Political Ideals

Well, as mentioned in the last post, I am going to be continuing my investigation of the role of government and politics and attempt to put this work by Bertrand Russell in conversation with Thoreau's piece. Hopefully this will work.

One good quote from this work is the following: "For this reason  the men who believe in force are the men whose thoughts and desires are preoccupied with material goods." I whole-heartedly agree with this observation and I immediately thought of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a U.S-led coalition. While many official reasons were put forth by the White House, over the years some alternate theories have risen in popularity to explain what really happened. One must be extremely cautious when reading these because some are so off the wall that they cannot be taken seriously, while others seem entirely possible. Bush claimed that he wished to enter Iraq to oust the malevolent dictator Saddam Hussein. By removing Saddam from power, a figure who had been in power for twenty-some years and had been, to put it colloquially, a pest to the American government. If one thinks back nearly a decade, he is the reason why Bush Sr. entered the region when his aggression towards Kuwait was taken to an intolerable level. Bush promised that by removing this man from power, that democracy, peace and stability in the Middle East would soon follow suit. Thus, the coalition was formed to forcibly enter Iraq. Not to immediately ensure democracy, peace and stability for the Iraqi people, but rather to secure oil interests near the Gulf and in southern Iraq/Kuwait. If those were disrupted, the flow of oil to the United States would lessen, thus plunging the economy into the tank. Thus, if we take Russell's observation and apply it to this situation, one can see that the U.S. was not interested in securing what it overtly promised (at least not at first). Once they used force to enter Iraq (which, granted, did not require a ton of force), the U.S. was after material items/gain, for men who believe in force are preoccupied with material goods (such as oil).

However, is this observation absolutely correct for every situation? I wondered and thought of the Wars of Religion in 16th century Europe. As one can assume from the name, these were religious wars fought between different sects of Christianity (mainly Catholics and Protestants) over which tradition was more correct and orthodox. There were clearly some spiritual, religious motives behind the use of force in these instances, so does that refute Russell's position? I think not because while a religious bent may have been a motivation for fighting, I do not think that it was the sole purpose for war. I believe the men leading these factions were also interested (to some degree) in acquiring land, wealth, fame, etc.

He briefly gives some "rules to live by" which include:
(1) be concerned with creative impulses rather than possessive impulses -- meaning that rather than being concerned with property and the acquisition thereof, be more concerned with spiritual, intellectual, and cultural achievements. I totally agree with this rule because I also think that we are too focused on making money that we tend to lack in other "creative" profits we can receive in this world, which ultimately tend to make everyone better off.
(2) have a reverence for others -- basically, respect others around you. This is definitely a rule that we instill in children from a young age, which ultimately makes many, if not all, grown individuals respectful of those around them.
(3) Respect for self and consciousness -- pretty self-explanatory. Respect yourself and the fact that you are a cognizant being.

Basically, then, what his rules boil down to are: respect yourself, respect others, and don't worry about the money, be more concerned with rewards that can benefit society in a different way.

Speaking of war and invasion, an interesting quote from him is the following: "War is recognized as an evil by an immense majority in every civilized country: but this recognition does not prevent war." We all know it is wrong and ought to be stopped, because that is the right thing to do, yet we are drawn to inactivity rather than action, which is something that Thoreau also brings to the fore in his piece on civil disobedience. Both of these men, then, are calling us to become more active citizens to create a better world for ourselves and our posterity.

I think this ought to suffice for today, but I will definitely be adding to this post in a continuation of this work of his. In the next section he will denounce capitalism and the wage system and attempts to point out why it is wrong and ought to be overthrown. Should make for an interesting discussion. Until next time!