrower ones. Consider Jesus’ advice when he first sent out the seventy followers “as sheep among wolves.” He admonished them to be “shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves… to beware of men...” And He cautioned them against presenting their pearls—the best, the highest they have to offer—before those who would destroy or dishonor them.

True enough, this teaching is not specifically about when a warring action is appropriately defensive rather than offensive, or whether a foreign person or nation is a “neighbor” to be defended or saved. What it does clearly relate, however, is the priority on being careful, wise, and self-protective—yes, self-defensive—when dealing with the people, cultures and circumstances in the world outside our community or nation. It clearly indicates that we are to avoid unwisely placing our people or resources, our beliefs, ideals or values, at risk of harm or dishonor by those that do not understand or share them.

And yes, we must be prepared to help the innocent foreign nation under meritorious circumstances, but also be careful of whom we approach to help—and how—based on the realities of the “helping” situation. We have to be constantly mindful that both God and the wisdom of the world speak to us through all the people and circumstances of life—and we are unwise if we do not take counsel from them.

We, the American government at least, have erred too much on the side of being naive, even foolish—and arrogant and presumptuous, no doubt—rather than thoughtful and worldly-wise in our occupying venture into Iraq. And if that is so, then Jesus likely would have advised that we should now take an honest assessment of the situation and the other parties, and acknowledge that it was not a place we should have entered, not a cause we should have undertaken. We should then “go out of that…city” and as we go we should “shake off the dust of [our] feet”—that is, call it and treat it as a cause not justifying the sacrifice of the best we have to offer: our ideals, our honor, and the lives of our people. And, for its part, Iraq didn’t deserve the worst we had to offer: war, disorder and heightened sectarian conflict resulting in death, loss of homes, friends, family and hope.

The sectarian factions of Iraq were not ready to join together to establish and defend representative, pluralistic democracy. It was thrust upon them—and for questionable reasons. They did not yet have the cultural, economic and legal foundations, the history, social values and resolve to make it work. They were a forced cobbling of sectarian factions who did not even want to be a nation together, and were held together only by the force of a brutal political dictatorship. Functioning democracy once established and aged is a strong and resilient way of governance and political life. But in the process of its making, it is a fragile philosophy, a vulnerable process of government, economic and social life that takes time and the right circumstances to evolve. These were not those circumstances.

When I first found myself witlessly carried along from Afghanistan to war with Iraq, I failed to consider sufficiently the guidance of my faith, just as I had failed to understand sufficiently the distinguishing facts, the regional sectarian and geopolitical realities, and the resulting lack of wisdom in pursuing that unfortunate adventure. But it all soon became quite clear. And more, it now appears quite unlikely Iraq will become a functioning, Western-style democracy anytime soon. Neither is it at all likely to provide the US a secure military base for operations in the Middle East.

We have opened wide this Pandora’s Box, and the sectarian conflict unleashed now follows its own regrettable course. But yes, we have a reasonable duty to help mitigate the harm done—diplomatically, through mediation and financial aid, through a leadership role for the U.N.—but not with the vain sacrifice of more American lives. Our occupying military presence can only continue to complicate the situation and further delay its ultimate resolution.


It would appear the only reasonable and helpful contribution we can now make is to join with the U.N.—and in consultation with other nations in the Middle East region, to be sure—in brokering a partitioning of Iraq back among its constituent sects. There are indications that once a timely plan and schedule for our departure is set, the sectarian parties are likely to be more serious about good-faith negotiations. This is understandable since they will no longer have us in the middle to be influenced against or for one side or the other—and to keep funding it all.

But such a partitioning could only work if each of the three separate groups would take with them a negotiated participating interest in a pan-Iraq oil revenue-sharing agreement audited by the U.N. As to al Qaeda-Iraq, it is likely the Shiite and Kurdish militias would eliminate them in their territories in due course—and there is evidence that the mainstream Sunnis might do the same. But regrettably, partitioning is not now on the table, and it has no visible champion.

So, absent such a partitioning agreement, the sectarian factions in Iraq and their regional sponsors will doubtless continue to intrigue and war against each other as they have done for centuries. But, yes, this could be contained, limited somewhat for some time, by our willingness to incur the cost—in financial, geopolitical and human terms—of continuing our occupation of Iraq. And then, only as long as the dominant Shiite militias and the Sunni factions continue to see their interests served by their temporary cease fires with U.S. forces and each other.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration—nothing if not obstinately consistent—still harbors intentions of negotiating a continuing, long-term role of just that sort, one which also might provide the basis for the coveted military base and logistical staging area they want so badly in the Middle East. And cost—cost of any type, apparently—just does not seem to be a factor. It all appears a misguided cobbling together of obsolete elements of cold war thinking, and the presumptuous, ill-informed cowboy-style foreign policy now so aptly called the Bush Doctrine.

