Barack Obama was officially sworn in for his second term in
a low key ceremony at the White House on Sunday. His victory in 2008 and here again in 2012 is a
testimony to the efficacy of the work of the civil rights workers of 50 years
ago. On Monday as President Obama was
more publicly sworn in, the nation celebrated the most famous of those
mid-twentieth century heroes, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. King’s legacy is one of non-violent
resistance that was instrumental in ending the institutionalized racism of
those days. Opposition to war goes
hand-in-hand with nonviolence and towards the end of his life, MLK became more and
more outspoken an opponent to the Vietnam War.
In an ultimate irony, his death, his assassination, came as a result of
violence, specifically gun violence - once again in the news these days.
Effective as non-violent resistance was in the twentieth
century in Gandhi’s India, in pre-Civil Rights America, and in the struggle
against apartheid in South Africa, it is unfortunately not much in vogue as a
tactic or as a strategy today.
Admittedly, there are a few recent examples where non-violence has been
effective. The Arab Spring is one such
example. The Occupy Movement has the
potential to be another. What all the
great non-violent movements of the past had in common was their ability to
appeal to the public’s moral sense, to the innate sense of justice of the
majority, to the sense of human decency of those who held power.
Basic to the effectiveness of non-violence is a common
respect for life and for justice. If the
public audience or the holders of power lack this basic sense, then the task of
the non-violent protester becomes more difficult.
So where does non-violence stand today in the value scheme
of the 21st century human?
Sadly, things have not progressed much in this
regard from 50 years ago. Non-violence
is not the tactic of choice, say, of the Islamic extremists who took over the
natural gas plant in Algeria – ultimately resulting in the deaths of 37
hostages and 29 militants. Nor is it the
preferred tactic of today’s American “hawks” – the neocons who are pushing for
a more militant stance against Iran.
Witness their attempt to derail Chuck Hagel from his nomination as
Defense Secretary because he dared point out the obvious – that a war with Iran
would have serious consequences for the region.
These are the same band of neocons who led (or more appropriately,
misled) us into war with Iraq in their attempt to implement their Project for a
New American Century. We saw how well
that turned out. Unbelievably these
neocons still get attention, they have not gone away. You would have thought that their arrogant,
jingoistic approach to international relations would have longed ceased to
merit any consideration whatsoever.
At least Obama is the President for the next four years and
perhaps he can resist the drumbeat towards a war with Iran that will, sooner or
later, be emanating from the lunatic fringe on the right. Within American society today, there exists a
tendency to favor the violent solution over the nonviolent – we have by far the
highest rate of gun ownership and gun deaths among developed industrialized nations;
our military expenditures exceed those of the next 13 (almost 14) highest
defense budgets combined; the US public, unlike those in almost every other
nation on Earth, still overwhelmingly supports capital punishment. “A
recent Gallup Poll
measured Americans' abstract support for the death penalty at 63%, the second-lowest level of support for capital
punishment since 1978, and a significant decline from 1994, when 80% of respondents were in favor of the
death penalty.” [My emphasis added; quote is from the Death Penalty Information
Center web page]
John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated by a gun man 50 years ago
this coming November, said “war will cease to exist when conscientious
objectors to enjoy the same prestige as warriors.” That day has yet to come.
Both MLK and JFK were renowned for their speeches. On Monday, Barack Obama gave a rousing speech
that rivals some of theirs. He emphasized
equality, fairness, and opportunity. He promised
to respond to climate change and mentioned our need to come together as a
people to meet our challenges. There was
even a nod toward diplomacy as the primary means of managing international
relations. After the obligatory mention
of our “strength of arms”, he said, “We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other
nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but
because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.” Not exactly Nobel Peace Prize winner quality
but on balance better than war-and fear-mongering.
A few of the more
memorable passages from his speech:
We, the people,
still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual
war.
… we reject the
belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built
this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.
We do not believe
that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the
few.
…we must be a
source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of
prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the
constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance
and opportunity; human dignity and justice.
The President laid
out a progressive vision for our nation – whether he will be able to fulfill
the vision is another matter. The opposition
is gearing for a fight.
Links
Comic relief:
Mitch McConnell’s “They’re coming for your guns” email…just in case you thought
there would be any cooperation from Republicans [Huffington Post]
No comments:
Post a Comment