This World Is Not Big Enough For Both Exceptionalism And Justice, Amongst Other Things

In chapter 2 of his book, Fear's Empire: War, Terrorism, And Democracy (click here for book reference), the book's author, Benjamin Barber, makes two important points about American Exceptionalism. His first point is that America is not the only nation to claim to be exceptional. The French have done, the Germans have done it, and even the Swiss have done it, as well as much of the rest of the world. This makes claiming to be special normal.

His second point is that the belief of America's people in their own exceptionalism has kept us in a state of innocence of sorts regarding America's ventures both on this continent and in the rest of the world. By innocence, what is meant is that many of us Americans are either oblivious to or in denial of what America has really done to others both here and abroad. This innocence not only enables many us to justify America's use of force even when self-defense was not involved; it makes proving to us that our nation has been wrong near impossible when we believe that our nation has been following its original principles. That is because with America being so special,  it normally has higher reasons than what other nations have for using force. It also allows other of us Americans to believe that America should practice some sort of isolationalism lest it becomes corrupted by the rest of the world.

The point here is that believing in the exceptionalism of our nation from its beginnings with the founding fathers allows us to assume our innocence rather than having to prove it.

What all of this shows is a link between the belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation and the acceptance of the use of the rule of force. That is because those who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation assume that how it treats others is just regardless of the evidence. In fact, to bring up evidence of wrongdoing to people who believe in the exceptionalism of their own nation is to sometimes court abuse if not martyrdom.

This lack of awareness of the sins and immoral acts practiced by one's own nation or, in short, its reliance on the rule of force rather than the rule of law is a normal condition for those who believe in exceptionalism. The rule of law is what the exceptional nation tries to force those inferior nations into following even when the rule of force is needed to do so.

Of course, to rely on the rule of force in a time when the proliferation of WMDs is inevitable is to do more than flirt with being bad, it also tests the ability of all nations to survive. That is because the continued use of the rule of force will invariably cause conflicts between nations or entities that have access to WMDs. And once there is the use of WMDs, there is no guaranteed way of stopping their use.

The problem is here is that belief in the exceptionalism of one's own nation does not just provide a hunting license on the rest of mankind, it is a siren call. Heeding its call brings makes people happy with themselves. 

However, we must face at least two sets of realities here. Because believing in the exceptionalism of one's own nation is natural, it is realistic to expect from the people of many nations. It not only gives people a license to mistreat others with impunity even from one's conscience, it gives people a reason to feel secure and makes them feel good. But such a belief  also not only allows for people to run roughshod over justice, it threatens everyone's future.

We especially see this belief in one's exceptionalism in those purists who call on their fellow countrymen to return to what made their naition so great. This shows another cost of believing in one's own exceptionalism: it shows a puritanical leaning that gives people to be intolerant of those not towing the original line.

We are soon entering a season when celebrating the specialness of America is not just in season, it is expected from all of its citizens. Yes, it is realistic to expect people to believe in their exceptionalism, but, again, there is another set of realities that come with believing in one's exceptionalism. It isn't that there is nothing to celebrate about America; it is whether we will balance that desire to celebrate our nation and ourselves with the knowledge of  the negative realities that comes with too much celebration, a.k.a., the belief in our exceptionalism, brings to ourselves, our neighbors, and the world.

Does Having All The Answers Make Us Hopeless?

As one looks at both the political and economic landscapes across our nation, a reoccurring theme is becoming more and more prominent: hopelessness.

This hopelessness does extend to many political and economic settings. Many of those who still have jobs that support middle class or better lifestyles don't understand the economic hopelessness that many who live in certain urban areas where most of the jobs pay poverty wages experience. Many who live in those circumstances see no accessibility to the type of jobs that could lift them out of poverty either now or in the foreseeable future. And even some of those who have jobs that support middle class or better lifestyles see ominous clouds lurking on the horizon. Their perception is based on a knowledge that our economic system cannot possibly continue to support them and/or that our political system will destroy what they have. And like their brothers and sisters who live in depleted urban areas, they see no hope that our decaying systems can change in order to avoid a total demise.

