Our Right to Vote

Our Right to Vote

by Ted Miller

(originally published in Tumbleweird October 2020)

“No right is more precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under which, as good citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.”

—Justice Hugo Black, U.S. Supreme Court, Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 17 (1964)

 

Abraham Lincoln concluded his famous Gettysburg Address with the hope “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” A government where the people govern themselves. A country where the government works for the citizens. 

 

For the government to be responsive to the people, the people need to participate. And to participate, all citizens need to have an equal voice. That voice is heard through the ballot box.

 

When Lincoln spoke at Gettysburg, with few exceptions, only white men who owned property were allowed to vote. Today, the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to vote to every citizen regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), or age for those over 18 (26th Amendment). 

 

Voting should be convenient and easy. State and local election rules should encourage voter participation and eliminate barriers to voting while maintaining the security and integrity of elections. 

 

But because regulating elections is largely left to the states, access to the franchise (the right to vote) varies widely. Politicians pass laws that make it harder for those who may vote against them to exercise their right. Some of the most common and egregious voter suppression efforts include restrictive voter ID requirements, excessive and targeted purging of voter rolls, unnecessary restrictions on voter registration requirements, closing or limiting access to polling locations with a larger percentage of poor and minority voters, and district gerrymandering to favor one political party with surgical precision. 

 

For those of us living in Washington State, however, it is easy to register, convenient to vote, and our system is both secure and reliable. 

 

I recently spoke with Benton County Auditor Brenda Chilton about our election process and election security. Here are a few voter security measures Washington has in place:

·      Each ballot envelope has a unique code which can only be used once. 

·      Every ballot received is validated by a qualified group of people who compare the signature on the envelope before it is opened for counting. 

·      Questions about the validity of a ballot are resolved by a three-person County Canvassing Board.

·      Once a ballot has been accepted, the system will not allow another ballot to be counted for the same voter.

·      Tabulation systems are standalone and cannot be connected to the internet.

·      Handling ballots at every step of the process requires at least two people present.

·      The statewide voter registration system prevents a voter from voting in more than one county. 

 

I also asked Brenda Chilton what advice she would give to voters. Here are some things to remember:

·      Ballots are mailed to each registered voter automatically. 

·      You can verify your voter registration early at votewa.gov (if you aren’t already registered, you can do so at the same website).

·      Remember to sign your ballot. Take out your driver’s license and sign it the same way since that is likely the signature your ballot will be compared with. In the primary, over 800 ballots were not counted because of a signature mismatch.

·      Include your phone number on the ballot. The auditor’s office will contact you by mail to try to resolve any problem with accepting your ballot. A phone number will make that process easier.

·      Return your ballot in a place that is secure—either in one of the many ballot drop boxes located around the county (you can even drop it in a box in another county) or in a secure US mailbox. Leaving it for the mail carrier in an unsecure location like your home mailbox is not the most secure choice.

·      If you are mailing your ballot, mail it at least a week in advance. Remember that locally, our mail goes to Spokane for processing. In the primary this year, more than 1000 ballots in Benton and Franklin county were rejected because of a late postmark.

·      Check the status of your ballot at votewa.gov after you have voted and make sure it has been received and then accepted. You have until the election is certified to resolve any issues with your ballot.

 

If you live outside Washington, make sure you know the process for registering and voting in your state and county. Get your information from official sources like your Secretary of State, and don’t rely on campaign materials, social media posts, or even media reports. Misinformation and intentional disinformation are being used this year to discourage you from voting. Stay informed and don’t disenfranchise yourself.

 

Barriers to voting are undemocratic. Voter suppression is unpatriotic. I’m thankful I live in a state where every vote matters, and where the opportunity to vote is convenient, secure, and open to all citizens who choose to exercise their right.

 

The 2020 election is the most important election we’ve had in more than a generation and voters understand that. Secretary of State Kim Wyman predicts a greater than 90 percent turnout this November. 

 

Historic turnout can defeat voter suppression. That’s good for democracy, good for the state, and good for the nation. Voting out those who would disenfranchise us to maintain their power is the most effective tool we have to save our democracy and work together towards a more just and equitable future. Encourage your family, your friends, and your neighbors to vote. 

