Walter Russell Meade on Hamiltonian State Craft

Walter Russell Mead has written an excellent essay in the most recent Foreign Affairs.  Its title:  " Return of Hamiltonian State Craft:  A Grand Strategy for a Turbulent World". 

 

This essay challenges some of my most fundamental ideas, particularly the drive for global governance.  Walter Russell Mead feels this is an illusory dream, other than limited governance agreements on specific issues that the participating nations see in their own self-interest.  

 

Hamiltonian State Craft rests on three beliefs according to Mead:

 

1.     The first business of government is to ensure the conditions that allow private business to flourish.  A solid currency, a stable financial system and deep capital markets, together with the rule of law, are key parts of the infrastructure that sustains American life. 

 

2.     The second big Hamiltonian idea is the critical role of the nation in national feeling.  Americans must embrace a duty of care toward one another.  Nationalism or patriotism is a moral necessity, not a moral failing.  Americans are not just citizens of the world, but also citizens of the American republic.  I believe my service in the Navy has built a deep commitment to this idea.  I also agree that we have obligations to our fellow citizens that do not extend in the same way to all of humankind.

 

Patriotism lends American business a legitimacy without which its future is insecure.  Companies like Procter & Gamble can certainly view themselves as a global company but it would be a mistake not to understand a commitment to our nation as a preeminent goal. 

 

3.     The third idea Mead draws from Hamilton’s legacy is the concept of realism in foreign policy.  Here, Mead gets to the nub of the matter.  Hamilton “did not believe that humanity was naturally good or naturally disposed to settle down in democratic and egalitarian societies, all harmoniously at peace with one another.  Short of divine intervention he did not expect the arrival of a perfectly just society, a perfectly honest government or a perfectly (constructed) national order".  Hamilton believed that people were naturally flawed.  They were “selfish, greedy, jealous, petty, vindictive and sometimes extraordinarily brutal and cruel.  Elites were arrogant and grasping; mobs were ignorant and emotional.”

 

All true, all this will be always true.  But it does not negate the need for imagination and discipline to change the order of things, even if we know it won’t be perfect.  How otherwise could the Common Market have come together?  How otherwise could we finally come to recognize the legitimacy and rightness of marriage between two races?

 

My saying this is in line with what Mead ascribes to Hamilton.  He “was not a determinist.”  He didn’t think there were any social science laws that governed everything. 

 

He believes that Hamiltonian policymakers can act ruthlessly in support of national interest and, at the same time, be models of enlightened state craft in bringing together the world on issues where the world must work together like nuclear proliferation and climate change.

 

 

There is great wisdom in what Mead writes.  My one caution, my one warning, is that this “ultimately realistic view of the world and people” not constrain us from trying to do what more we can in our own way whether that’s in our family, community, nation or world, to provide circumstances that not only ensure the safety and prosperity of the American people but also the people of the world, knowing that to the extent we can do it, it will be limited and knowing we will be advancing our own national cause as well.

  

Donald Trump--Unfit to be Our President

 I write this reluctantly, but with conviction and love for our country.

Donald Trump is UNFIIT for our Presidency. I judged that true 8 years ago. Now it is proven true. 

Proven lack of character. Lies non-stop. Utterly lacking in integrity.

Proven gross cruelty. To opponents, to friends, to everyone. We have had "mean" presidents before. Never one cruel like Trump. Utterly devoid of kindness. 

Declared "unfit"by 44 of 49 people who worked for him.

Increasingly losing it. Rambling, forgetful. I understand. I am old too. 

We cannot allow him to be our President.

We Are On A Slippery Slope to a Bigger and Bigger War

 

Wed, Oct 2 at 3:31 AM

We are on a slippery and dangerous slope in the Middle East. Iran launches an attack against Israel in response to the Israeli attack on Hezbollah. Israel promises a strong response to Iran’s  attack. We have been on a slippery slope for years and the speed of our descent is accelerating. 

