I am sick.
In this post public relations spin / social media world, I am sick of politicians who utter or post words of how their thoughts are with the victims and the survivors of yet another terrorist attack as they congratulate the emergency services for a job well done, and, who express their outrage that anyone could commit such an atrocity. And I am sick of it as, unfortunately and it may seem heartless of me, these are words issued simply for public consumption in an effort to convince people that politicians are more compassionate than perhaps their public personae would otherwise have you believe.
But what is even more galling is when any such politicians ignore that, when speaking from the other side of their mouths, they have expressed sympathy with and/or support for terrorists and terrorist organisations. How can such people be taken seriously? What’s worse is that today’s news cycles are too quick to allow for probing of any depth to reconcile this philosophical conflict.
Social media makes me sick too. It has led to supposed friends attacking each other with pushme-pullyou comments about the prevention of terrorism in the West. Our online world has been reduced to name calling and the establishment of another political divide. Gerry Rafferty comes to mind again:
Pacifists to the left of me
Warhawks to the right
Here I am
Stuck in the middle with…
BOOM!
I understand pacifism. I understand a commitment to nuclear disarmament. But they are ideals that, much to our shame, have no place in politics. And by politics what I mean is the discourse between two or more people or nations.
Let us look at this hypothetical scene as a good example from which to elaborate. There are two children, one of whom is eating an ice cream cone. The other is not.
Child 1: Give me some of your ice cream.
Child 2: Get your own.
Child 1: Give me some of your ice cream.
Child 2: Go away. It’s mine.
Child 1 clobbers Child 2 and takes the ice cream cone and eats it while Child 2 cries.
Of course, as parents and adults we hope children will learn to share. It doesn’t always happen But whether it is an ice cream cone or some beloved toy, the aggressor either covets or wishes to destroy something the pacifist owns and will take any step to do so.
This includes blowing up, ramming or stabbing random, innocent people.
It would be great if we lived in a world with no conflict. But it is a naïve hope, especially when the pacifist comes to believe that idealism causes his or her views to matter more than practicality. On the contrary. It is the aggressor’s view that sets the societal tone.
When I was an undergraduate, I took philosophy courses in formal logic as well as a course entitled How To Win An Argument (informal logic). It was in the latter that I learned one simple rule: never argue with a fanatic because you will never win, never change a fanatic’s mind. That rule applies equally to extremists and fundamentalists as well as idealists. If someone’s mind is closed, we have to accept that.
And move on.
When the issue is terrorism or the prevention thereof, we have to recognise that we are often dealing with closed minds and on both sides. What should we do? Until ideals become a reality, I think that in modern times, we need to look back and modify the words of Theodore Roosevelt slightly to a new ethos for detente: Speak softly and carry an even bigger stick.