The awful events of September 11th, and the ensuing national dialogue, provide a fine laboratory for evaluating the enlightened liberal thinking of our time. Under the harsh light of reality, we can examine the social theologies born of chemically enhanced minds during the ’60s and ’70s – the same minds now proselytizing our sons and daughters in centers of higher intellectual excellence. Are The Beatles singing “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” in the background?
Many have spoken and written that America deserves what happened on that horrific Tuesday, claiming the attackers were justified because we are “trying to rule the world,” among other absurdities. These are, no doubt, the same voices who argue for tolerance and non-judgmentalism. How then can they judge our country wrong, and the attackers right, without stepping on their own enlightened pleadings?
We hear and read the emotional cries for a non-violent, diplomatic response to the vicious murder of innocent thousands upon our own soil. On what basis would we engage in diplomacy with those having such a complete and utter disregard for human life (theirs and ours)? We, in theory, are just the opposite, although our abortion zealots and Dr. Singers must confuse our foes. We are left with no shared view of humanity from which to begin discussion. And we can’t use sanctions or blockades, because the effects of such measures in Cuba, Iraq, and other global outposts of freedom offend our pacifists. Far be it from them to assign complicity to those nations’ regimes, revealing a judgmental bias, and the dominance of feelings over realities.
Since we can’t sanction or blockade, and we have no common terms of moral reference from which to negotiate diplomatically, we have an impasse, and it must be broken to proceed. Two options arise. We could persuade our enemies to take on our values regarding human life and broad human rights. But, wait! In the words of the enlightened, who are we to impose our values on others? Wouldn’t doing so stifle the diversity of thought and culture that so enriches the global village? We couldn’t do that and be faithful to our own guiding spirits! Hence, the second option – we could take on the values of our enemies regarding human life and the other nagging details of civilization. Doubtless many will find this an attractive option, but it equates to vile surrender, not negotiation. Besides, it has the same diversity nullifying and value imposition shortcomings of the first option.
In the musical words of the King of Siam, “it is a puzzlement.” Lacking true self-enlightenment, this writer sees no way to honor the liberal mantras of the day while resolving our very real dilemma. It is obvious that passage to higher revelation is called for. Therefore, interested students are asked to complete an expository assignment that will help us Philistines on the journey. Three options are offered, and all allow hindsight as a simplifying factor. They are:
- Prepare a 1,000-word essay describing the non-violent, diplomatic strategy you would have used to stop the atrocities of Hitler and Nazism. Remember, no blockades and sanctions – too “icky” morally. If you believe Hitler should not have been stopped, explain why, and how this would have increased global harmony.
- Prepare a 1,000-word essay describing the non-violent, diplomatic strategy you would have used to stop Iraq’s assault on Kuwait. Once again, no silly blockades or sanctions – bad karma. If you think Iraq should not have been stopped, explain your vision for world peace through neighborly occupation.
- Imagine yourself a passenger on the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania without completing its terrorist mission on September 11th. Prepare a 1,000-word essay describing your non-violent, diplomatic strategy for stopping the hijackers and saving your fellow passengers. To realistically experience the negotiating conditions, complete your essay in 5 minutes or less while someone you don’t trust holds a box cutter at your throat.
This is your opportunity to articulate your approach for world harmony without the need for violence, blockades, sanctions or unfair imposition of our values. Finally, a chance to apply your feelings to the messy, pesky world of reality, and, in the process, to refine and evolve them! Successful students will have clearly demonstrated how emotions can become logic, in spite of factual contradictions. And they will have captured the utopia seen in the mystical clouds of their peace-pipes, and brought it to earth, where the rest of us live.
Those of you who need extra credit can complete more than one assignment. Assignment’s due tomorrow. Class dismissed.
Pem Schaeffer has been in the defense-electronics business for 37 years. His career has involved dealings with the U.S. military and Congress. He holds a B.S. degree from Rutgers University, and two graduate degrees from the University of Southern California.