But regardless of the term of our folly, whether we set a plan for withdrawal now or only after more pain and loss, only then are Iraq’s sectarian factions likely to work out their differences and sort out their territory and interests. As was the case among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, you can only keep an oppressive or coercive lid on historical rivals or enemies sharing the same space for so long. The evolution of their geopolitical relationships can be advanced only in the context of their own identity and interests—and by their own efforts. And, yes, unfortunately, that could be a protracted and bloody process. But the only role we can reasonably, effectively play is that of invited arbiter. And even then, we can act credibly and effectively only as one among others under the banner of the United Nations.


So lets be real, please. Our American interests, ambitions and commitments—and our next steps—must be better informed by reality, reason and a more modern sense of protective self interest. And they now suggest quite clearly that we must change our role and start removing our forces from Iraq—and just as timely and prudently as we can while protecting our logistical systems, our resources, and our people. I think most of us now understand that it is long past time to shake the sand off our feet and start bringing our sons and daughters home.

Postscript: Afghanistan, Western Pakistan, Still There

But we also understand that many or most of our troops—of those who do not remain in Iraq, that is—will simply be reassigned to another battlefield. Regrettably, there remains unfinished and still justified the pursuit of our attackers into Afghanistan and western Pakistan.

What was clear to some at the time is now painfully clear to all. Before we were able to complete our primary mission to eliminate the operational center and symbolic heart of al Qaeda—and importantly, Osama bin Laden—we diverted most of our military attention and forces to Iraq. And it has been, as we’ve seen, an error of historic proportions, and an unwarranted and wasteful depleting of American resources and lives.

Meanwhile, the al Qaeda leadership and their Taliban sponsors have reestablished themselves and are again back in business in Afghanistan and western Pakistan—while the nuclear-armed Pakistani government grows notably less stable. And in so many ways, America and its people are now war-weary. We lack the same will, the same commitment to complete the only mission that was justified and mattered, the mission that should have been successfully concluded years ago, the mission that still must be faced and fought to its conclusion. And occupying its appropriate earlier place and time in history, we find only the regrettable legacy of our misdirected, self-defeating war in Iraq.


But when our basic mission is completed, when al Qaeda’s principal leaders are eliminated and the Taliban has been defeated, surely there is no wisdom to be found in another occupying role for our troops in Afghanistan or Pakistan. There is no wisdom in another interminable guerrilla war with the scattered remnants of the Taliban or other sectarian insurgent groups. Surely our lessons in Vietnam and Iraq, and the clear if ironic lessons of Russia in Afghanistan, cannot be lost on us. And as unlikely as it sometimes seems, the Afghan and Pakistani armed forces must then diligently carry out those roles.

For those clear reasons, we should depart Afghanistan and Pakistan as soon as our basic mission is completed, as soon as we have made clear our commitment to rightly—defensively—and consistently respond in force by pursuing and neutralizing those who attack us. And when we do finally bring our sons and daughters home, we must still be prepared to pursue and fight again those set on our destruction.

First written: September 2006, updated February – March 2008
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007

IV. Never Again?

I've been loose in my use of the declaration, “Never again.” I've sometimes used it to underscore our repeated national misjudgments of other cultures and our warring misadventures. But I know the use of those words has been forever conjoined with the inhumanity of genocide since the Holocaust of World War II. It was not my purpose to further dilute its resolve and power, or its association with genocide. I recognize that genocide is the greatest horror of all, clearly. And I recognize that I might, by overuse, be adding to the dilution of the meaning and power of these words. But, regrettably, that is unlikely.

You see, it is not as if there have been fewer incidents of genocide to be concerned about, as if we have responded consistently and forcefully to stop it wherever it has lifted its shadowed, distorted face. If anything, the declaration, "Never again," is now bereft of power and moral authority primarily because there have been so many occasions to raise the signal call, occasions that have been allowed to run their course or run their course too long. And while the declaration continues, it most often falls on impotent or jaded ears, and dissipates into a collective sense of resignation.

In all its horror, genocide has continued undeterred since World War II: in the USSR, the killing fields in Cambodia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in Rwanda, the Congo, Darfur, and too many other places in Africa. So frequent have the incidents of the ultimate inhumanity by man against man become, and so often have they been carried out with impunity, that we have become desensitized, numbed to the horrific accounts of them. Yes, there are international laws making genocide a crime—arguably since 1948, certainly since 1977—but who will enforce them, when and how?