Paradoxically, we seem to have an increasing number of groups who claim to have a monopoly on knowing the solution is to all of our significant problems. And this presumptuous claim  is demonstrated by both the religious and nonreligious. It is definitely evident among many Conservative Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians. For both Conservative Catholics and Lutherans believe that their doctrines are without error. And here we should distinguish between believing that the Scriptures are inerrant from believing that the doctrines of one's denomination are inerrant. What is the difference? Believing that the Scriptures are inerrant does not imply that one understands everything taught in the Scriptures. But our doctrines are interpretations of the Scriptures. So believing that our doctrines are inerrant involves more than claims about a book some of which we may not understand, these are exclusive claims to one's own understanding of the world around us.

As for some of the Reformed churches, there is the teaching that only Christians have the answers to society's and our world's problems. And the basis for that claim is that only Christians can have a belief in absolute morals and values which is based in a reality outside of themselves. Nonbelievers might adhere to at least some of the absolute morals and values we do but they can only do so for  sentimental reasons, according to some Reformed Theology Christians.

Among seculars come my fellow Socialists who believe that only  the proletariat know how to solve all of our problems. And with the way that Republicans and Democrats bicker and fight with each other, they both imply that their own group could solve our problems if only the other group did not exist to interfere.

Now it is this exclusive claim to truth that is condemning our society to an eventual collapse. Why? One only needs to read a comment one reader, Matthew Lawrence,  wrote to my comment to an article on why we have culture wars to see why (see http://religionnews.com/2016/05/24/why-the-culture-wars-rage-on/#comment-2715492807 ). He wrote the following:

Matthew Lawrence  Curt Day • 3 hours ago

You seem to be implying that is more than one reality. You say one group is trying to force its view of reality on someone else, but if there is only one reality then either one or both side of the argument are just wrong (contrary with actual reality). It is my opinion that the culture wars rage (as supported by the article) because we have a large portion of our society that believes they make up their own reality as their will defines it. The other side (for the most part) is left scratching their heads in incredulity and are just trying to maintain a sense of sanity.

When people who believe that they have a monopoly on the truth, they are more inclined to be afraid of and thus try to conquer those who have different beliefs than to work together with them. These people want to own power and society instead of sharing both and working together. And such is the problem with our political and economic systems today. They are viewed as winner-take-all venues. 

Unfortunately, or fortunately, we have multiple groups that have diverse beliefs. Thus, both our political and economic arenas are being fought over tooth & nail by rabid rivals. The fear is that one of these groups will win and will rule tyrannically over the rest of us. Of course, when one has all of the answers, why should one tolerate diversity and dissent? And while the fear that one group will conquer the rest of us looms over our thoughts, the present reality is that the current battle for supremacy is preventing us from cooperating and sharing to solve our problems. So in either case of one side becoming victorious over the rest or of the battle royal that continues to be waged by all of the groups, those behaviors that are essential to our survival and well-being, cooperating and sharing, are viewed as sabotaging one's own cause and thus never considered.

Note that this king-of-the-hill battle for power exists in both our political and economic areas of life. And it is becoming apparent that we have a winner in our economic world. It is those with the most wealth and they are not resting on their newly earned laurels. Rather, they are, and have to a large part, succeeding in conquering much of our political sphere (see http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746  ). And a major reason why their position of being on top seems secure is because all of the other groups have their sights set on replacing them as being the new and improved king rather than being content on merely unseating them. For if the other groups settled for the latter, then what would replace the rule of the wealthy is a coalition rule where all groups are cooperating and sharing power for the benefit of all members of society.

I have certain beliefs about how society should be. Some of those beliefs come from my Christian faith while others come from my Socialist political convictions. And though my beliefs are strong and I have many struggles with sin, I never could or would claim that my beliefs are inerrant or that my group has a monopoly on the truth. And I never could or would say that any segment of society should be denied representation, and that includes the wealthy who are ruling over our economic and political systems. We need the cooperation of and sharing by all groups if we are to survive. What we are seeing today can only provide a sense of hopelessness as everyone is seeking to win our current king-of-the-hill battle between different segments of society and the world while the real world problems of those who are vulnerable and at risk as well as the future of all of us are put on hold.

