Ellen and I are hopeful that Tom will continue to offer his observations and perspective and help formulate some solutions (perhaps better to call them approaches) to what many people see as great dangers.
(1) We totally agree with Tom that our Chorus process here must avoid “... participants not listening to each other and simply shouting to be heard.” At times it might be useful to employ the Rappaport method of ethical debate in which one first responds by restating the other’s position to their satisfaction, then supporting some of the other’s themes, and only then offering contrasting or opposing views.
(2) Tom says, “ … how they organize themselves to identify leaders, allocate scarce resources, distribute power, etc. can explain why some organizations are successful and some are not.” We agree that consideration of these factors is useful in analyzing our own country’s behavior. Using, for example, Chalmers Johnson’s books as a starting point, Johnson is very concerned about our allocation of scarce resources to those aspects of empire that diminish the well-being and security of the US. His view, as well as those of many others, is that the US has to choose between democracy and empire, that empire will and is bankrupting the US while diminishing our democracy. Can we together weigh the consequences of the US spending about one trillion dollars a year on the military and our wars? Why do we do that? How much of that yields productive results? How much do we really need to safeguard ourselves? How much simply diverts the economy away from education, health and economic prosperity? Johnson’s analysis of the US’s military Keynsianism would seem to be worthy of our consideration.
(3) Tom says, “… for me, the issue is not whether a Kennedy, a Bush, an Obama, or others made individual bad decisions. Rather, it is whether the country's fundamental processes, values and systems are inherently good or faulty, whether they enable the country to purge itself of individual bad actors and reward good ones, and whether they allow American citizens to prosper in peace over the long term in a constantly changing global environment.” We agree that we should inquire as to those processes, values and systems. Given that they produced the Vietnam war, the support of dictatorships, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (we won’t repeat the doleful list here) etc., the question would seem to be what can we do to improve them.
With respect to our leader’s making “individual bad decisions” these were decisions that were supported by our processes and values; clearly LBJ and GWB would not have been able to get us into strategically and morally disastrous wars had our congress and fourth estate performed their constitutional and other responsibilities properly, had we been responsible citizens and performed ours.
(4) Tom says, “To me, America's fundamental processes, values and systems include things like freedom, democracy, market capitalism, and the rule of law, which I regard as essential strengths.” We agree with Tom’s assessment that freedom, democracy, and the rule of law are essential strengths, but believe that these have been seriously eroded precisely because of the nature of our current processes, values and systems, and that this has become so serious that we need as individuals to come together to arrive at a consensus as to where we are and what we should do to ameliorate the problems. Using Chalmers Johnson again as a starting point – we are sticking with his books for reasons of simplicity – Johnson speaks about the system that our founders set up, how much serious thought they gave to freedom, democracy and law, about the dangers of empire that they were opposed to, and how far we have strayed putting ourselves today into great danger. As to market capitalism it would seem absolutely necessary to reign in and correct the irresponsibilities that destroy our prosperity, pollute the oceans and the entire biosphere. Keep the good parts of capitalism and the “free market system,” which of course doesn’t properly describe our system, but don’t give up education, a public health system, social security, medicare etc. for the sake of military Keynesianism and empire.
(5) Tom says, ‘Not only do I disagree that the United States is on a "destructive path that: harms our own democracy" etc., but I am absolutely opposed to non-Americans ("others") meddling in our internal affairs "to modify our behavior."’ Here we would simply ask all of us to consider the harms to our own democracy pointed out by people like Chalmers Johnson (in “Nemesis,” etc.) and others, and tell us whether the arguments of Johnson and others are valid.
As to others “meddling in our internal affairs,” wouldn’t it have been great if some Olympian had come down, or maybe the Delphic oracle, or maybe just some moral authority, and told LBJ and GWB, , not to meddle in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.? Would we not have been better off to listen to the rest of the world that was opposed to our military adventures? And why should we not be in favor of the International Criminal Court? Might not our participation have given pause to those who authorize and employed/employ torture in the name of national security?
No comments:
Post a Comment