I like the idea of a president who works tirelessly for the benefit of others, struggles to solve problems and strives to build a better tomorrow. I’ll tell you what I don’t want in a president: a fighter. The prospect of another fighter in the White House makes me want to crawl into a hole. And I don’t mean a foxhole.
Despite the lessons of the playground about playing nice, America seems to be terribly attached to fighting, and some presidential candidates talk like it’s great. They’ll fight for this and fight against that: illegal drugs, rights of business, entitlements, abortion, poverty, terrorism, trade, wages – you name it. All problems, it would seem, can be solved by fighting. If we’re tough enough, some say, nobody will push us around, but many regions of the world are running rings around us – not through fighting – but through economics and trade. The European Union is making hay with the Euro, China is leaving our balance-of-trade in the dust, Saudi Arabia is laughing all the way to the bank, and Russia just elected the chairman of their biggest oil corporation (Gazprom) as its president – all this while the dollar drops to an all time low, along with our respect in the world.
Indeed, we were the world’s single superpower once, a short decade when the Soviet Union collapsed. At that time, China was still crawling out of its Mao-inspired xenophobic national neurosis, and the European Union was gaining its sea legs. Convinced that success in the world was based on the ability to fight, America continued, and continues to this day, to invest countless billions in weaponry and militarism. We splurge on defense, while our global friends and competition, having brilliantly learned the ways of capitalism from us, swiftly move ahead on their own to cement trading partnerships and international relationships based on cooperative economics. Like a fading dream, America’s self-image as the heroic fighter is dissolving in the dustbin of history.
Aggression may have its legitimate place in the survival of the species, but as a matter of 21st century national and international policy, it causes far more problems than it solves, as our war in Iraq amply demonstrates. An army of emergency relief aid workers would do far more to increase American influence in the world than bristling battalions. A navy devoted to the health of the oceans would surely earn us international acclaim. The rest of the world does not see fit to house its military on bases all over the globe. Moreover, as the planet’s largest arms dealer, we continue to nourish the very violence we decry. Our government supports brutally repressive governments, justifies torture and imprisons without trial; what does this behavior say about us to the rest of the world, our commitment to freedom and human rights?
I yearn for a President who will love the world, not fight it – who will radiate benevolence and decency into its darkest corners without resorting to violence. The last thing the world needs now is more aggression; what the world needs now is love, and lots of it. It may sound sentimental, but it’s true. Generosity, patience and compassion alone can reestablish America’s moral leadership in the world.
I continue to hope: if only.
