Give peace a chance…in the USA

When one hears from a person that they know the “truth”, it is time to watch out for my wallet, or just write them off as hopelessly naïve, even if well intentioned. This idea comes to me as I listen to my political opponents here in the USA. Much as been said about the anti-war types, and many analogies have been made. Those that appeal to me most refer to a war of words fought by balding arm chair generals in their overstuffed chairs, soon to be a wheel chair for many. The thrust of these analyses is that this group of our fellow citizens are genuinely anti-war. They got us of out of Vietnam, they want us out of Iraq, and then they want to make this anti-war belief a permanent policy here in the USA. The normal way to try such a thing is to amend the Constitution, but that process is never brought up since it would never garner enough votes.

But change is constant, and this applies to all citizens of all persuasions. To paraphrase a great quote, “if you don’t like change, then you are really not going to like being inconsequential.” Here in the USA we use the vote to make changes (with a Civil War thrown in). Any other subtle or not so subtle means to get one’s way is shifty, spin-oriented, and just plain immoral to many of us. The body politic is not dumb. And to sway and maybe even get votes, one must enter the arena of ideas, and compete: win, lose, or draw. That’s it.

At times like this, it is so important to remain impassionate, be rational, and listen to other points of view, even if anti-war. This advice is easier to give than to follow. I for one will not read anything published by Newsweek, Time, or the New York Times since I am prejudiced against them, and only have so much time in the day to read and filter my news. It does give me some satisfaction to see them suffering in readership numbers and income since they ran me off years ago. It still seems haughty for them to think I should pay to read their clearly prejudiced opinions. And when Sulzberger of the New York Times is quoted as saying he expects me to pay for either the paper or online version of his news in the future, then another venerable American institution is going down the tubes. But one must know and respect one’s enemy (political adversaries in the USA) if one is to enter the arena of ideas. And there are plenty of ways to do this without the aforementioned, and those like them (the Washington Post and the LA Times, for example).

At times like this, it is so important to remain loyal to the process of engaging political opponents in the arena of ideas. This is not pie in the sky thought; it is as American as apple pie. And it is a two-way street. Of course one must believe in the American ideals of a Constitution and the rule of law to enter the debate. So what do we do with insipid ideas or even those hopeless idealists and even anarchists? Or even harder, and as many of our mothers said, what is popular is not necessarily right. Well, all we can do after reaching across the aisle is to vote. And during discussion and debate, it is imperative to offer solutions and alternatives. To not do so renders one inconsequential.

Hence ends the political lecture. Our Nation needs to come together as a people willing to talk to each other, and act honorably. Problem solving over polarization must be our theme. Act, do not react. It is a two way street. The politicians are not in charge, we voters are. We need to give peace a chance…in the USA. And along the way, a few politicians will need replacing.