Davison Online

Is it wrong to celebrate the death of an enemy?

I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.—Martin Luther King, Jr 

Yet the world is an undeniably better place without Osama bin Laden in it. There is evil in the world, and at times the good must rise up and extinguish it. Surely, two world wars can have most of us agree on as much. Unless we’re willing to live with enslavement and tyranny, I see no other solution than force of arms for keeping dictators, madmen, and terrorists at bay. It is the sad nature of humankind that evil exists.

I think it folly to suppose that Gandhi’s and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts through nonviolence and civil disobedience, as successful as they were in India and the American South respectively, could avert war between nations, stop international terrorism, or bring outlaws to justice. Indeed, without British shame and Kennedy’s National Guard one wonders how successful the aforementioned nonviolent movements would have been.

Nonetheless, nonviolence does not compromise one’s soul in the ways that violence does, and that is an enormous strength and value that should not be underestimated. Within a civil society, nonviolence protest can be the most effective and least diminishing course of action. It takes a willingness on the part of the oppressor to accept change, but it can be highly effective. (Case in point, the recent nonviolent revolution in Egypt.) That would be similarly true on the larger geopolitical stage, except that I don’t believe that it generally works. (At least I can think of no ready example.)

But none of this makes the good Reverend wrong. Hate begets hate, and darkness easily consumes the soul. Nations must fight wars with great reluctance not only because of the physical destruction that takes place, but because in war we dent our humanity, and after the experience our souls are never quite the same. The soldiers returning from the front lines are only the most obvious casualties. No one can convince me that our national psyche is better now than it was on September 10, 2001.

People are in the streets celebrating the death of bin Laden today, which strikes me by turns as macabre and idiotic. Celebrating death might be fine at an Irish wake, but it’s another thing entirely to be jubilant at the murder of another human being, no matter how heinous. Grim satisfaction seems a more appropriate response than jingoist pride—especially when in so many ways we’ve lost the undefinable “war on terror.”

Having spent trillions of dollars, instituted Big Brother-like surveillance both internationally and domestically, and dramatically curtailed civil liberties, how can we claim to have won? How will we ever? We’re on a path to literally bankrupt our country, and we’re less free (individually and collectively) than we’ve been at any time in living memory. Of this, what changes with the death of the world’s leading terrorist?

On this final question, I can only be happy if bin Laden’s death serves as the beginning of the end of US overseas military entanglements, and then not so much at his death as the possibility that we may begin to remake ourselves into a peaceful, solvent, freedom-loving nation. If his demise marks a necessary first step in a return to our better selves, so be it. What I celebrate is not his death, but the prospect of personal and national peace and the hope that such a thing is still possible.

Tags: politics

“We’re here to show that we mean business,” said Margie Layton of Salem, who arrived wearing military fatigues and a wicker basket on her head festooned with tea bags.

Tags: politics

Like everyone else, I was caught completely off-guard by John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin as the GOP Veep candidate. I know next to nothing about Alaska politics so I’ve little to say on that score.

What I can say is that a reading of her resumé leads to the obvious conclusion that she is utterly unqualified to be vice president of the United States. John McCain is 72 and has had repeated bouts with cancer. Not to be morbid, but it’s not inconceivable that his vice president might at some point need to assume the powers of the presidency.

The veep slot is therefore not one for on-the-job training. Can you imagine Sarah Palin as President Palin? (I can see the headlines: “Hockey Mom to guide free world.”) Me neither, and neither, apparently, can the politicos in Alaska. From “Choice stuns state politicians” in the Anchorage Daily News:

State Senate President Lyda Green said she thought it was a joke when someone called her at 6 a.m. to give her the news.

“She’s not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?” said Green, a Republican from Palin’s hometown of Wasilla. “Look at what she’s done to this state. What would she do to the nation?”

That’s the Republican reaction. The Democratic response is, much like mine I suppose, about what you’d expect:

…Anchorage Democratic state Sen. Hollis French said it’s a huge mistake by McCain and “reflects very, very badly on his judgment.” French said Palin’s experience running the state for less than two years hasn’t prepared her for this.

Still, it’s the stunned nature of the Alaska Republicans where most of the giggles are to be found:

State House Speaker John Harris, a Republican from Valdez, was astonished at the news. He didn’t want to get into the issue of her qualifications.

“She’s old enough,” Harris said. “She’s a U.S. citizen.”

Former House Speaker Gail Phillips, a Republican political leader who has clashed with Palin in the past, was shocked when she heard the news Friday morning with her husband, Walt.

“I said to Walt, ‘This can’t be happening, because his advance team didn’t come to Alaska to check her out,” Phillips said.

Phillips has been active in the Ted Stevens re-election steering committee and remains in close touch with Sen. Lisa Murkowski and other party leaders, and she said nobody had heard anything about McCain’s people doing research on his prospective running mate.

“We’re not a very big state. People I talk to would have heard something.”

A few thoughts on the matter:
1. Sarah Palin should be nobody’s idea of “qualified to be president” and McCain’s nomination of her shows a terrible lack of judgment and a rather despicable display of political maneuvering in going after disaffected Hillary voters;
2. It appears that Palin was not vetted, and it’s not like she’s without ethical issues, namely this one;
3. I can’t wait for the veep debate between her and Biden;
4. It’ll take a little time to know for sure, and I wouldn’t say so without examining her and her record more closely (than, say, McCain did), but unless she’s really something, McCain may have just lost any chance at victory.
5. I doubt I’m the only one who thinks that, when all is said and done, Sarah Palin may not be the GOP veep candidate come November.

Tags: politics