During a recent Republican debate, Ron Paul, a long-shot
candidate, stated that the terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 may
have done so partly in response to our previous actions in the middle-east -
particularly our bombing of Iraq. After stating this view, he was
immediately set upon by the other Republican candidates - especially Rudi
Giulliani, who effectively used the moment to temporarily deflect attention from
his controversial position on abortion. Since then, some top Republicans
have raised the possibility of excluding Ron Paul from future
debates.
This sequence of events should be sadly astounding to any
half-way intelligent person. After all, terrorism is one of the most
critical issues we face, so it seems like U.S. presidential candidates ought to be
able to have a discussion about the root causes of terrorism with out resorting
to crude statements like "terrorists hate freedom, therefore I will eradicate
terrorism." And, it's not exactly hard to understand that if one country
attacks another country and kills some people in the second country, some of the
other people in second country might get angry and decide to attack the first
country. In fact, that's precisely what happened between the U.S. and
Afghanistan - a terrorist organization sheltered by the Taliban attacked us, we
got mad, and we destroyed the Taliban. It's simple cause and effect.
Actions have consequences. Anyone not understanding that simple rule isn't
competent enough to drive, let alone run for President.
But, of course, all of the U.S.
presidential candidates do understand that rule. And every one of them
knows that Ron Paul was right. That said, terrorists are hated by the
American people (for good reason). Consequently, its easy to attack any discussion
as to what motivates terrorists as sympathizing with the enemy. Thus Rudi
Giulliani (and the other Republicans) were able to score political points by
attacking Ron Paul for raising the issue.
Fundamentally, however, it isn't any
candidate's fault that Ron Paul was stifled. All of the U.S. presidential candidates
are creatures of the system they operate in, and they are forced
to play by its rules or be marginalized (a la Ron Paul). The American public
has repeatedly demonstrated a preference for false self-righteousness rather
than thoughtful discussion. When Ron Paul attempted to
explain that terrorists hate us partly because of the thing we've done to
them and their families, many Americans drew back in shock and horror and thought
"he's equating us with them - what we did was good and we did it to help them,
what they did was pure evil." Those people then went on to unthinkingly reject
what Ron Paul said, and to feel satisfied when Rudi Giulliani came down on
him. Of course it doesn't really matter whether the terrorists were pure
evil and the U.S. pure good or not. Ron Paul wasn't saying that the U.S.
and the 9/11 terrorists were morally equivalent (in fact, he almost certainly
thinks the U.S. is very good and that the terrorists are very evil).
That just isn't the point. The point is that even evil people do things for
a reason, and if you bomb a person's family (even if your goal is to save
thousands of lives), that person might well come back to attack
you.
The self-righteous folks, however, are actually
quite immoral. They take the easy, reactionary way out, and thus avoid having
to do any hard thinking about how to prevent terrorism. In fact,
their presence in the electorate actually makes it nearly impossible for
politicians to discuss any solutions to terrorism beyond killing terrorists (which is a short-term
solution at best, since doing so only angers more of our potential enemies and
turns more formally neutral people into terrorists). Rudi Giulliani's
response to Ron Paul demonstrates the power of these self-righteous people - they are able
to prevent the entire American public from ever hearing their
presidential candidates rationally discuss how to prevent terrorism.
This self-righteousness is not
merely limited to the Republican party or to the issue of terrorism. After
Hurricane Katrina, a few people raised the idea of not rebuilding the parts of
the city that were under sea level. They were
met with outrage, and the idea was never seriously
debated. Ironically, the lousy job we've done of rebuilding New Orleans hasn't raised
nearly as much public ire as the suggestion that we discuss not rebuilding below
sea level. Maybe the city should be rebuilt just as
it was - but there should have at least been a
thoughtful discussion of the alternatives.
Most rational people are not moral relativists. There
is broad agreement among Americans that the U.S. is basically good, that
terrorism is evil, and that New Orleans should be rebuilt. That said, it
is very unfortunate that rational debate is no longer welcome in our society and
that facts and reason are drowned in a pool of self-righteousness. Hoorah
for Ron Paul, he may be marginalized, but at least he's more interested in
preventing terrorism than buying off the self-righteous
masses.
Seed Newsvine