Decent people and the current political period

I was just remarking to a colleague, today, that what I love about my colleagues and administration at Capital City, is that it's nice to be somewhere where being a decent person is appreciated, more, and not just persistently denigrated as too soft or too weak.

Decent people are being scapegoated, these days, for the failures of tougher approaches. Crime rates, and violent crime rates, in particular, have spiked for 2 years in a row - 2005 and 2006 - during a get-tough-on-crime period in the U.S. They've spiked all over the world, according to Foreign Policy magazine, during a period when the world has embraced tougher, more repressive policies, generally, and crime policies, specifically. Iran's nuclear program is nowhere nearer resolution except by the more realistic and diplomatic efforts of people like Mohamed El-Bardei and the International Atomic Energy Association. The stand-off over North Korea's nuclear program only took a positive turn with more light and less heat put on the situation, as one would expect. When America pressured North Korea, they walked away and South Korea brought them back to the table, in an initial phase, with diplomacy. When the West pressed with economic sanctions, the DPRK pulled out of negotiations until a diplomatic arrangement could be made.

No matter how much strong-arming fails, those who prefer strong-arming to reinforce their power - the rationalization of China's tough totalitarianism is really the most revolting face of this movement in the West - even when it fails, more decent folks have been perpetually scapegoated for those failures, even when they are generally more committed to efforts like those I am currently responsible for, sticking with those kids who make serious enough mistakes to get booted from every other school situation.

It's nice to be amongst people who take thoughtful analysis of situations with kids and compassion and decency to others more seriously. And have a little safe haven from a world gone made with obsession with it's power, no matter how much strong-arming fails to achieve its objectives. This must have been the feeling similar such people had during World War I, when the world went mad with power lust and everyone just had to wait until millions of deaths and a fruitless war of power and treasure culminated in Adolph Hitler taking imperialism and force as a governing philosophy to its logical conclusion. World War I caused 20 million deaths before the world would even begin face its hubris, and only in time to face down the height of such arrogance of power in the hands of Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito.

Decent people are being scapegoated for the failures of the pricks of the world, right now. Barring that, the stubborn and power-obsessed.

I guess that's the nature of being a prick. When your efforts fail, the last thing you want to do is take responsibility for that failure. Otherwise you miss the advantage of being a prick: being able to do what the hell you want and never having to take responsibility.

Maybe that's unfair. Maybe they're not pricks. Maybe they are concerned citizens who have just stubbornly pursued policies that have been counterproductive without acknowledging responsibility. Maybe their motives are more noble than that. Maybe.

What I do know is that no matter how much their efforts fail, noone ever takes responsibility.

George Bush knows something about that. So does Hillary Clinton. And so does most of the democratic and Western world, at this point.

The question is when they will take responsibility for that failure.

From 1914, it took two world wars and 92 million deaths before the world would acknowledge the failure of maximum political and military conquest as a route to peace or security before decent and democratic peoples of the world would face that failure.

92 million tragedies that could have been avoided if only world leaders had looked honestly and objectively at their failure.

But they refused. And 92 million people lost their lives in the name of that hubris.

We are democratic peoples. We will face this. The question is when. And how many peoples' lives will face unnecessary tragedy until we do so. Desmond Tutu and his work with truth and reconciliation points us in a better direction. My own work does as well, I think.

But we will have to wait, sadly, until this logic runs out and enough unecessary destructiveness in peoples' lives has been wrought.

And until we can face our failure.

In the meantime, I'd rather be amongst those who are scapegoated for that failure than those who refuse to face up to it.

May we all face up to this failure sooner rather than later.

Love,
Ben