During the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina, my daughter, then in middle school, came to me, indignantly, asking how this could be happening. After all, hadn’t the world said, “Never again?” Hadn’t I assured her that it should never happen again? She remembered my recounting of my first exposure to that humanistic declaration by way of my eighth-grade history teacher, Mr. Harrison. He was an American Jew and had been a soldier with the liberating U.S. forces that first reached the Auschwitz death camp. And he had taken an album full of pictures of the humanity-debasing horrors of that place. It was history—ugly history of the basest of man’s potential, but it was history. And he shared it with us as part of our studies of modern European history. Pretty heavy, disturbing stuff to share with 13 year-olds, I suppose. But the experience and the images have never left me. And like my daughter who had relied on my assurances, I had remained naively confident that the world had meant it when it collectively said, “Never again.”

But I have learned. And in my more despondent moments, a cynical, resentful view emerges. All the impotent declarations appear more a dark charade of misleading, empty promises and false hopes played out against a cruel and denying reality. They are empty because no assurances are possible; they are false because all reasonable hope has been rendered futile by national and geopolitical realities. And the cruel, denying reality is perpetuated by the exploitive, populist demagoguery of those ultimately bent on the dominating regional power that enables “ethnic cleansing:” hatefully rationalized, unrepentant, ethnic or sectarian mass murder.

And on the surface, at least, it also appears abided by the self-comforting rationalizations and non-confrontational dispositions of the world's advanced nations and cultures. We express outrage without action, or blinker our eyes to the sinister truth standing boldly at the shadowed periphery of the international community. We all understand how it works; we’ve seen it again and again.

But this rant is merely the instinctive flailing of my savaged naivety, the resentment of my flagging hope. Most of the time, my view is more balanced, tempered by the realities and responsibilities of nations in world-wide society, and informed by the more difficult lessons of my faith. I have learned that controlling or stopping the principals and agents of genocide is most often a frustratingly, dishearteningly complex matter.

Doubtless, there have been occasions when the world might have more timely, more effectively limited or stopped the carnage. But more frequent have been the unsatisfying cases where the complexities, barriers to success, and the likely cost in lives lost of intervening forces, dictated reasonable caution, going slowly. In those cases, intervention was most often pursued through diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and the use of political or economic sanctions or incentives. Unsatisfying responses, yes, and often of limited effect. And the necessary analyses are unavoidably cold, clinical critiques of trade-offs, costs and benefits, of national self interest.

Inaddequate and unresponsive as they may seem to human sensibilities and the humanitarian challenge, these analyses and limited-action approaches may nonetheless be the most responsible choices available. Unsatisfying, yes, and at the very least infused with pain, guilt and a sense of negligence or contributory culpability, sins of omission and the failure to act.

First there are questions to ask, facts to be gathered, assessments to be made. Are we sure it is genocide? Is there a sufficient opportunity and likelihood that those carrying out the genocide can be stopped, and stopped in time? And what if both sides are carrying out genocidal atrocities as part of what might otherwise be called war or civil war? And at what price military intervention, including especially the human lives of American, NATO or UN military troops?

Some of the likely assessments might include these:

(1) by the time multinational liberating forces can agree on strategy and tactics, exhaust reasonable efforts at negotiated settlements, marshal the necessary logistics, friendly base locations and troops, then engage the identified aggressors, much of the killing will have been carried out;

(2) even if timely intervention were possible, the terrain, cultures, issues, or the aggressors and the victims involved, may be such that success could be achieved only at a high cost in American and allied lives and resources lost—and still the killing may not be stopped; or

(3) even if successful in halting the killing, the continuing protection and peace for the victims may require long-term occupation and “nation building” in the region by American and international forces—and that against the likely backdrop of interminable guerilla warfare by one or more of the ethnic, sectarian, or ideological factions involved.

And perhaps we could expand on the unhappy scenarios. But are these good reasons, or just rationalizations? I most often conclude that there is nothing “good” about them—but neither are they rationalizations. They are most often wholly unsatisfying, but sadly realistic and pragmatic assessments. And while these occasions are never directly related to the security of our borders and people—to our self defense—aren’t those being killed rightly seen as our foreign brothers in humanity? Yes, of course they are, but the practical questions must still be asked, the wiser voices heeded, however unsatisfying the answers. Doesn’t it all make you sick with grief?

