A lot of people are wrestling with how this country should deal with militant Muslims in our midst. I think most of us have no issue with American Muslims who do not advocate for anything at odds with our US civic virtues and democratic traditions and practices. Concerns naturally arise with US-based Muslims who post, preach and otherwise advocate for the things we hear being said by members of the Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL) and other radical Muslim groups. Many advocate deporting anyone who engages in this sort of thing. Of course, we have homegrown militants in our midst, among them neo-Nazis and Klansmen who preach things that inspire hatred and sometimes violence on the part of their members and sympathizers. One could argue are they are citizens and enjoy certain legal and constitutional protections which renders deportation or “quarantine” a nonissue, but then some extremist Muslims in the US also are citizens (Some born here). Deporting a US citizen to the country their ancestors came from might be emotionally satisfying to some folks but it would open a door that could quickly be abused by the state.
Has America faced the issue of how to deal with antidemocratic, intolerant ideologues in modern times (20th century forward)? Sure thing. In the 1930s there were more than a few individuals and organizations that wanted to see Nazism replace democracy in the US. Some were immigrants (many of these, Germans), others naturalized citizens and others US born. More than a few spokesmen for and leaders of prominent pro-Nazi organs wound up running afoul of the law and in jail or prison. A few were deported and others interned in camps built to house enemy aliens and such after America went to war with Japan and then Germany. The solution then was pretty much this: Outspoken Nazis were rebuffed by their fellow citizens, monitored by law enforcement especially the FBI, and prosecuted when they did anything illegal and were caught. Yep, the people back then were doing pretty what we are doing now with extremists and antidemocratic elements in our midst (With the exception of establishing internment camps).
Should we do more? I guess your answer to that depends on how much freedom you are willing to sacrifice for your sense of security. It’s not an easy equation to work out without risking opening the floodgates to terrorism on one hand — and turning American into a police state on the other.
Whatever your answer, I’d wager many of you reading this will find certain remarks made back in 1938 by Assistant District Attorney Lindsey Henry (on the heels of the conviction of a group of Nazis in Suffolk County, NY State) appealing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYWlSmn2Ou4
The salient part is 45 seconds into this 1m:23s video. Quoting Mr. Henry, “If these persons prefer some other form of government let them get out of the United States and stay out.”
|At the heart of each of us are 3 primal drives that give rise to and inform most, if not all of the human behavior (Individually and collectively). Click here to read http://14ushop.com/wizard/3PrimalDrivesEssay.html. In science and many other fields, reductionism of this sort helps us see what is fundamental to many aspects of reality. However, while “unified field theories” in physics, psychology, or what-have-you make explicable what was previously inexplicable, unveiling a beauty and simplicity beneath the surface that is awe-inspiring and even fruitful at many levels, it isn’t always possible to take mechanism (however meaningful or purposeful) and forge tools or methods from it that advance human culture. We can take physical elements and build skyscrapers on the one hand, and thermonuclear bombs on the other. And with words we can fashion social orders that champion freedom, fairness and tolerance on the one hand, “empire and death camps on the other, “and many permutations in between.
However, knowing the underlying or fundamental mechanisms or laws from which our world proceeds can favorably influence the social, political and economic tapestry we weave. Consider the 3 primal drives: All of us want to acquire certain basic things crucial to survival (and more), preserve what we manage to gather about us, and perpetuate it so as to benefit our progeny and the community that nurtures and protects them. We can do this using rational and moral means so that fairness and mutual benefit are emphasized, or we can opt for something else entirely.
However, they all deal with meeting or satisfying some aspect of the human condition, and this most often through the allocation and judicious use of material and/or human resources.
In a way, all these various local entities and networks of entities (state, national or transnational) are functional algorithms of a sort– means of solving problems and/or meeting needs and/or helping folks cope — through semi-invariant procedures. Some merely point the way to viable solutions and are thus more heuristic in nature. And some combine elements of both (Known as a “heuristic algorithm” or of being “algorithmic” in scientific parlance).
A church, synagogue or mosque that provides money or food to the disadvantaged often adds a needed “human touch” missing from government offices.
Somehow we hope that between local efforts and national ones, the resultant symphony will be a harmonious and beautiful.