What A Difference A Year Makes In Protesting

For the past couple of months, I have been attending protests against the use of drones. I have attended these protests before such as last year. The difference between the protests this year and the ones from last year can be summed up in one word: attendance.

The number of protestors participating this year was less than half of those I saw last year. In particular, the age of the protestors involved also changed. While many of the protestors from before were old, the only ones protesting in the past couple of months are old. In fact, I said to a couple of fellow activists that I felt that the protest was a retirement home activity.

This isn't the first time I've seen a drop off in the number of demonstrators. Each of the first two protests I ever took part in, the years were 2005 and 2006, saw around 300,000 people in attendance. Now it would be unrealistic for anyone to expect that number of people at each protest, but the number of demonstrators attending dropped dramatically after the Democrats gained control of Congress in Fall of 2006. Since then, though there were occasionally well attended demonstrations, such as the last one concerning our environmental problems, the number of activists involved never approached the number of people again.

Now there are two points to make here after reflecting on what I just experienced. The first point regards the protesting against drones. In one way, the use of drones produces the same effect as conducting tax-free wars. That is because practices shield the public from some of war's effects. For example, when Bush conducted the unfunded wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, life went on pretty much the same for those of us who did not have family or close friends fighting in the battles. There was neither a draft nor rationing of goods, both of which have occurred in past wars. In addition, we saw no increase in our taxes because of the wars we were conducting.

Likewise, the use of drones shields us from another effect of war: casualties. Yes, there is an immediate benefit here to using drones both for those who serve and their families. But how does conducting wars without consequences stop our use of war or even reduce the number of them?

In the end, conducting unfunded wars and using drones allows us to win the immediate battles while losing our biggest challenge. The biggest battles consist of maintaining public support for the wars. Our biggest challenge is to end war. And while the realists legitimately point out that history teaches that ending war is only a pipe dream, present and future technology lecture us on a harsher reality. That is our continued dependence on wars will eventually lead to the use of WMDs. And once the use of WMDs are introduced into a conflict, there is little, if any, chance that we will survive because the use of WMDs will simply continue until there is no one left to use them. This is not just my opinion, it that of some well-known intellectuals and some retired military leaders since the 1950s.

The second point that the last 2 protests brings up is persistence. Occasional protests, regardless of how well-attended, produce few, if any, results. Unless we persist in activism, the status quo will remain secure. And that status quo consists of manipulating society and its systems for the benefit of those with wealth and power. It isn't the everyday person who benefits from war. Rather, they are usually the ones who pay the highest price for it. It is those who profit from the sale of weapons, other goods and services who benefit from war. 

Making the public believe that they are shielded from the pain of war, as what occurs when either wars go unfunded or using drones, results in fewer people being interested in demonstrating and resisting the wars. In addition, fewer people feel the urgency to to even investigate our policies and reconsider their current personal positions on war. After all, when life is good, don't fix it is the attitude of many. Thus, the shielding of the public from the effects of war has given too many of us a servere case of myopia.  

Simply put, if we are to survive, we must put aside any feelings of hopelessness in order to continue to publicly voice our concerns. Personally, I myself haven't been able to consistently participate in activism for a while because of multiple issues. So, on the one hand, we must not rush to judge those whom we no longer see at the demonstratios. On the other hand, we must see the need to make activism a way of life rather than just a hobby. Democracy demands that we constantly do what we can to control our government. For if we don't control our government, someone else will. And as the Occupy Movement has shown, that someone else who now controls our government are those with wealth and power.

To make activism a way of life, we need to follow what Martin Luther King Jr. said while speaking against the Vietnam War. He stated that when we make profits, gadgets, and property rights more important than people, we are a thing-oriented society. And for as long as we are a thing-oriented society we will not just continue to fight wars, we will be enabling racism. So those of us who oppose war must change from being thing-oriented to being person-oriented if we are going to show others what to do.