Of course, the other difficult question, a further injustice, involves why the leaders of genocidal aggressions so often evade being called to account by the UN, its International Court, or other ad hoc, but official, national tribunals. That registers like tacit approval, an open license for more genocidal horrors. Some have been prominently held to account, of course: the Nazi leaders after WWII, Milosevic after Bosnia and Herzegovina, and a few others from time to time. But the clear impression in most cases is that those genocidal leaders are not or cannot be held to account for their transgressions against humanity. Perhaps the new International Criminal Court will be more effective, but don’t hold your breath—especially with the U.S. pointedly refusing to be bound by it.

It is the practical, protective realities of national sovereignty in some cases. In others, it is the frustrating allied relationships among geopolitical, ethnic or sectarian factions that provide shelter. And sometimes it seems there just isn’t enough continuing rage and impassioned principle remaining to continue to press the issue. Rationalizations also abound: perhaps the death toll hasn’t reached some sufficient threshold for international outrage; or, perhaps it is dismissed as just an incorrigible part of the world doing what it sometimes does.

And so, I've become resigned to the episodic expressions of genocide. Steeped in the details and trade-offs of geopolitical considerations and national realities, passion gives way to practicality. For these horrific challenges seldom admit of resolutions as tidy, honorable and unsullied as our principles and passions. My eyes feel sad, tired when I reflect on the fact that genocide really is part of the human condition, the potential of man—that the ever-present dark side of man is really that dark. And given the continuing depth of ethnic and religious hatred, there will continue to be incidents of genocide in our world. Disheartening as it is likely, genocide may always be with us.

But if we must sometimes concede with resignation that there’s just nothing more we can realistically do—however true it may be—we are still painfully and rightly aware that it falls well short of lifting the burden on our collective consciences. And although there are the few, the gifted ones, who are able to see or understand God even in these horrific circumstances, for most everyone else whose lives cross the path of genocide, it seems like hell on earth.

First written: August 2006, edited January 2010

© Gregory E. Hudson 2007

V. Cassandra's Tears

Surreal—or more, Kafkaesque. That’s the way it all seems to me now. As in the case of the Iraq War, I feel lied to and purposely misled. You should, too. And when experts tried to tell us the truth, we didn’t believe them, couldn’t or wouldn’t. In that sense, it played out for most environmental scientists and their supporters rather like Cassandra’s curse. But no more, not for me at least. For some time, I’ve understood that the progress and threat of global warming is altogether serious—and, our denials notwithstanding, that we are a significant part of the problem. By now you probably know that, too.

It wasn’t just the focused research and sober reports that underscored the credibility, scope and progression of the problem—and our failure to act or even agree on the need to act. It wasn’t just the sinking, impotent feeling that, while blindly self-interested factions continued to contest every scientific study and public policy initiative affirming the challenge, the problem grew larger and the challenge greater. All that is true, but at the heart of the issue is this oddly enigmatic thing called human nature, and its sometimes counterintuitive and destructive self-gratification and self-preservation instincts. And as a result, the protagonists, the odd collection of political, business and religious bedfellows—leaders, so called—cast their accountability aside, and in the clear light of day pursued self interest to the point of self delusion to the detriment and endangerment of all.

It was sad irony to observe the concurrent operation of these self-interest and self-preservation mechanisms destructively gone awry. It was painful to observe the myopic and selfish, short-term views and manipulative actions of this loose but powerful alliance being received by the vast majority of others—you and me—passively, preferring as we do to hear that there really is no problem at all.

And it didn’t help that in the past, so many environmental warnings have been cynically miscast by those same folks as overstated or unsupported cries of “wolf.” That persistent groundwork has made it all the easier for them to effectively dismiss this warning as well. But this time it was too real, too here-and-now, and the threat too great. It took time—perhaps too much time—but most now recognize that this environmental threat will require large-scale remedial attention, planning and action. Now, even the powerful elements of resistance are breaking ranks out of changing self interest. It is finally happening.

The Implacable Opposition

But some will continue to protest that material questions and uncertainties remain. Aren’t there weaknesses in the data, especially for long-ago periods? Aren’t there questions about the assumptions made in the predictive models being used? And as a result, aren’t there uncertainties as to the impact and timing of the problem? The answer to all those questions is, yes, of course. Science often must use statistical methods, assumptions and estimates in its work. It must traffic in probabilities. That does not make the predictions wrong or unreliable. The predictions are necessarily placed in the context of a reasonable range and probability of where the actual results will fall. And that is the case here.

The public naysayers and critics that remain continue to employ the tactics of focusing everyone’s attention on these limited weaknesses in data and methodology—sometimes painting them in broad, obscuring strokes, but just as often focusing on details in order to divert our attention from the larger picture. But the data, the modeling and analysis—a sizable and growing body of evidence—clearly confirm the validity of the problem, its likely scope and timing within a reasonable range that accounts for the uncertainties. That’s called research science. And much of our societal and technological advancement—much of our knowledge—has been based on the same type of methodological and analytical work.

