Perpetual War and American Foreign Policy

Apparently, President Bush had a luncheon on February 28th. A number of historians and political thinkers attended this luncheon who have held publically that life is perpetual war.

The same day I read this news, I picked up Plato's Laws. Much to my surprise, the Laws begins with a discussion the Island of Crete (the cradle of Greek culture) and the speaker representing Crete, Kleinias, praises Cretan society because it was organized for perpetual war. Life, he tells us, is perpetual stuggle of man against himself, man against man, neighborhood against neighborhood, city against city, and nationa against nation.

Socrates begins to critique this view by suggesting that, while a certain kind of struggle as well as war may be a part of life, we do not live life for the purpose of fighing perpetual wars. Ultimately, if we fight wars we fight them so that we can return to a peaceful life in which people can pursue happiness. He also indicates that the purpose of war should not be to pursue unlimited freedom, or to spread freedom everywhere. This, he suggests, is the formula for a bloodthirsty empire. While complete limitations on freedom are unsatisfactory, the just society harmonizes the concern for peace, the desire for freedom, and the limits necessary so that these desires do not lead the society to become unjust towards others and unjust towards itself.

Some things never change.

A Thought on Politics

A student asked the question today, what is the best political system or the best party right now?

Here is my answer: In some ways, the Green Party gets it right, in ways that are similar to those who have been outcast from the Republic Party in the last 15 years. We should have a country that respects ecology. Ecology, though, includes human ecology or harmonizing society such that all humans benefit from all human advances, economic, science, cultural, educational, and technical. Society as a whole should think this through. We should oppose economic and military adventurism, that crushes the poorest and least fortunate, and that leads us to commit all kinds of injustices against our own citizens and others.

At the same time, the most stable kind of constitution over time is one that recognizes the executive, aristocratic, and democratic element in society, gives them a role in law-making and office sharing, and limits each of their roles. This is the value of the constitution of the United States.

However, the great danger is that the wealthy class take over. By insinuating itself into these institutions in an unjust way, the wealthy class tend to turn the society into an oligarchy, setting up the clash between oligarchy and democracy, the corruption of morals, and the destruction of the family. Once the family is destroyed, the children will look to comfortable lives (oligarchy), the military, or pleasure (democracy) as their options. This will lead to the overall degeneration of society, the rise of an Empire, or the rise of an authoritarian or totalitarian state.

In an odd way, the current favortie platforms of the Republicans and the democrats, and an unfortunate aspect of the Green Party, work well in the logic of Empire. The abortion and sexual revolutionary policies of the democrats tend to undermine the family. This makes the children less civilized and ultimately thirsting for military vengeance, a comfortable life, and some sort of order. The economic politics of the Republicans tend to weaken the family by forcing them to move around to keep the free market economy going. It also tends to rely on the military and foreign advernturism, which, over time, weakens the family under the false mask of promoting social order and security. Times of wars tend to introduce more sexual misbehavior and break up families. So, the sexual politics of the democrats and the Greens work "nicely" with the economic and foreign affairs of the neo-cons in the Republican Party for building an empire over time.

If we could adopt the constitutionalism, foreign and moral policies of the conservatives, with the "sense" of the common good of the democrats, and the "ecology" of the Greens, we would have perhaps, the formula for a "Catholic" party in the US.

Jefferson, Adams, and War

In 1787, Jefferson argued very clearly that the United States should stay out of European affairs. He saw a war coming in europe between Engalnd and France. He saw that, over time, France and the other nations of Europe would have their own internal revolutions that would bring about republican governments in those societies. What he feared was being dragged into a European war on the side of England, and to end up defending a government that was, to some degree, behind the times. Jefferson advocated neutrality. Adams was ambiguous. His response to Jefferson was that Force and power will prevail, and that America will come out richer in the end. By implication, he was open to an alliance wtih England. This ambiguity on the part of Adams helped forge one of the first major poliltical divides in the United States.

