Let's consider what makes this time slightly different than previous times of unrest. The essential facts are that most Americans are suffering through the deepest economic depression since the 1930s. We barely avoided a complete economic collapse and may still see an economic collapse if the euro fails. With so many homes worth less than the loans against them, the American consumer economy is simply upside down. This is unique in our history--unprecedented home ownership with unprecedented loss of value. Second, the disparity in wealth between the top 1% and rest of American society is huge. Although wealth disparity has occurred in the past, this time around it is highly noticeable because of the media. There is also a complete social disconnect between the elite wealthy segment of society and everyone else. The very wealthy just do not understand the economic pain of the average American.
In terms of distributive justice, America is out of balance. Distributive justice is based on a three-legged stool of equity, equality, and need. Equity says that we should be rewarded based on our contributions. The more profits I make, the more I should be paid. Equality says that as equal members of our society, we should all be entitled to an equal share of the benefits. Need says that there are some in our society-the young, the sick, and the elderly--who cannot take care of themselves and must therefore be supported. This idea of distributive justice is very basic. Imagine an extended family 150,000 years ago. You go out and slay the wooly mammoth and drag big parts of it back to the fire. Equity says that you get the first, choicest haunch because you undertook the effort and risk to kill the mammothand drag it back to the campfire. Equality says that each adult member of the tribe gets a fair share for being a contributing part of the group. Need says that the children, the elders, and the sick get a share because the well-being of the group requires it. As long as the wooly mammoth is divided with these ideas in mind, everyone feels a sense of justice. Unfettered capitalism gives equity primacy in policy making. Unfettered socialism gives equality primacy in policy making. Neither system works without controls to keep all three legs in balance. This is the essential truth missed by politicians--there has to be balance between equity, equality.If any of these legs gets out of balance, we experience a sense of injustice. That is what is occurring now in America. The wealthy and the anti-tax Republicans feel a deep sense of injustice that the profits they reap from their efforts are not being properly rewarded. The vast majority of Americans feel that, as equal members of society, they have been abandoned economically by the wealthy. All the money seems to flow to the top of the economic pyramid. Many Americans, wealthy and not, feel like the entitlement programs for the needy are taking up too much resource. So, the result is a feeling of deep and abiding injustice on all sides. There is no right or wrong answer here. What is needed is a recognition in Washington of this sense of injustice. The Republicans and Democrats should be engaging in a reasoned, civil dialogue that results in policy decisions that balance equity, equality, and need to the general satisfaction of the American people.In terms of the future of America, there are reasons for optimism. Fundamentally, as long as we maintain the Constitution without significant power imbalances and as long as we protect the Bill of Rights, we will prosper. We have huge resources, an innovative workforce, and a large protected land mass. The pressing needs for the future include making sure that every child has food, shelter and safety, is well-educated, and has economic and social opportunity. We must revert back to teaching critical thinking through science, mathematics, and language skills so that our children can deal with the ambiguity and complexity of the modern world.We have to tax ourselves to invest in infrastructure. We have to debate the need for a military that costs fifty cents out of every federal tax dollar we pay out. We have to make hard policy choices and compromise where we can.What will kill us is decisions driven by mindless ideologies, left or right, that focus on protecting power, position, and privilege. That attitude, now prevalent in political circles, will surely destroy us because we will not be able to respond to the rapidly changing world environment. The American people will have a choice in November 2012 between ideology and compromise. We shall see how they choose.Military force shouldn’t be ruled out as a response to an Iranian assassination plot on U.S. soil, the top House Republican on intelligence issues said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“I don’t think you should take it off the table,” said Representative Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Rogers said other options would include rallying the international community against Iran or taking action against Iranian operatives in Iraq. Noticeably absent was any mention of aggressive non-violent or even peaceful ways of responding to the Iranian assassination attempt.This is an another example of a way of thinking that is dangerous to the future of America. The idea is that violence or the threat of violence must be responded to with overwhelming pre-emptive violence. It rejects the law of lex talionis, an eye for an eye, which calls for restraint in the exercise of retributive power. One of the unintended consequences of having the most powerful military in human history is the belief that vexing problems can be solved with overwhelming, brute force. It didn't work for the Romans, and it will not work for America.International relations has been a contact sport for a long time. But how foolish is it to consider a military operation against Iran? Iran poses no existential threat to the United States. Its government, while annoying, is in internal disarray. Its political, economic, and moral power is so weak that it must resort to terrorism and assassination to carry out its international agenda. It threatens to develop nuclear capabilities, but knows that Israel would not hesitate to snuff it out if the threat truly materialized.Publicly considering military options against Iran is therefore beyond stupid. This kind of retributive, vengeful thinking has led us to a trillion dollar deficit caused by unbridled military spending and two wars in the first ten years of this century. Neither war, by the way, has turned out well for America.The Iranians know that the US will not be flying Predators over Isfahan or dropping cruise missles into downtown Tehran. They are undoubtedly embarrassed at being caught in a clumsy, amateurish assassinaton attempt against the Saudi Ambassador to the US. But the idea that the US would respond to a botched assassination attempt with military force is ludicrous. First, the assassination attempt was aganst a Saudi official, not an American. It would seem that the fight would be between the Arabs and the Persians, not the US and the Persians.Second, the US military budget is already stretched to the breaking point in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Does the Congress intend to come to the people of America asking if yet another war should be funded by an increase in taxes? Ironically, Mr. Rogers of the party that wants to dismantle government and elimnate all taxes, suggests that another expensive military adventure should be on the table. Fourth, even if the American people wanted a war with Iran, the vast majority of US allies do not. A US military option is not a realistic or appropriate response to the assassination attempt.Unfortunately, this kind of primitive thinking about the use of power permeates Washington. One would hope that more thoughtful leaders would step forward to decry the wrong notion that attempted violence must always be met with overwhelming retributive violence. There are many other ways to respond effectively to this type of petty aggression. We need some maturity in the halls of power to prevent the further decline of America into a reactive, fear-based international tyrant.Douglas Noll, Lawyer Turned Peacemaker, is the author of Elusive Peace: How Modern Diplomatic Strategies Could Better Resolve World Conflicts (Prometheus Books 2011).