And for those who remain unconvinced that we are playing a material, causative role in advancing the problem, or that there is anything we can do about it, I don’t quite know what to say to you without being uncharitable. I can only suggest that you start reading more credible, comprehensive sources of information, listen to better informed voices, and prepare yourself to be open to accepting and dealing with the reality of the role we play. But regardless, are you really willing to bet the future of the earth on your standard of being absolutely convinced?

It is not just a question of believing or wanting to believe that the actual result will fall on the more benign end of the range of possible climate change, or even if it doesn’t that there is little we can do about it anyway. It is a question of the probabilities: (1) the probability there will be a dangerous, threatening result, an environmental catastrophe by one definition or another, and (2) the probability that our role in it is significant. The fact of global warming and the scope of its potential threat are no longer seriously debated. It’s a fact, and the results could be catastrophic. And while the role of industrial societies, and especially of fossil fuel consumption, is not seriously in doubt either, how much we can and should do to mitigate or remedy the problem remains the subject of interminable political maneuvering and debate—both in the US and the rest of the world.

But how did we get here? Who played what roles and why?

The Players

It has been easy to understand the motivations of business executives—at least the ones profiting from the products, by-products, practices and processes that destroy environmental balances, ecosystems, and the self protective qualities of the planet’s atmosphere. They do fear being cast as the ones most responsible for bearing costly remediation or righting harm done, but many still prefer to take their chances at casting the people harmed in that role, the citizen taxpayers. And most of them won’t make costly changes unless mandated by laws and regulations; it’s just the way the system and incentives most often work.

It’s just that human nature thing. The cost of altering or abandoning irresponsible policies, damaging practices or polluting products would materially reduce their profitability, at least in the short term. And they are all about the short term: short-term revenues, short-term costs, short-term profits. Their pressures and incentives are powerful: some quite shamelessly open, and some subtle and co-opting—but all are powerful. I’m sure you understand. So long as they can say that they operate legally, they are less likely to change. Profits, power and greed make addicts of us all.

But some companies are beginning to see that their short-term and long-term self interest may now be better served by solving this problem. More of them are publicly changing their views. One group of chief executives from large, prestigious companies has called on the White House and Capitol Hill to mandate changes on companies to reduce further greenhouse gas emissions and otherwise act to abate the impact of global warming. They understand what it will take.

And much of the insurance industry, including giant Swiss Re and others, have concluded that the threat of catastrophe, the cost, and our role in it are all too real and growing larger. These are the people who make their living quantifying risks and underwriting related losses and costs. It’s not an arm-chair exercise for them, not an ideological, theological or political disagreement. It’s dollars and cents and financial survival. But for us, the stakes are higher.


And what about our politicians, especially the most ideologically conservative, those who recoil at proposed business and environmental regulation, those who advocate for constituent businesses that are the worst environmental offenders? In the interest of political control and power they protect their gerrymandered districts and the financial interests of their most ardent and generous supporters.

They too have played their part in undermining the objectivity and alleged “agenda” of the steady stream of scientific evidence clearly indicating an environment gravely at risk. Warnings issued have been effectively dismissed. Dilatory tactics and the worst of subverting spin, propaganda, and lawyerly detail mongering by party and government leadership obscure the policy forest for the political trees of self interest. Power, influence and prestige make addicts of us all.

But this too is now changing. At some point, even politicians must act accountably.


And then there is the Christian Right—those Christians most theologically and ideologically conservative, and most politically active. And do not misunderstand or be mislead—surely, you must know—large number of our politicians, including some of our most powerful, share many of their views and, regardless, are captive to their political power and influence. You cannot really be surprised that we’ve heard the same message from a conservative executive branch, Capitol Hill, and the media of the Christian Right’s para-church organizations. The political right and the Christian Right, sadly, regrettably, now appear almost inseparable.

But why have so many among the Christian Right been so interested in disputing the credibility of scientific findings about the environment? What has this to do with their faith and cultural values agenda? Why would this be a priority? Is it merely a matter of political bedfellows—they, the ideological right, and business—a matter of alliances and mutual back scratching?

