More disturbing still was their frequent use of the word "dominance" to describe their strategic goal, because an American policy of dominance is as repugnant to the rest of the world as the ugly dominance of the helpless, naked Iraqi prisoners has been to the American people. Dominance is as dominance does.
Dominance is not really a strategic policy or political philosophy at all. It is a seductive illusion that tempts the powerful to satiate their hunger for more power still by striking a Faustian bargain. And as always happens -- sooner or later -- to those who shake hands with the devil, they find out too late that what they have given up in the bargain is their soul. ...
In my religious tradition, I have been taught that "ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so, every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit ... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
-- Al Gore
One particular aspect of the recent speech by Al Gore that struck me was its use of religious and moral imagery. As a preliminary matter, I think it should be noted that the use of little bitty word "my" as in "my religious tradition" is especially important. It allows him to use his personal religious faith without implying (or falling into the trap of unconsciously inferring) that it is "the" faith. Also, his use of terms like "honor" also clearly touch upon what is particularly at stake here -- issues of public/civic virtue, issues the founders of this nation thought uniquely important for the integrity and very survival of our nation.
One thing that I find very troubling is how the current affair in Iraq is partly a result of our own policies, policies that in various ways furthered truly horrendous acts, but we as a nation do not seem to accept the responsibility. Perhaps, my desired approach can be expressed in a religious way -- I want us to repent. We need to admit our role in the advancement of Saddam Hussein's reign via inaction and action that some of those currently in power directly or indirectly were involved in. Proper penance requires admitting error, even if there were mitigating circumstances. If we are doing right now is another issue, but this blindness to our past is rightly seen as hypocritical (The New Republic, which supported the war, spoke of this issue a few months ago).
Part of the reason why we are not admitting to such involvement might be related to the rhetoric of the Administration. We hear word of "evil doers" while we are on the side of the angels. This is in some reflection of a certain moral, a certain religious view as well. How can we be on the side of angels if we ourselves support evil? In fact, life is complex, and sometimes the situation warrants support of a lesser evil. [I'm here accepting the word "evil," though I'm not particularly comfortable with it per se.] This, however, runs counter to the moral clarity that the President offers, a clarity that turns out to be somewhat built on sand, though many find much solace in it.
The moral clarity some desire leads at times people to try to remain pure. They do not want to walk among the damned for they fear contamination. For instance, some don't want their children to read "forbidden works," others [I'm not just talking about the "bad guys" here, either] feel support or even sympathy of "the enemy" is always wrong. This on some level is overly simplistic in my eyes, but sometimes we should fear the devil -- we played with fire in the 1980s by supporting "the enemy of our enemy." [We even saw a special representative from our government "shake hands with the devil."]
Likewise, I find it interesting how those who profess a deep respect for Jesus too often ignore his words. I find Gore's warning about dominance as a policy especially telling. We don't act without a degree of humility at our peril. We forget the ultimate equality of all humankind to defend this nation's dominance in the world at our peril. As Gore notes, we are bargaining that being #1 is more important than retaining our soul.
People are rightly concerned about a lot of things in this election, but this matter of our society's soul, what it stands for, and believes in ... this is what I care the most about. This is sometimes seen as too personal, too emotional of a cause to defend, and thus the opposition to the current administration is deemed almost irrational. I beg to differ. Religious or moral imagery or not, the concern is quite rational, even if emotion adds a special spirit to the battle.
Lost in other events, June 3-4 was the fifteenth anniversary of the historical protest at Tiananmen Square. In a recent interview with Human Rights Watch, one person on a government watchlist as a result of that protest asserted that "the future for democracy in China is dependent not just on political institutions but on the growth of a vibrant civil society." We are special not just because of pure military dominance, but because of what our society stands for. Thus, this election is not ultimately about quite important things such as the economy or foreign policy per se, but who best honors our civic virture as Americans.
Does your candidate, his or her support on any particular issue notwithstanding, pass this ultimate test?