Boston Marathon 'Right Wing' Talk Does Left, Right and Center a Disservice

Does partisanship know no bounds? Is it impossible for liberals and conservatives to see ambiguity? Can we focus on healing the wounded, instead of hurling hurtful words at ideological 'opponents'?

In the wake of the Boston bombing, I'm afraid to say the answer to all three questions is "No."

As soon as the news broke of the awful events at the marathon, the blogosphere, Twitter and Facebook lit up with theories about who was to blame. Maybe it was North Korean, Syria or Iran. Perhaps an isolated, unstable person like James Holmes, the alleged Aurora shooter. But wait, it's Tax Day in the US, and Patriots' Day. The Tea Party is calling for lower taxes and less government. That's it! It must have been the work of subversive "right wing" forces! Draw line to Timothy McVeigh. Case closed.

Really? Has our determination to politicize, polarize and polemicize every aspect of American society gone this far? I know we're all into playing the blame game, of pointing fingers, of pushing responsibility onto anyone else but ourselves. But to start pointing fingers to either side of the political spectrum in the wake of such a tragedy is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest.

The next (il)logical leap for some commentators is to not only blame so-called "right wing extremists" but to finger Conservatism itself as being reactionary, hateful and destructive. If those who are right of center weren't directly responsible, they're still on the hook, according to some.New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof tweeted, "Explosion is a reminder that ATF needs a director. Shame on Senate Republicans for blocking apptment."

Now, the bomber and his or her co-conspirators may end up being tied to an extremist group. I'm not ruling that out, but my point is this knee-jerk "look left, look right, assign blame without thinking" approach has got to stop. By demonizing right or left, and/or seeking to label a political philosophy that we don't agree with as "evil" instead of wrong-headed, is profoundly destructive. As we bemoan gridlock in Washington (Nicholas Kristof was correct about that), shake our heads as we see Republicans' and Democrats' inability to pass a solid budget and our confidence level in Congress slips further, to 13%, why are we so determined to heap kindling on the partisan fire?

Click here to keep reading this article via The Huffington Post

Syria: Have Our 'Best and Brightest' Learned Nothing From History?

I recently wrote about Kofi Annan's peace plan for Syria, and how I hoped it was not too late for the Syrian people living under President Bashar al-Assad's tyranny. Unfortunately, my worst fears have been realized on this matter: Assad continues his assaults on the 'rebels,' all the while thumbing his nose at the democratic West and the U.N.

We should have seen this coming. Certainly, our leaders, the latest "best and brightest" contingent who represent us, should have. But, as is so often the case, we chose to overlook the lessons of history, instead favoring optimism and faith in our fellow (hu)man.

Even a basic grasp of the recent past would have spared us the wasted time of frowning at Assad and threatening him with sanctions, which to a dictator like him are about as effective as trying to stop a grizzly charge with a pea shooter. And, more importantly, we could have DONE SOMETHING to help the poor people of Syria, many of whom simply want the right to vote, the rule of law, and the other freedoms we take for granted. Instead, as Assad spoke out of one side of his mouth to agree to the ceasefire, he spoke out of the other to order his generals to continue the killing.

Part of the problem is that it is human nature to assume we are on a level playing field with our adversaries and that they will respect supposedly universal standards of engagement - the Queensbury Rules of international politics. Yet, with dictators from Stalin to Hitler to Saddam Hussein, this is not the case.

They don't care about the rules because they consider themselves above them - the megalomania and arrogance that every tyrant I can recall possesses. They also have the assurance of protection by armaments, which just fuels their blind disregard for the Geneva Convention, the Charter of the United Nations and any other coda that democratic nations abide by. The dictator views ruling by committee as weakness, diplomatic exchange as folly, and assurances of cooperation as contemptible, only to be used to buy time to solidify the position of strength.

And so it goes with Assad.

He will not be deposed by ceasefire plans, by transition strategies or by diplomatic engagement. The only language he understands is force, or, as Harry Truman put it about the Soviet Union, the simple question of "how many divisions do you have?" This is not to say that a full-scale ground invasion is needed, or, indeed, that it would do anything other than ignite the tinderbox of the Middle East. Yet we have seen recently (in the case of Libya) and not so long ago (in Bosnia), that there are other, smarter ways to topple a man like Assad. Regardless of what Britain and America do - for with certain nations continually exercising their vetoes in irresponsible fashion in the UN, it may be time for independent action - the window for talking has been slammed down on our fingers.

More Syrian men, women and children are dying by the day. How long will we allow this continue?

The U.N. and Syria: A "Mere Frothing of Words?"

In the past week, U.N. Special Envoy Kofi Annan proposed a six-point plan for ending the violence and oppression in Syria. As of today, the Arab League was discussing his proposal, and was expected to endorse it.



Syria itself has accepted Mr. Annan's call for a ceasefire and his other five points, though it has a long history of violating such agreements whenever President Bashar al-Assad feels like it. Shelling his citizens, including women and children. Torturing dissidents. Imprisoning journalists. These are the hallmarks of Assad's dictatorship.



I applaud Annan's active diplomacy, his courage and his leadership. The former U.N. Secretary General has built his reputation on such pillars, in stark contrast with the Syrian despot he is attempting to peaceably remove.

However, I question why it took the United Nations so long to create such a plan. Same goes for the Arab League, which expelled Syria last year and yet has done little to effectively curb Assad's abuses.

During his March 1946 speech in Fulton, Mo., (actually called "The Sinews of Peace" but soon re-christened "The Iron Curtain speech"), Winston Churchill's most famous soundbytes were his definition of the Iron Curtain and the "special relationship" between the English-speaking peoples, led by Britain and America. Yet there are other significant messages therein that are often overlooked.