We face a similar problem now, how should the United States see itself in the Middle East? Only now, we have become what Engalnd was in the 1780s. We should learn from the wisdom of Jefferson. If we were to leave the Middle East alone, the nations there, over time, would develop republican forms of government, including Iran and Israel. Otherwise, we risk fighting wars, expanding the Empire, and destroying our way of life.

Below, is a summary that explains the previous two paragraphs.

Before 1789, we see Jefferson and Adams exchanging impressions on the events in Paris, the upcoming revolution, and their hopes and fears for its final outcome. By 1785 Jefferson was in Paris to negotiate on behalf of the United States a treaty with France on commerce. Adams was in London for a similar purpose. Within the context of negotiating this treaty, Adams and Jefferson began what became a life-long conversation about France and the French Revolution. To begin, Jefferson and Adams both sense that great changes are about to take place in the country. Jefferson notes its poverty. He also notes that the situation in Paris was growing more tumultuous over the summer of 1785. The government, which was actually fairly moderate, was putting more people in jail, especially those who were infiltrating France with radical ideas that were coming from England and the German states. He also notes the hostility that the French Court was expressing to English ideas. As an example, he observed how the Queen refused to weak clothing made from English wool (Cappon, 20-100).

By 1787, the unrest seemed to have grown. Jefferson over the summer of 1787, lots of mobs were gathering in the streets of Paris. The mobs hissed at the nobles when they saw them. The King was perceived as being aloof, as he was drinking wine rather than addressing the problems of the nation. But, Jefferson thinks that a revolution had already taken place in France, a revolution that outstripped any revolution in England: “I think that in the course of three months the royal authority has lost, and the rights of the nation gained, as much ground, by a revolution of public opinion only, as England gained in all her civil wars under the Stuarts” (Paris, August 30. 1787. Jefferson to Adams, 196-197). Jefferson does not think that the ground gained by the nation will ever be lost. At the same time, Jefferson feared that London and Berlin might have been pining for a war against France. France did not want such a war, and France would look for ways to change Europe rather than submit to the aggression of the English and the Prussians. France, he predicted, would change all of Europe, making it conform to her laws.

Jefferson indicates that the French clearly saw England as her enemy, and was making diplomatic efforts to unite Russia and Austria against England (Jefferson to Adams, Paris, Sept 28 1787). In this letter, Jefferson explains to Adams the principles of good government, and how the affairs of Europe represent a potential threat to the American system of government. Jefferson says that “the first principle of good government is certainly a distribution of it’s powers into executive, judiciary, and legislative, and a subdivision of the latter into two or three branches.” He admits that the English constitution is better than previous constitutions, but that it is only better in relation to this standard. Jefferson then comments on the situation in Holland, which he thinks shows that it is better to never have hereditary offices. Overall, Jefferson hopes that the nations of Europe will be able to chasten England, if only a little. He fears that a conflict is coming with England, and that the nations of Europe are hesitating before confronting England. Jefferson hopes that, in this coming conflict, America will be able to remain neutral. He fears that the English, or rather the King, will force America to take the side of the English. Jefferson thinks that common sense would lead the English to leave America neutral, and so she would not.

In this letter of Jefferson to Adams, we can see the beginning of the strain in the friendship between the two men. This strain would only be exacerbated by the coming of the French Revolution. Jefferson thinks a great war is about to take place in Europe, and that the United States should stay out of the war. He is convinced that the end result of the war will be progress in the art of free government, furthering the advances made in the British and American revolutions, as well as the revolution in public opinion that was happening in France. In a European war, England would attempt to draw the United States into a conflict to defend aristocratic constitutions, which Jefferson, overall, did not think upheld the standard of free governments.

Adams was ambiguous about America’s relationship with England. He is ambiguous about the question of whether the United States should commit to helping England or not in the upcoming conflict. Instead, he admits that only “Force, Power, and Strength” will restrain some nations. He agrees that Europe will try to draw America into its conflicts, and he hopes that the United States will come out richer for it, in the end (Adams to Jefferson, Grovenor Square, October 9, 1787).