There are many roots that brought us to where we are. But the fundamental and most proximate one I believe is Israel’s enduring apartheid subjugation of the Palestinians and the inability and unwillingness  of the Arab world and Israel and  world leaders to put their minds to achieve lasting peace, which, of course can only occur by granting self-determination and safety to both Israel and Palestine. Even to this moment, Netanyahu and his cabinet  are refusing to recognize and support the path to a two states solution.

The United States has lost any semblance of leverage to cure the situation.

In my opinion, a collection of world leaders from Israel, Palestine, the Arab world, the United States, and Europe , India, and ideally, China need to come together to demand and help fashion a road to peace. Even if not permanent, we need to put a solution in place that will stop the risk of this escalating to a  major war involving Iran, Israel, and the west. I fear we are on a potential path to that now. And the use of some form of nuclear weapons dare not be excluded.

"The Plague of the Other"

 

“The Plague of the Other”

 

 Ecstatic Nation by Brenda Wineapple is one of the finest histories I have ever read.  Numerous passages in this fine book bring to life “the plague of the other” which is at the root of so much evil and such an embedded part, sadly, of human nature.  It is a demonstration of that all-too-present human tendency to elevate ourselves by comparing ourselves invidiously with “another” different from us, perhaps even threatening us, with whom we compare ourselves, ever so positively, and whom, because of this feeling, we come to the belief that we have every right to exploit them.

 

The first of these examples lies in the mind and words of Alexander Stephens, who became Vice-President of the Confederacy, having served in Congress for many years.

 

The “cornerstone” of the Confederate States, he said, “rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.”  Speaking impromptu in Savannah, GA a few weeks after the inauguration of the Confederate government, he enthusiastically called the new Confederate government “the first in the history of the world, based upon this great philosophical, and moral truth.”  Its constitution has “put at rest forever all agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the Negro in our form of civilization.”  

 

Roll the clock forward and we come to our treatment of the Native Americans. General Sherman, the same general that had waged war so effectively against the Confederacy in his march to Atlanta and the sea, declared, as Brenda Wineapple says so acutely “with typical amoral clarity” the following:  “The country is so large and the advantage of the Indian so great, that we cannot make a single war and end it.  From the nature of things we must take chances and clear out Indians as we encounter them.”  (General Sheridan, a Union General who fought the Confederacy, mirrored Sherman’s attitude as he remarked:  “The only good Indians I know are dead.”) 

 

The justification for this was deeply embedded in the warped minds of many people who, looked at today, we would say should have known better.  Take Francis Amasa Walker.  Walker served as Commissioner in the government’s Bureau of Indian Affairs in 1871-72.  He was a well-known economist and Eugenicist and, if that wasn’t enough of a pedigree, he later was the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  

 

This well-educated and well-positioned man had this to say about the Indian:  “The Indian is unfortunately disposed to submit himself to the lower and baser elements of civilized society and to acquire the vices and not the virtues of the whites.”  

 

One journalist had this to say:  “To talk of the rights of the Indian today requires the same nerve and moral courage and conscientiousness it did 20 years ago to talk of the rights of the slave and the man who has searched them is considered just as mad, foolish and visionary as were the Abolitionists of 1840 or 1850.”

 

The New York Herald had this contentious comment to make about Wendell Phillips, the long-suffering, courageous leader for freedom of all sorts, including the African-American and Native American:  “Wendell Phillips’ new nigger is the ‘noble Redman’.”

 

Wendell Phillips had it right as he said:  “All the great points of the epoch have arisen out of this hatred between the races.”  To which Brenda Wineapple reprises:  “Race was, had been and would continue to be the issue dividing the United States.”  

 

The plague of “the other.”  On and on it goes.  Throughout all time.  To be resisted in each of our lives.  We see it today with Sunni vs. Shiite, right-wingers vs. left-wingers, rich vs. poor.  “We should never be able to be just to other races (or I’d add, any people who are different from ourselves), or will reap the full benefit of their neighborhood, till we unlearn contempt,” Wendell Phillips said.  

