The Confusion of Peace and Defeat in the American Psyche  The question is why was the American psyche so readily open to make the connection between the words “peace” and “defeat,” and why have we not been able to overcome it since then? Grandstanding on the Election Trail For the last thirty years our presidential candidates have loathed identifying themselves as peace makers in their campaigns for fear of being perceived weak and too soft.  They employ a multitude of strategies to discuss our foreign policy challenges but they never discuss peace negotiations as possible options with our adversaries.  They encourage other nations towards peace and push a few more towards negotiations, but they hold the line when it comes to our own nation making peace with those we are in conflict with.  Candidates Insist We Are Tough, Not Weak The candidates go to great lengths to express their toughness as leaders and “commanders in chief;” any language of conciliation is deemed too soft and weak. It can spell disaster in the opinion polls.  They are hemmed  in from all directions and forced to remind us over and over again that they are not afraid to use our military might;  they will use the big stick because we are tough and no one should mess with us; it smacks with teen age harangues on the playgrounds. Bullying is Acceptable in Foreign Affairs Such diatribes underscore our fundamental confusion with our image as a peace making nation.  We have become accustomed to the idea that bullying is an acceptable behavior for our foreign policy affairs.  Not only have we come to accept that our presidents carry a big stick on the world stage, but that it is perfectly normal to use it whenever and however they see fit … as long as our lifestyle and consumer slumber is not disturbed.                                                                                                                   Peace Challenges Our Simplistic Ideas About the World As a people, we have unknowingly and in a deep way come to accept that peace is not only weak but it is also messy and it challenges the simplistic answers we have come to view the world with.  As individuals this notion may not be true for most of us, but as a collective we have slipped into a dangerous trance.  Our presidents become peace makers on the world stage after they are out of office; only then do we grant them permission to discuss peace making with our adversaries without negative repercussions; we heartily applaud them if they choose to assume such a role. Individualism Gone Awry Negates Community So what is it that keeps us invested in this position as a nation?  Do we blame Mr. Nixon, our politicians, our appetite for consumerism?  I believe the issue is rooted in the founding history of the American culture; it is individualism gone awry.  America was built by the best and highest values of individualism, but individualism in its extreme negates community; it is selfish and self centered and sees little value in a cooperative, unitive view of the world.  Adolescent Nation Needs to Grow Up Peace requires all the above and more; it requires humility and a sense of equality with our neighbors.  It requires a national stance that says we are part of the world and the tribe of humanity rather than separate and different from it.  It requires grace and maturity instead of an adolescent need to be separate in order to be special.  Individualism gone awry is an adolescent developmental stage that America has struggled to give up since WWII.  We won that war and with it gained maturity as a nation, but somehow we keep reverting to our adolescence.  Perhaps it is time we grow up and embody the maturity we so dearly paid for.

keep reading...

Peace as an Election Ploy                                                                                                     In his 1968 run for the White House Richard Nixon declared himself as “the peace candidate” and the American people, disgusted and confused by the Vietnam War, ascended him to the Presidency primarily on that promise. History proved however that his declarations as being “the peace candidate” during that election were a cynical ploy to win; he actually had intended to “bomb the hell out of them” and force the North Vietnamese into surrender. “Peace with Honor” Five years later in 1973, and after a brutal bombardment campaign failed to break the will of the Vietcong, Mr. Nixon began to talk about “Peace with honor.” Saigon was about to fall and the president was looking for ways to acknowledge the failure of American interventionism in South East Asia. Nixon however, could not bring himself to use words such as failure, defeat, settlement or anything else that acknowledged the reality of the situation. Had his approval rating been higher or had he been a more self assured five star general and war hero like his previous boss, Dwight Eisenhower, he may have been confident enough to admit the realities to the American people.

keep reading...