Of course, in order to create a wondrous symphonic work, the members of the orchestra (people and the society they comprise) must agree on how the orchestra will be run, how the music will be written and revised, and who will set the pace for the ensemble (The orchestra leader). In the United States, we advocate specific mechanisms for both preserving individually, maximizing creative freedom, and yet steering the whole towards a harmonious work as opposed to a raucous “noise fest”. The American way, as it were, is built on democratic principles and capitalism. The Japanese way, on the other hand, embraces democracy and capitalism, but has a strong element of conformity to what “the group” (society) deems in the best interests of all. Many countries in the EU favor a social democracy approach that offers varying degrees of “cradle to grave” care for its citizenry. Singapore is authoritarian in orientation. Iran embraces an Islamic theocracy. Cuba has a dictator.
The American system appears poised to fulfill Karl Marx’s prediction that capitalism corrupts, implodes, and then collapses (This is not to argue that necessarily offered a better set of devices for meeting a peoples needs and potentialities. But his extrapolations – his predictions – do seem uncannily accurate).
The Japanese democratic experiment, on the other hand, has managed to create and sustain a middle class that encompasses 95% of her people, made comprehensive national health care available to most, and has forged a social order that has one of the lowest crime rates in the industrialized world. There are signs that these devices are beginning to falter, but even so the Japanese willingness to adapt to contingency coupled with the group-driven ethic of their hardworking people may patch up and keep the Japanese sociopolitical engine running far into the future.
Most of us belong to a local band (Think back to the symphony analogy) – a small collective or branch of a larger one whose devices we utilize or become a part of in order to achieve certain ends (Material and otherwise). So long as these bands do not inflict harm or violate the laws the citizenry has agree to live by, such devices thrive and fulfill the purposes ordained by their constituency (They are “moral”). Up to and including providing meaning in life or facilitating finding such meaning. They may be playing different tunes, yes, but as they compete in the “marketplace of ideas” most wisely choose not to play a tune that attracts rather than offends those outside the band (If not for the sake of tolerance, then to keep from scaring off prospective converts or members).
The question arises, could all the bands (peoples) of the world tool together a musical piece that would be played by all – without sacrificing or compromising their individual, favored anthems and tunes? Can the world community achieve a utopian harmony and maintain it?
I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing
During 1971 Coca Cola launched a commercial that featured a musical group called “The New Seekers” singing a cheery, upbeat tune titled “I’d Like To Teach the World To Sing (In Perfect Harmony).” The lyrics include ones that beautifully capture the appeal of a utopian kind of harmony:
I’d like to teach the world to sing
Exactly what is involved in collectively writing (as it were) a global song of harmony? Which is to say, transcending the many differences, xenophobic and ethnocentric tendencies, religious quarrels, and such within and between nations and groups, in order to achieve a peaceful, peace-loving and peace-preserving global community?
Too,well,utopian?! I’m sure the creation of an enduring democracy in a land of people boasting a multitude of languages, cultural traditions, and religions must have seemed just as unlikely back in the 18th century. But the American experiment took root and flourished. How did a nation of diverse nations succeed in forging a viable social and political order that basically (though gradually and haltingly) subsumed and bound together all its constituents, worked to transcend differences (though not without great pain), and maintain a species of harmony that (though often frayed) has yet to come unraveled?
Is the American system the end result of good geography, good ideas and good luck (As in seizing opportunities)? In part, yes. But from its birth there was laid a foundation without which the many strands would have been unlikely to be wound together to form the one strong rope it has become: An express vision or template that all who call themselves Americans would embrace and defend. This vision or template included many elements such as the preeminence of basic articulated freedoms and rights for all; the rule of law; a democratically elected, representative government with constraints on the power exercised by its main branches; and so forth.
Now this is not to say that the success of the “American way” is a mandate for it to become the “Global Way”. But there are principles and ideas that can be extracted from the American experience, as well as that of other successful nations and collectives, which could form the core of a global vision or template.
If it is not a universal symphony, “..it may well be a funeral dirge.
Submitted for your consideration on Memorial Day (USA) – a day for reflection and moving forward – by Dr. Anthony G. Payne
Original copyright 2004 by Dr. Anthony G. Payne – All rights reserved.. This version copyright 2009 by Dr. Anthony G. Payne. All rights reserved.