Two Observations

On my school campus (UNT) I have spoken with people about politics and current events. One common idea presented to me is the opposition to our current wars and a belief that they are caused by the failures of diplomacy of our leaders; that if we had negotiated more or better, we could have avoided war (this is part of the foreign policy platform Obama has been running on). They lament how in our day and age with such a sophisticated and advanced civilization we still have warfare. One girl (typical of the sentiment) began by saying “I may be called anti-American for saying this…”

Now, here is the rub. She, and all the others, are not anti-American in the least. They are, in a sense, the opposite. They are far too Amero-centric. She, and the other students, cannot see that others do not think the same way we do. They do not have the same culture. They do not have the same values. They do not make the same assumptions about culture and values. They do have have the same assumptions about government. They do not resolve problems the same way we do. They are not the same. I am surprised that my fellow students missed one glaring cogent demonstration of this:

Any group of people (or government who fosters or supports such groups) who blow themselves up in attempting to murder civilians as a way of trying to get what they want from other governments and people demonstrates quite clearly that we are not in any way dealing with a government or group of people that resembles in the least the American (or civilized) way of dealing with problems. In America, we discuss, legislate and vote. They murder, murder and murder. That is why it is not anti-America to believe we should not be fighting terrorists or those governments who support them, it is too Amero-centric. Some people can be dealt with through non-violent measures (such as negotiations and sanctions) others cannot. The world does not all think like us.

The other observation is less specifically about what fellow students say. It has more to do with the “change” platform demagoguery of Obama. One gets a sense that it is very optimistic and hopeful, that “change we can believe in,” or change for the better is coming. A very warm and wonderful sentiment. I believe it is actually the opposite. It is, in some ways, cynical even. Who would label the Obama platform as cynical? No one. But here’s why I think the adjective is appropriate.

First, Barack Obama’s platform entails a radical departure from our current system. It is no surprise now that he wants to “spread the wealth around” and redistribute it. He has plans for so many new programs that he plans on an additional 800 billion (that’s just shy of a trillion, or one thirteenth our entire nation’s GDP) in new spending for them. In short, he is running on the idea that the government solves all economic problems for the individual by spending lots of money on them. I will not take a long time to make this case, but let’s assume that he is doing this (and if there is disagreement on this point, I’ll make my case for it).

I believe it is cynical to think that the richest nation on the earth, whose upward fiscal mobility and fiscal freedom for literally everyone is among the greatest, if not the greatest in the world and where the last 25 years have seen the largest expansion of wealth in the history of the world! Why would we want to radically alter these things? This vast (exponential) increase in wealth in America in the last 25 years and increase of potential and opportunity for upward mobility and economic freedom was not caused by measures and policies entailing the idea that government and government programs, rather than the individual and individual business, makes the individual’s economic situation better and solves economic problems. Again, I will not take a long time to make this case, but let’s assume that this is true (and if there is disagreement on this point, I’ll make my case for it).

So, if you believe that the individuals and individual small businesses (which employ the majority of Americans) are not able to continue this economic growth for themselves and are not able to continually, through their own work and toil, make themselves better off, then you are cynical. The two options are to believe that Obama’s version of government will solve the average American’s problem, or that the average American will solve his own problem. The cynic disbelieves in millions upon millions of Americans and believes in a few elected officials. I believe in the millions upon millions of Americans to drive our economy and to make themselves richer and better off. I am not a cynic.

Moral Murder

I was watching Dr. Who last night (the new series, season one) and there was a an alien, disguised as a human who had killed many people and planned on killing everyone in the entire world with a super-plan that was about to commence in several days. The Entire World! Ok. Now, the Doctor captured her and was going to take her to her homeworld for justice (she’s a criminal for her own species too). While they are preparing to go, she tells them that her homeworld has the death penalty and they are essentially taking part in her execution by taking her to her executors. She presents the question – “you’re now no better than me!” The Doctor (supposedly one of the most brilliant beings in the universe) is stopped in his argument. He still plans on taking her, but this causes a lot of moral debate between all of the Doctor’s companions.
This seems common in a lot of films. The hero, about to kill the villain is confronted with this moral problem that he has become no better than the villain. This seems a little ridiculous (especially in the case of the Dr. Who episode where the alien had planned to kill the entire human race!).
Here is why it is silly. Surely no one contests against the idea that someone who plans and murders the death of his wife is more guilty than someone who is driving drunk and accidentally hits and kills this same woman. In other words, no one has a problem making a moral distinction between murder and manslaughter. One is intentional, the other is not.
When this murderous alien says to the Doctor “you’re the same as me,” why do people not scoff? Clearly the Doctor would not be taking her to her death had she not murdered anyone and planned to murder billions more! After comprehending the distinction between murder and manslaughter, why do people fail to see a distinction between execution and the murder of innocents?