Sacrifice: Go Shopping
A dangerous recoding was proposed and accepted when, after the attacks of 9/11, proposed that Americans participate in "The War On Terror" by going shopping. Is this any way to fight a war, even if a war on a noun could conceivably be wages? When America entered World War II, would we have been able to win sooner if President Roosevelt had urged us to go shopping, rather than recycle aluminum and buy war bonds and enlist in the army? When Roosevelt called on the American people to join the war effort, he was also saying that the American people needed to put personal interest aside for the good of the country, and in doing so, the war became America's war.
When George Bush told Americans to go shopping, he was also saying that he would take care of the problem, that he would be the big brother ... and that is what he proceeded to do. Rather than calling on all Americans to become involved, he built a professional army and created a Department of Homeland Security. And because we did not participate in the war, neither did we participate in our own security. On the one hand, this gave us the impression that we were being protected. But on the other hand, this up put responsibility for, and control of, our safety into the hands of others; something which, somewhat paradoxically, made us less personally safe since we had no control over our own safety.
As an aside, allowing the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and passage of the "Patriot Act", is exactly the opposite of how Americans generally deal with issues and perceptions of safety. For example, an explanation of why people don't like flying in airplanes but have no problem with driving in their cars to the airport is that in an airplane, people feel they have no control over their fate, whereas while driving a car, people believe they are in control, and they hold these beliefs in spite of the evidence that mile-for-mile, persons dying or being injured per mile traveled, air travel is safer than car travel. The creation of the "Patriot Act" and the Department of Homeland Security also run counter to the American tradition of self-defense and gun ownership. Gun owners continually put forth the argument that they need guns for self-defense. If there is a Department of Homeland Security, where is the need for guns? And perhaps the answer to that question also says that The Department of Homeland Security does not really protect us, and that to believe that it does makes us less secure.
And in believing that going shopping was the answer to "The War On Terror" allowing the creation of the "Patriot Act" and The Department of Homeland Security, we not only gave us control of our physical safety, we also abdicated our moral safety. In the name of "National Defense", we allowed agents of our government to torture and kill people on the pretense of extracting information. By abdicating our moral responsibility to the Bush administration, we put aside the Geneva Accords and the definition of torture itself, and thereby put our soldiers in combat, and ourselves where ever we might be, at risk of similar treatment.
By accepting Bush's injunction to "go shopping" we were not willing to sacrifice for our freedom, that ultimately, that shopping was more important to us than freedom. We transformed "Give me liberty or give me death," into "Give me credit." We chose to give up our freedom rather than acknowledge and taken on the responsibility that we or our loved ones might be killed if we were to remain free. We were unwilling to accept that a terrorist (of any stripe) might set off a bomb in some restaurant because we preferred being responsible for our own protection rather than giving that responsibility over to The Department of Homeland Security. We traded moral power the power of the non-violence movement, which lies in the ability of individuals to sacrifice and suffer for a greater good, for the power of the gun, which is a superficial and coercive power which evaporates as soon as the gun is turned elsewhere.
Giving up our civil rights may simply have been a logical extension of the the Reagan philosophy of greed. The fruits of greed enable those who gather them to buy they way out of problems. Greed flourishes in a society of isolated individuals with no social responsibility. The greedy do not believe in equality, or fairness or the dignity of the individual or the golden rule because if they were to hold and practice such beliefs they be less able to exploit others for their advantage and profit from the pain of others.
The existence of Democracy ultimately lies in the power of non-violence, and non-violence is based on and individuals social and moral responsibility and commitment supported by a community.
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics”
F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address —
When George Bush told Americans to go shopping, he was also saying that he would take care of the problem, that he would be the big brother ... and that is what he proceeded to do. Rather than calling on all Americans to become involved, he built a professional army and created a Department of Homeland Security. And because we did not participate in the war, neither did we participate in our own security. On the one hand, this gave us the impression that we were being protected. But on the other hand, this up put responsibility for, and control of, our safety into the hands of others; something which, somewhat paradoxically, made us less personally safe since we had no control over our own safety.
As an aside, allowing the creation of a Department of Homeland Security and passage of the "Patriot Act", is exactly the opposite of how Americans generally deal with issues and perceptions of safety. For example, an explanation of why people don't like flying in airplanes but have no problem with driving in their cars to the airport is that in an airplane, people feel they have no control over their fate, whereas while driving a car, people believe they are in control, and they hold these beliefs in spite of the evidence that mile-for-mile, persons dying or being injured per mile traveled, air travel is safer than car travel. The creation of the "Patriot Act" and the Department of Homeland Security also run counter to the American tradition of self-defense and gun ownership. Gun owners continually put forth the argument that they need guns for self-defense. If there is a Department of Homeland Security, where is the need for guns? And perhaps the answer to that question also says that The Department of Homeland Security does not really protect us, and that to believe that it does makes us less secure.
And in believing that going shopping was the answer to "The War On Terror" allowing the creation of the "Patriot Act" and The Department of Homeland Security, we not only gave us control of our physical safety, we also abdicated our moral safety. In the name of "National Defense", we allowed agents of our government to torture and kill people on the pretense of extracting information. By abdicating our moral responsibility to the Bush administration, we put aside the Geneva Accords and the definition of torture itself, and thereby put our soldiers in combat, and ourselves where ever we might be, at risk of similar treatment.
By accepting Bush's injunction to "go shopping" we were not willing to sacrifice for our freedom, that ultimately, that shopping was more important to us than freedom. We transformed "Give me liberty or give me death," into "Give me credit." We chose to give up our freedom rather than acknowledge and taken on the responsibility that we or our loved ones might be killed if we were to remain free. We were unwilling to accept that a terrorist (of any stripe) might set off a bomb in some restaurant because we preferred being responsible for our own protection rather than giving that responsibility over to The Department of Homeland Security. We traded moral power the power of the non-violence movement, which lies in the ability of individuals to sacrifice and suffer for a greater good, for the power of the gun, which is a superficial and coercive power which evaporates as soon as the gun is turned elsewhere.
Giving up our civil rights may simply have been a logical extension of the the Reagan philosophy of greed. The fruits of greed enable those who gather them to buy they way out of problems. Greed flourishes in a society of isolated individuals with no social responsibility. The greedy do not believe in equality, or fairness or the dignity of the individual or the golden rule because if they were to hold and practice such beliefs they be less able to exploit others for their advantage and profit from the pain of others.
The existence of Democracy ultimately lies in the power of non-violence, and non-violence is based on and individuals social and moral responsibility and commitment supported by a community.
“We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics”
F.D.R. said in his second inaugural address —
posted by Godel at 11:28 AM
0 comments
