"My guess is you are American...
and vastly ill-informed about direct political action."
"It doesn't take courage to shoot a policeman in the back
of the head or to murder an unarmed taxi driver. What takes
courage is to compete in the arena of democracy as these
men and women are tonight. The tools are persuasion, fairness
and common sense."
former U.S. Senator and peace talks chairman George Mitchell
announcing preliminary agreement to end the "troubles" in
N. Ireland on April 10, 1998.
From: RED GUY (REDGUY@aol.com)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 08:36:46 EST
To: cybrgbl@deltanet.com
Subject: Political
Terrorism
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
My guess is you are American. Certainly a conservative and vastly ill-informed
about direct political action. Do you think the Irish were happy to be
forcefully converted to protestantism by Oliver Cromwell. A man you must
despise as a political terrorist. Or King William of Oranges' attempt
to slay them. A man you must admire. Or how about starving to death because
the only crops you can eat are potatoes, grown on land you once owned
but now rent from a foreign conqueror. While all the best food, Beef,
tomatoes, chickens leave your country under armed guard for the British
Aristocracy and Lords to eat.
Better still if you are a Yank, as I suspect (prove me wrong). Why
do you not hand back our Colonies you stole from us with Political Terrorism
in the 1770s. Also don't talk to us about John
Locke as one of the fathers of your
constitution as he advocated armed inserection to change Governments
who break public trust.
When is your lovely Republic going to lift its sanctions on Cuba.
Surely that is political Terrorism. But of course you do not interfere
in other countries internal sovereign business. Such as Saudi Arabia
who regularly publically beheads woman on the ground of infidelity. But
of course you are against Female
Circumcision.
      Dear "Red Guy,"
      Yes, I am an American, and for this I
ask the forgiveness of no one. Your caustic comments have, on the
other hand, the unpleasant odor of the extremist Irish
Republican Army hanging around them, poignantly reminding me
why my own ancestors left that emerald island over 100 years ago
for the more propitious regions of North America. Thank you for the
reminder as to exactly what my family gave up and gained in the exchange.
      And, no, I don't look with much happiness
upon the historical figure of Oliver Cromwell, harbinger of much
war and misery in his time - a man whose chief skill was causing
other men to die violent deaths in a context of 17th century English
political instability. I do, however, take hope in the fact that
Cromwell was the last "Lord Protector"-style absolute ruler to govern
in England, as the Glorious ("Bloodless") Revolution of 1688 brought
about a political system where the English king once and for all
found himself ruling only within carefully prescribed limits set
down by Parliament. I see as much more important to us today the
legacy left to us by the poet John
Milton, jurist William Blackstone, and philosopher John
Locke - men who although they lived in the same period as Cromwell
thought very differently from him. (From an idea conceived in Athens centuries
ago, those thinkers helped extend the liberal tradition which respects
the individual's right to life and property, freedom of speech and
religion; and over time this developed into the constitutional liberalism
we see today emphasizing checks on the power of each branch of government,
equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation
of church and state.) It are not the prescient voices and messages
of Cromwell or King William of Orange but those of Milton and Locke that
reach down to us over the centuries and resonate as if alive, urging
an ethic of discussion and tolerance instead of autocracy and oppression.
I honor this tradition as it continues on through history in the
statesmen Thomas
Jefferson, James
Madison, Abraham
Lincoln, Winston
Churchill and Franklin
Delanor Roosevelt, and philosophers the Baron
de Montesquieu, Voltaire, Adam
Smith, John
Stuart Mill, Sirs
Karl Popper and Isaiah
Berlin - to answer your questions, in part.
      None of these worthy thinkers would argue
that violence and revolution are unwarranted or indefensible when
all other paths for political change have been exhausted. The colonial
Americans who came to populate General George Washington's citizen-soldier
army, for example, originally coached their objections to the arbitrary
taxes and governance of the King by claiming their rights as Englishmen
as elucidated in the Revolution of 1688. But the great success of
constitutional liberalism since that age are due in part to the fact
that democracy can make violent change unnecessary, with government
answerable to the people and the autonomy and dignity of the individual
more and more protected against religious, political and cultural
coercion. Democracy, as I see it, is about respecting certain "inalienable" rights
and choosing the ballot box over the bullet, if at all possible.
This liberal tradition in Great Britain and the United States has
helped those two countries avoid falling into the barbarism of fascism and communism which
have engulfed so much of the rest of the world this century.
      Freedom in Cuba,
Saudi Arabia, China?