Or could it also have something to do with scientists, especially life scientists? The climatologists and other environmental scientists work alongside biologists, biochemists, botanists, and paleobiologists—liberal scientists, by definition, in the view of many of the Christian Right. And if they would discredit the work of these scientists in one area—human evolution—how can they accept or support their work in another? Just as many of their leaders and pastors have blithely denied the overwhelming volume of research findings revealing and supporting evolutionary processes, so they have also undermined the increasing volume of research findings revealing the threat of global warming and our role in it. It may seem inconsistent, even ironic, for a religious faction to turn a blind eye to the stewardship of God’s creation in this way, but I’m sure you understand that too. Theocratic culture, power and identity would make automatons of us all.

But there is reason for some optimism in this area, also. Many evangelical Christian leaders have closed ranks and made common cause with the scientific community over addressing the problem of global warming. This is notable because large numbers of evangelical Christians also identify with the Christian Right. And at least some of them are rediscovering and restoring their obligation to honor and protect God’s creation.

The Irony

How ironic is it that the seats of power and influence in the most enlightened and educated country in history have so often been occupied by business leaders, politicians, and politically-oriented Christian conservatives who have found it profitable or in their self interest to dismiss our most accomplished research scientists? So powerful has been the collective need of these leaders to shelter and protect yesterday’s ideas, thinking, and order of things, so brittle and fragile has been their hold on their truth and their fear of change, that they have undermined the validity of scientific findings and recast objective reality.

And it is also ironic that it has been these selfsame, self-proclaimed defenders of truth that have subverted the truth and the long-term health of their environment—and in so doing, their companies, their polity, the credibility of their faith foundations, and the very health and lives of their people.

You may remember in Greek mythology Apollo’s selfish and resentful curse on Troy’s Cassandra: her prophesies would be true, but no one would believe her. For too long, scientists and others who have continued to raise the flags of warning have surrealistically shared Cassandra’s frustration. And for much of that time, the business, political and religious interests most co-opted by their self interest and the status quo have played Apollo’s role too well. Through rhetorical legerdemain—spin, by any other name—they daily misled and confused us over what was fact and what was not, and delayed too long the course of action most prudent in protecting the health, lives and interests of all people. And all that time, they and we have continued to despoil the place where we live, the place that nurtures and protects us.

Your Role and Mine

And then there are you and me. But what have we done? Nothing, you say. Exactly. We haven’t wanted the additional inconvenience and cost either, have we? We just wanted it all to go away. We were too inclined to accept convenient assurances and blinker our eyes to the possibilities that might complicate our lives. We wouldn’t accept the responsibility of challenging those we have come to know should not be trusted. So deep and ubiquitous has been our aversion to the truth when inconvenience, discomfort or loss attends it. We’ve preferred to believe that those powerful groups, those leaders rendering accommodating points of view, were not acting out of their own self interest at all, but rather had all of our best interests at heart. We just wanted to believe it. We wanted to trust them.

But as the scope and depth of the problem has finally become clear, as the increasing level of required cost and sacrifice is starting to become clear as well, we cannot blame only the business executives and politicians who shamelessly and unaccountably followed their basest incentives. That’s what we should have known to expect of them. No, if we want to know who else to blame, who else is at fault, we must look in the mirror.

Of course, blaming our human nature—and that’s what it is—will provide little relief or comfort. And although we can always try to blame our political system, that won’t get us very far either—and it misses the point. Our political system is ultimately our only hope. And it only responds to us when we voice and vote our opinion, our position, clearly and consistently. That is our power, and politicians understand it very well. But we have not exercised that power. So they have responded to our silence in the only way they know how: they’ve listened to those other interested voices, the voices of core constituents and money that pander to their hubris and power. It is long past time for you and me to more often be clearly heard.

If, knowing what we now know, we fail much longer as a nation to build consensus and act, if we wait for the waves of crisis to lap up on our door step, much greater will be the social calamity and the costs. These are not merely projections for our distant future. The cycle has already begun. We are already seeing some of the results and incurring some of the costs. The elevation of CO2 levels and temperatures, the melting of permafrost, glaciers and ice caps, are continuing much faster, more broadly than most projected. This is an active, growing threat to our living places and the quality of life that attends them—and for many, their very lives. And just as this did not occur overnight, it cannot be reversed overnight.

But if views are now changing, will they change fast enough? Leading voices and most people are starting to call for remedial action. It is surely time to agree on a plan, the course and scope of our action, and the need to effect it now. But if we continue to delay, or further allow delay, and those in authority fail to act or prescribe too little, who can we then blame? By then, all we can do, the only act of honesty left to us, is to look in the mirror with despair and resignation, and recognize in ourselves both the face of Apollo’s resentful self interest and that of Cassandra’s tears.