One such message is Churchill's urging that the U.N. become a "temple of peace" instead of a "Tower of Babel." Churchill also cautioned against the fledgling association succumbing to a "mere frothing of words" rather than active diplomacy backed by strength. He had witnessed first hand the failure of The League of Nations to achieve its primary aim, namely that World War I should be "the war to end all wars." With Nazism gone but the specter of Communism darkening Eastern Europe and menacing the Middle and Far East, Churchill realized that the new version of the League would have its work cut out. And so it proved.

While the U.N. eventually took decisive measures in Bosnia (thanks in no small part to President Bill Clinton's leadership) and has other successes it can be proud of, its record is blighted with inaction in Zimbabwe, Rwanda and Uganda, to name just three. This is not to say that the U.N. should be a hawkish organization that authorizes pre-emptive strikes or full-scale ground invasions every week. But neither should it, neither can it, sit idly by while ethnic cleansing, Assad-style brutality, and genocide occur under its very nose.

Churchill's advice?

"We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock."
Or, roughly translated, the U.N. must be a body built on "the rock" of close associations within the Anglosphere, a body of nations committed to defending those who cannot defend themselves in word and in deed.

Congratulations to Mr. Annan on putting Churchill's timeless guidance into action. I hope it is not too late for the Syrian people.

Winston Churchill and the Digital Iron Curtain

March 5th will mark the 66th anniversary of Winston Churchill’s “Sinews of Peace” address, better known as the “Iron Curtain speech,” delivered in a gymnasium at Westminster College in tiny Fulton, Missouri.

There, Churchill gave the epoch-defining of the division between the Communist “Soviet sphere” and the democratic West, the memorable (and now, almost overused) appraisal of the Anglo-American partnership as the “special relationship” and a word-perfect exhortation of the principles of freedom and liberty.
But all these years later, with the USSR no more, do Churchill’s words still ring true?

In searching for an answer, one need look no further than the recent censorship actions of another Communist regime, North Korea. Following the death of Kim Jong-Il, their Supreme Leader, the Pyongyang authorities declared that anyone caught using a mobile phone during the state-ordered 100-day mourning period would be convicted of a war crime. Similarly, during the recent crackdown in Syria, the tech minions of Bashar al-Assad used a “kill switch” to cut its embattled citizens off from the web – the same tactics used by the panicking regime in Egypt during its last days. Meanwhile, Iran tried to close down all social networking sites to prevent protest organizers from spreading the word.

And how does this relate to Churchill, a technophobe who, after all, denied Westminster College president Franc “Bullet” McCluer’s request to broadcast the Iron Curtain speech by TV, telling him "I deprecate complicating the matter with technical experiments”?

One of Churchill’s reasons for using the “iron curtain” metaphor was that Stalin’s cronies were preventing media access to Poland, Yugoslavia, and other countries struggling under the Red Army’s jackboots.

Click here to keep reading at the blog of Boston University's The Historical Society

Democracy on Trial: The Differences Between Protest and Mob Criminality

In the past year, we have seen protests lead to the fall of autocrats in Yemen and Egypt, and incur the full wrath of dictators in Iran, Libya and Syria – where President Bashar al-Assad has used the army to crush resistance in the cities of Hama and Deil-al-Zor. With the use of jerry-rigged web connections in Egypt that overcame the government’s internet shutdown, and social networking tools such as Twitter in Iran, Libya and Syria, we in the West have had real-time insight into these demands for democracy and the repression they have prompted. From the living room to the highest office in the land, this coverage has prompted outrage over the denial of the right to protest that we take for granted. Indeed, Britain and America have led an international task force to prevent the slaughter of civilians and to remove the odious Colonel Gaddafi in Libya.

The common theme in each of these protests has been twofold: an indictment of the ruling regime’s abuses and control, and a call for elected, representative government through open and free elections. Have some of the protesters resorted to violence in the face of troops and tanks? Most certainly, but on the whole, these demonstrations have been peaceful. Perhaps this is because the protesters realize they cannot decry regime violence if they use violence in return, or maybe they know the world is watching. Whatever their motivation, they have not used their masters’ harsh tactics as an excuse for widespread looting, vandalism, and brutality toward ethnic minorities.

Meanwhile, in my native England, one of the world’s oldest democracies and a supposedly “civilized” nation, armed mobs stalk the streets, burning cars, assaulting police officers and looting shops. As with the riots in Los Angeles in 1992, this was not a pre-meditated campaign of violence at its inception, but rather a spontaneous response to the death of a young man at the hands of the police. It should be noted that the mob did not wait for the results of the inquest before reacting in the worst possible way. Now, with five days of rioting passed, the disturbances are indeed coordinated, with the ringleaders using the same tools – texting, tweeting et al – as protesters in the Middle East and North Africa to spread their call for anarchy.

Here, we come to the need for clear delineation. The tech tools of the desired ‘revolution’ may be similar, but the motives, methods and mentality are not the comparable. Participators in the ‘Arab Spring’ are rebelling against regimes that deny them freedom of speech, expression, worship and the ballot box. Every aspect of their lives – from what they’re allowed to read in a newspaper to what they can view on a throttled internet – is controlled by the state.

In contrast, the criminals, and criminals they are, who are smashing up London, Birmingham, Manchester and other English cities live in a tolerant, open society that, despite its flaws, provides all citizens with the right to vote, to speak their minds, and to express themselves. Their recent acts are like the tantrums of a toddler who is trying to intimidate his parents into getting his way. Yet a toddler is more sophisticated, for he knows that he has a defined goal – to tip a bag of flour over his head or steal a toy from his baby sister, for example. These rioters, hooded and baseball bat-wielding – have no such clear aim. Instead, they rage against “the system,” and the politicians who are supposedly keeping them ‘down.’ 


CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING AT THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY BLOG