 

More positively, I would say:  “Let us never fail to strive to see the other person in ourselves and ourselves in others.”

 

My Latest Book

Friends, 

I have just published my last and likely final collection of personal essays and reflections: "Pepperspectives: The Final Chapter". Available on Amazon on Kindle and soft back.

Best, John 

Where Do We Ground Our Ethical beliefs? A Personal View

The Case for Grounding Ethics in Human Nature and Experience rather than Religion and Divine Commands???

 

Over the years, I have thought deeply about the basis for my ethical beliefs.  To what extent is it based on my alignment with what Jesus preached and what Christianity is at its best (loving God and treating your neighbor as yourself) relative to the alternative of basing my ethical behavior on the realization that we as humans are “continuous with nature” and that as argued by the German philosopher, writer and anthropologist Ludwig Feuerbach, rooting our behavior in physical and social realities and observance of the importance of human relationships and dialogue. 

 

Feuerbach in his work, The Essence of Christianity (1841) advocated for a shift from God-centered to human-centered ethics.  He promoted a new philosophy that made man, with the inclusion of nature as the foundation of man, “unique, universal and the highest object of philosophy.”  He wanted to ground ethics in human nature and experience rather than divine commands. 

 

He argues that the concept of God is a projection of human qualities, something we have created. 

 

He advocated the pursuit of happiness but argued that, in pursuing that goal, it was necessary to recognize the importance of the happiness of others.

 

This all raises the question.  Is a secular, human-centered approach to ethics and morality one that can result in a more peaceful world and coexistence among peoples?  We know that the pursuit of religion has often resulted in wars and there is no reason to feel that will end.

 

Where do I come out on all of this?  What have I personally found to be true?

 

First, I take nourishment from viewing all of us as human beings as part of nature.  It would be unrealistic to do otherwise.  It’s a reality.  But I also see no evidence that a nature-based human rights philosophy will, in fact, lead to a more peaceful world.

 

What I have concluded is that there is no getting around the inherent human tendency to pit ourselves against and elevate ourselves relative to other people.  It’s ego-driven selfishness; it’s inextricable.  This tendency co-exists with beneficent instincts too.  Our task is, in proverbial terms, to live by the better angels of our nature.

 

What helps one do that?  It will vary by individual, of course.  For me, religion or, more precisely, the preaching of Jesus and what He stood for, which I find co-terminus with the foundational principles of other religions, has been of enormous help.  I recognize that this foundation of belief may well be something I’ve created to serve as a proverbial crutch to improve my behavior.  I accept that.  I have no problem with it.  But for me it is more than that. It is an inspiration to pursue what is good in life. 

 

As beguiling and perhaps intellectually correct as the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach may be I do not retreat for a moment from my commitment to try to follow as best I can the preaching and actions of Jesus.

 

The Glory of a Relationship Where Your Mutual Affection and Respect Are Unconditional and Unquestioned

 

I was moved to write this reflection twenty years ago because of a coming together of conversations with my wife, Francie, and children and in particular at that time with my daughter, Susie.

 

"I have found that you reach a point in a relationship where your affection and respect for another person grows to a point that it becomes unconditional and unquestioned.

 

You reach this point by seeing a person’s integrity revealed again and again.  You reach it by experiencing a feeling of caring and trust that is deep and jointly shared.  You reach it as you experience a greater sense of wholeness, of pleasure, and of personal fulfillment in the company of the other person.

 

You reach it as you enter a relationship that allows you to share not only the everyday issues and concerns, but those that matter the most to you.

 

You reach that point and never lose it, one hopes with your spouse and with your children and, if you’re lucky, over the course of a lifetime, you reach it with a few business associates and friends.

 

When you reach this point there is nothing you won’t do to help another person.  You only hope that they realize this to the point of being willing to reach out for that help in the instance when you may not be aware of the need".