The newest fad among lefties is to adopt the phrase “waging peace” as an anti-slogan against the perceived policies of the Bush Administration. While this hardly represents a new ideological direction for a group of people who still insist that “real communism” has never been given a fair shot, it is worth noting the extent to which the meaning of peace has been mutated in our culture.
Peace, according to Dictionary.com, represents a state characterized by an “absence of war or other hostilities,” an agreement to achieve such an arrangement, or my personal favorite, to attain “freedom from quarrels or disagreements.” While the first two definitions are uncontroversial, the later seems rather ostentatious. Is it possible to have a workplace or household, let a lone a country or world, without “quarrels or disagreements”? With few exceptions, most faiths and philosophies deny the absolute realization of, as the herald angel famously sang, “peace on earth, and mercy mild.” It is not that peace is disagreeable. No one finds conflict, particularly of the violent variety, an acceptable first option for redressing grievances. Nevertheless, the more realistic among us (mostly those who missed the 60s), find attempts at a world without conflict a dangerous fiction.
Why is universal peace impossible? Human nature precludes the ability to deal with all persons in a rational, non-violent matter. Many of the world’s inhabitants have been brought up with value sets, or under circumstances, that make them immune to diplomatic overtures. What do Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and Hitler
truly have in common? All of them were or are
insane, and despite the media's efforts to humanize them, are without exception persons incapable of operating within the bounds of civilization. Basic, contractual agreements that lift men out of the state of nature, like agreeing that impulsive murder and seizure of another’s property are illegal, are forever lost on such degenerates. Then why is believing in perpetual peace dangerous? Even beyond the nutcases discussed above, human nature is universally unconquerable. Someone somewhere, defying every anti-nuclear or anti-SUV treaty the UN can muster, will try to maim someone else in pursuit of treasure, power, sex, property, resources, or even the divine right to spread their religion with the butt of a gun. Sure we are a leap above the animal kingdom. Not far enough, however, to expect that everyone will play by the rules that most follow under normative circumstances. Hence men have to be willing to forcibly assert the rule of law to preserve life. That’s why we have administrators, police, courts, and military to execute laws.
Now, my aim isn’t to paint an overly dark picture of the human condition. Most humans are good at their core, and working to make the world more civilized in a noble goal. In fact, the world is a place more full of hope thanks to democracy. Our current system of elections, courts, and free markets provide a humanizing mechanism for civilizing conflicts. The problem arises when too many western democratic leaders, thinkers, and voters begin to view peace as an acceptable end to human history, as both a possible and sustainable aim that makes confrontation forever unnecessary. For subscribers to this ideology of neopacifism, war is no longer acceptably waged to free a people or protect national interests. Now the aim of every battle must be “peace,” or by our earlier definition, creating a world or region devoid of “quarrels or disagreements.” Conflict avoidance is the order of the day because antiquated ideas of individual freedom, justice, life, liberty, happiness, etc, are all subordinated to the desire to bypass hostile and unpleasant confrontations.
How did westerners, the descendents of the martial Romans, develop such an intense, wholesale distaste for conflict? It begins at childhood. How often do we read articles describing baseball leagues where everyone wins, teachers that let kids run amok, and school councilors and authorities that pride mediation over punishment? Fighting, arguing, teasing, bullying, and other practices are deemed more intolerable than cheating, lying, stealing, or general academic laziness. The home front merely reinforces these foolish notions. Parents try to be their child’s best friend, giving timeouts and refusing to raise their voices. Maybe if I had grown up in a postmodern parenting environment I would be less confrontational (and more palatable to you the reader), but better adept to face the real world? Doubtful. As a consequence of this bizarre cultural development, adults are displaying an equally moronic approach to confrontation. You need look no further than today’s politics. The Senate’s “Gang of 14” was hailed as peacemakers, inventing a fake “tradition” to protect the glorious Senate, accomplishing nothing but to undermine a democratic debate. Maybe I wanted to hear senators, elected to defend the interests of their constituents and the country, have an actual discussion over what that best interest might be! Whenever two candidates ferociously argue a controversial bill or issue, media pundits immediately bemoan the “incivility” of politics and plead for someone, anyone, to make everyone shake hands and have a picnic on an arbitrary common ground. One wonders why liberals have been so effective in making Americans feel guilty about Iraq. After all, saving the lives of millions of Middle Easterners and protecting our civilization from destruction does little to alleviate the discomfort caused by fighting for it.
A generation is now graduating college that knows nothing of the necessity of confronting those with whom no bargain is attainable. It is my generation; a group of students with all the benefits of a society that has not known real conflict for decades- until now. Faced with the challenges of the War on Terrorism, many Americans seem curiously and frighteningly confused by the challenges at hand. 9/11 horrified us, but the subsequent analysis and response has been woefully inadequate. Some think that the battle against terrorists can be won through economic and verbal diplomacy. Then simply give jihadists a
time-out in Gitmo, but don’t dare feed them gruel or forget to leave a mint under each pillow! Others react to our current situation by feeling guilt. It must be something we did, just as it must have been my fault when little John Doe hit me in 3rd grade because I wouldn’t let him play with me. Therefore, let’s apologize to the mullahs, abandon Israel, and operate under the assumption that America should be the world’s patsy because, after all, it’s our fault! How did your oil money get in my pocket, Mr. Hussein?
We must stop treating peace as an end unless we want others to determine an end for us. Peace is a state of affairs
that can allow for freedom, justice, life, liberty, happiness, love, humanity, the arts, virtue, and many other wonderful things, to flourish. But a peace that keeps millions under the steel boot of oppression, leaves families under constant threat, and does nothing to advance the causes upon which this nation was founded is not acceptable. It is time to relearn that conflict is not always bad. In fact, they *gasp* often have positive outcomes. To avoid the responsibilities we have in the world and to ourselves, simply to give idealists some temporary security, is to wage stupidity.