First written: August 2006
© Gregory E. Hudson 2007

VI. Torture: A Fall From Grace

I. Understandings: Human Nature & Governance Principles

Let's be honest and clear about all this. When imminent danger threatens the American mainland and its people, it is instinctive--or, at least completely understandable--to want to pull out all the stops to protect them. And do it fast. That's exactly what President George W. Bush did immediately after 9/11. And most all of us supported him in his pursuit of al Qaida into Afghanistan--even if the remainder of his presidency was at best misinformed and misled in so many areas of national interest.

And if using extreme interrogation measures--torture, yes--to gain information thought critical to protecting the American homeland from another attack was what it might take, then we might understandably consider making an exception this time. Erring on the side of doing everything possible—torture or not-- was embraced by many people in the emotional moment of this immediate threat. And even if you don't relate to this emotion personally, you can understand it, perhaps even sympathize with it.

We might then also understand and sympathize with those in subordinate positions--even important positions--called upon to formulate the national security rationale and legal support for a policy change on torture. We might see how they would view it as their patriotic duty to support their government leaders and help make it happen. Under these circumstances, it is at the very least unfair and inappropriate to hold subordinate staff in the national security apparatus and the Justice Department criminally culpable for bringing their best skills to their duty to serve their superiors, including the heads of the CIA and Justice Department and, yes, the Vice President and President of the United States. It is after all, a legitimate issue of national security, and they should bring their best supporting arguments to the policy discussion, as they also address arguments to the contrary.

Lawyers are by training and the requirements of their codes of ethics aggressive advocates for their client-employers. Wherever there is an argument to be made on the merits, the facts or law, it is their duty to their clients-employer to make that argument and defend their interests aggressively. National security agents, in turn, must be able to depend on the rulings of the Justice Department and their agency or departmental leaders. It is not their place to be jurist or moral arbiter. That responsibility rests with those whose job it is to judge the merits of the arguments and appropriately protect the higher moral ground (see II, below). In this case, that responsibility fell to the same heads of the Justice Department and the CIA, National Security Council, and the Vice President and President of the United States of America. And, as a matter of sound policy, great latitude must be allowed in exercising those judgments.

Justice Department lawyers who did their professional duty (writing supporting opinions), however narrowly defined, and those CIA or other staff operatives or agents who in turn did theirs in effecting the policy (using approved torture techniques in interrogations) should not be punished for doing what their government and their professions expected of them. Any other approach would inappropriately, perhaps dangerously, impede the proper functioning of departmental and agency professionals in their service of both the government and the governed. It would also encourage and expand the unseemly “get-even” tendencies extant in our adversarial political party structure to the point where the first order of business for each succeeding administration would be a witch hunt for those responsible for policies they disagreed with. That approach to governing would be profoundly lacking in reason and wisdom. And it would surely weaken government's ability to function responsibly and accountably in the future.

Of course, however unsatisfying it may be, this same policy concern applies to our policy leaders as well. If government executives had to second guess every policy decision entertained based on whether they might somehow be charged with criminal culpability by a later-elected administration--an opposing political party, perhaps--government would be restrained from making difficult decisions addressing our country's most important issues and serving its best interests. This would be an untenable context for government. Excepting clear and material violations of U.S. or international law, policy decisions of senior policy makers must be immune from prosecution.

So, then, is there no recourse against our senior-most policy making executives of government? Of course not; that too would be unjust and fail to serve good and accountable government. If there is a question of violation of international law--the Geneva Convention, for example--the appropriate international authority or court has the primary responsibility of bringing forward such charges. Where timing is critical, a sitting legislature may bring articles of impeachment in appropriate cases. Otherwise, it is the duty of congress and succeeding presidential administrations to investigate serious concerns with material policy breaches of U.S. or international law by predecessor administration officials. In egregious cases, a bi-partisan commission should be empanelled to investigate and report findings--a "truth-telling" commission, if you will. Such exercises may be important to understanding and correcting institutional and individual governmental failures, and advancing reconciliation between the American people and their government. Of course, it also identifies those guilty of indiscretions, errors and harm done. And, if important to the cause of justice done, individual censure may also be appropriate. Public shame--shame as history--is punishment enough for the culpable. We shouldn't underestimate the power of the effects resulting.

II. Leadership: A Shining Beacon of Principles & Ideals?

Among the qualities we should expect in a U.S. president are those of the classic philosopher-leader and statesman. Presidents, to be sure, but vice presidents, and senior government and legislative leaders, too, should aspire to that ideal. But over the course of my lifetime--62 years--it appears to me that we have seen less and less of those qualities reflected in our presidents and leaders.