I completely agree with Paul
Johnson when he asserted that "freedom is a good which any
rational man knows how to value, whatever his social origins, occupation
or economic prospects." I do not believe, as many do today, that
persons in the Middle or Far
East have been conditioned to be treated
poorly because of their unique cultural circumstances and as
such we should consider said treatment legitimate. And I would argue
this wherever it would come up by use of arguments and persuasion,
as I have done in many places (against my
own government,
as well as any
other). I believe if you do not change the soul within than the
world outside will never change; old corrupt and exploitative institutions
will simply be replaced by new corrupt and exploitative ones. I believe
it is the power of thought and ideas and not mere violence and physical
duress that ultimately bring about real change; I agree completely
with Ralph Waldo Emerson when he claimed that "spiritual are stronger
than material forces; that thoughts rule the world." General
Washington never was going to remove from the colonies a vastly superior
English military on the field of battle, the victory at Yorktown
and French support notwithstanding. Ghandi had not the wherewithal
to drive out the British colonizers by physical force. Without Voltaire,
the French Revolution would have been impossible. Martin Luther King,
Jr. won his civil rights struggles in the hearts and minds of Americans
not through a campaign of bluster, intimidation, and insurrection
but through moral strength and personal example. Conversely, history
- especially recent history! - is replete with mindless political
violence which instead of ameliorating human misery and suffering
has only increased it.
      Let us take a look at the achievements
of liberal democratic government as it has evolved over the past
three hundred years: limited government by the rule of law, a tolerance
for a multiplicity of views, strong civic associations, and rational
discourse among men and women of different opinions. Even with all
its shortcomings and weaknesses, this style of government has allowed
sections of the globe to flourish and prosper as never before. The
quiet virtues of democracy -- the space it leaves for privacy, the
individual, the ability to choose -- are no less virtuous for being
quiet. But buffeted by the calumnies of day-to-day political life,
I notice that much of this noble rhetoric with respect to "rights" and "freedom" wears
thin as human frailty and prejudice lead to political scandals, abuses
of power, rank incompetence, etc. Instead of the princesses' glass
slippers, democracy leaves us with the worn and frayed pair of comfortable
walking shoes in the closet which have conferred workable service
over many years. Nevertheless, I suspect we do not truly appreciate
those old walking shoes until they are gone and we find ourselves
walking the streets barefoot. (How ironic that those who enjoy political
freedom are often the ones who are least likely to appreciate it,
knowing nothing else!) Why commit to the mundane banality of unglamorous
and ambiguous political life when you can embrace the epic millennial
revolutionary struggle? Two harrowing words, bringing to mind images
of barbarity and feelings of disgust upon hearing them, instruct
as to why: Northern
Ireland.
      But why face the squalid reality of the
IRA's long campaign of violence and intimidation in Ulster? It is
of course more comforting to romanticize the "cause" and imagine
a heroic resistance to oppression than to confront the death, injury,
division and bitterness that are the IRA's only true achievements.
This primitive tribal struggle is grist for anthropologists and criminal
psychologists -- a throwback to earlier decades of 20th century European
history when thuggery and intimidation were often more the rule than
the exception. And the fratricidal conflict continues today, even
in the European Union of the Common Market and generalized peace
and prosperity! When even the British and Irish governments see eye-to-eye
on the issues! But from ancient grudges break endless fresh mutinies,
and so the bloodshed mindlessly continues as if on autopilot. Will
it never end?
      Mao Zedong tells us that power is in
the muzzle of a gun. You yourself talk euphemistically about "direct
political action," as if blowing up a man were little different than
persuading him. In too many parts of the world, your point of view
holds sway! But power is also to be found in words, and in the long-run,
words triumph over guns. How sad that Northern Ireland has produced
so many more bloodied experts in bomb building and gunnery than social
visionaries willing to lead or solid wordsmiths able to craft messages
worth following! After decades of the most senseless violence, this
might only be changing now. Why must violence be the lingua franca of
Ulster? Why must people live like beasts in Northern Ireland? As
Isocrates claimed:
"In most of our abilities we differ not at all from
the animals. We are in fact behind many in swiftness and strength
and other resources. But because there is born in us the power
to persuade each other and to show ourselves whatever we wish,
we not only have escaped from living as brutes, but also by coming
together have founded cities and set up laws and invented arts,
and speech has helped us to attain practically all of the things
we have devised."
This power of reason and intellect may not be enough to overcome
the blind hatred and blood feuds in Northern Ireland, as the "better
angels" of our human natures swim against the tides of history and
prejudice; but it is perhaps the only hope. It is certainly a better
hope than your talk of "direct political action." The pen is
mightier than the sword; ink is more indelible than blood.
      "Red Guy," you seem a contentious fellow
- e-mailing me (a perfect stranger) so inhospitably from your America
Online account. Perhaps a spell in Castro's Cuba might change your
manners and political perspective. I suspect you probably would not
get on well with the authorities there in the same way so many of
the old Bolsheviks finally fell afoul of Stalin,
the wolves eventually devouring one another.
      Sincerely,
      Richard Geib
P.S. The economic embargo against Cuba is political terrorism?
I disagree; nobody is being car-bombed or shot dead in the streets
of Cuba by agents of the American government today. The United States
has simply decided not to trade with that country. Fidel Castro -
the only political force in that country which matters - sided with
the Soviet Union in the Cold War and his side lost. Now he (and,
unfortunately, his suffering people) is paying the consequences;
such is the bed he made for himself, let him lie in it. As Castro
will not live forever, neither will the embargo: patience is all.