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...

 Lonely in the City I asked my neighbor Gerald to go to a July 4th Barbecue. I was alone for the weekend. Gerald, an elderly man in his seventies, also lives alone. He was surprised by my invitation and it surprised me as well. It occurred to me that since I moved into this condominium six months ago, I’ve only gotten to know two of my neighbors. Consider this: We are the most connected society the world has ever known.

keep reading...

I have written before of the extraordinary pain and suffering caused by intractable conflicts and the cycle of violence that can go on for generations. Why is it that some conflicts are never truly finished and what would it take to completely heal them? Is such a thing even possible for human beings? Indeed, some of us are so cynical and resigned about conflict, especially long-term, deeply embedded conflicts, that we despair about the possibility of this kind of fighting ever being truly resolved or mended. And yet, individual human beings and even families and small groups have found it possible to create enduring peace after deep conflict, so why is it so unthinkable that larger groups caught up in multi-generational conflicts could find their way out of brutish and cruel conflict? The question I am really asking here is, “Is it possible to transfer the lessons of individuals, from the so-called micro level and apply them to the so-called macro level of affairs?” We tend to divide up our understanding of the how the world works into the arena of the individual and personal (the micro level) and the level of the large group/nation/state or ethnic group (the macro level) and we tend to think that affairs in these realms operate very differently.

keep reading...