This is not a unique or profound observation; it has been noted often by many thoughtful writers over those years. And doubtless, it has been an issue of concern at various other times in US history. But seldom has it reached such a low point as it did in the eight years of the George W. Bush presidency. There were precious little of those qualities present or expressed by him, his vice president, and many in his administration. And as ideological purists and the political Religious Right combined to dominate and tightly narrow the identity of the Republican Party, the political and legislative process became partisan, polarized, and dysfunctional to the extreme--a matter of deep concern to those who observed and chronicled it all from the fewer places where wisdom resided.

The ideal of the philosopher-leader and statesman balances the exigencies and practicalities of everyday politics, economics and the national welfare--yes, including the lower expressions of populist demagoguery and political self-interest--with the need to define and protect the higher principles and ideals of enlightened humanity in community: the shining beacon on a hill, if you will. Yes, American presidents and their administrations have seldom fully realized or fully reflected those highest of ideals. But many came close, especially those founding thinkers and statesmen like Washington and Adams, those who set the foundation stones, the visionary principles and ideals. And, yes, there was Lincoln. Others would fairly suggest the presidencies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Theodore Roosevelt. All these presidents and others acted consistently and unambiguously to express and defend our ideals and policies condemning abuse and torture of prisoners.

But President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and their cabinet leadership left little evidence that a philosopher-leader's and statesman’s more enlightened principles found a respected voice in the decision making of their administration. Theirs was more a creature and servant of the unregulated marketplace, and therefore of large corporations and the most wealthy--but also of the narrow cultural dictates of the highly political, judgmental Religious Right, and the often xenophobic, jingoistic and bellicose nationalism reflected so often by their core constituencies.

The world was changing around them, and they couldn't understand what it meant or how to respond. Their only instinct and personal point of reference was the lowest common denominator of the simplest, black-and-white constructions, understandings, and responses to complex, interdependent cultural, economic, and geopolitical changes. They refused to talk or listen to other voices, honorable voices, who might help them--including the wiser former President G.H.W. Bush and key members of his very able cabinet.

What does it say about us that, when our people, leaders and ideals are threatened, we bow to our basest instincts and abandon the higher ground for expediency's sake? What does it say about us that we would waterboard a man 183 times in one month? I'm still stunned by the reality of it. What more could we expect to be confessed by the man the last 170 or 180 times? As civilized people, don’t we recognized this as cruel and unusual punishment in extemis? In states where capital punishment is allowed, this level of pain and suffering could not be imparted in a legal execution, however heinous the crime or deserving the criminal. These "enhanced interrogation techniques" appear as much about illegal punishment as interrogation.

Former Vice President Cheney would have us believe that justification for these "enhanced interrogation techniques" stands or falls based on their efficacy. That is, did they produce actionable, "high-value" intelligence? Somehow, the vice president missed the college class discussion on Aristotelian ethics, the discussion on means and ends. A foundation stone, a necessary consideration, in any discussion or decision making is whether the ends justify the means. If you are the US--or most other civilized Western countries--and purport to occupy, exemplify and defend the high moral ground, then honoring and protecting our principles should not be a negotiable matter. And when it came down to these circumstances and the use of torture in interrogations, our Western allies, staunchly reflecting their values, said, no. But the Bush administration abandoned our place on the hill as they compromised our ideals and identity: they said, yes.

Of course, we can talk about the efficacy of torture in interrogations, but those discussions and arguments have been repeated so many times over the decades. And the voices reflecting the honor, strength and discipline of an ascendant humanity have always concluded that torture has no place in it. Yet, that history, those ideals, and the duty to honor them somehow eluded President Bush's administration. Somehow they thought efficacy should be the determinative question. So, since it is again the subject of discussion and dispute, lets talk about efficacy.

The information gained through torture is too often unreliable. So say the real experts in the field, the most experienced professional interrogators and those who have researched the issue. It's not that you can't extract some "high value" or "actionable" information from some prisoners; it's just that it is very hard to separate what might be useful from the other information tortured prisoner may be eager to provide. Most often prisoners will say anything to stop the pain or fear of death. Sometimes what they say may be true, often it is not. The stronger subjects may lie, and lie again. Even if they do not know the answers, they will guess or fabricate answers--anything to stop the process, even if only temporarily. And more, many of the most experienced, most effective professional interrogators are confident they can gain the most reliable information, without the indignity to us and our prisoners of giving expression to our basest instincts to punish while we interrogate. We do not have to torture.

What do you say, then? Why not dust ourselves off, raise our heads and straighten ourselves again? Let's reaffirm to the world who we are and the higher values that have always been ours. Lets polish again that beacon and carry it with us back to the top of that hill where we belong.

First written: May 2009
© Gregory E. Hudson 2009