 

Carrie Chapman Catt, founder of the League of Women Voters, said, "Everybody counts in applying democracy. And there will never be a true democracy until every responsible and law-abiding adult in it, without regard to race, sex, color, or creed has his or her own inalienable and unpurchaseable voice in government."

 

I dream that someday all states will adopt voting systems that are easy, convenient, and secure. Every citizen should be able to exercise their right to vote, freely and without burdensome barriers intended to disenfranchise.  

 

Harriet Tubman said, "Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world."

 

Dream big. Change the world. Vote.

The Search for Objective Truth

The Search for Objective Truth

by Ted Miller

(originally published in Tumbleweird August/September 2020)

A democracy can only survive with an informed electorate. The founders believed in this principle so much that they protected the right to speak freely, to openly debate ideas, and for a free press to publish those ideas so the people could keep the government in check. They believed that the best ideas would always win.

A belief that freedom of speech and of the press will lead to objective truth in the marketplace of ideas was not a new concept. John Milton made an impassioned case for free speech in Areopagitica, delivered as a speech to the English Parliament and published as a pamphlet in 1644. His argument that truth will always win could be summarized in this quote from his speech:

“Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting is the best and surest suppressing.” 
― John Milton, Areopagitica

But objective truth is an elusive concept. In the age of “alternative facts,” how do we find the truth? Social media is rife with conspiracy theories, disinformation, and divisive rhetoric. Russia and other foreign actors continue to attack the United States in an effort to weaken us by sowing discord through social media bots and fake accounts. The media makes a profit through click bait and sensational headlines. And our own politics are so divided that many of our fellow Americans think members of the other political party are the enemy. How can we possibly agree on objective truth when we don’t trust the government, the media, or anything that doesn’t align with our own world view?

The inability to make decisions based on science and factual data, what should be considered objective truth, has stymied our nation’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The United States continues to rank near the top in the COVID-19 case rate and death toll while countries like South Korea, Italy, and Spain, who experienced some of the worst impacts at the beginning of the pandemic, now have the virus under control and are cautiously opening up their economy, schools, and some tourism.

An effective public health response should never have been a politically divisive issue. The coronavirus doesn’t care whether we believe the scientists and epidemiologists. For the nearly 150,000 people who have died (CDC data July 27, 2020), the arguments about whether the pandemic is a political hoax, whether masks are effective at controlling the spread, or whether the disease will “just disappear” no longer matter. 

Forbes reported[1] that nearly a third of Americans believe the conspiracy theory that the COVID-19 death count has been exaggerated to undermine Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. The Ipsos/Axios poll quoted by Forbes shows how partisan that belief is: 

“The number of Americans who believe the death toll is inflated is highest among those who get their news from Fox News (61%) and Republicans (59%), while only 9% of Democrats and 7% of those getting their news from CNN and MSNBC believe the same.”

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on July 1^st, also cited by Forbes, concludes that a number of scientifically based conclusions show the death rate is actually much higher than that reported by the CDC. This should be considered an objective truth. But that study won’t change the minds of Fox News viewers and Republicans whose truth differs from the facts.

And what Americans believe about the pandemic is just one of many examples of how elusive objective truth has become. 

The news organizations we depend upon for information, the free press, often blurs the line between fact and opinion. And when the news conflicts with our world view, we claim bias and discredit the source. This tendency to only listen to what we already believe is amplified through incessant commentary, political spin, and often outright lies from those who want to manipulate public opinion. And we have little incentive to check facts and sources.

How can we be an informed electorate of responsible citizens if we don’t share a common set of facts?

Lies and disinformation in political campaigns is nothing new. The ugly campaign of lies and ad hominem attacks between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams for the presidency in 1800 was just as bad, or worse, than anything we see today (look it up). 

When I was planning to write this column, I wanted to provide some thoughts on how to identify objective truth. But there aren’t any easy answers. 

The internet and social media aren’t going away. Divisive politics aren’t going to change overnight. Russia is still working hard to divide us from within and those in power are doing everything they can to hold on to that power. 

So, my advice is to try to see outside your bubble of confirmation bias, be skeptical, and vote your conscience. If we don’t keep trying to find that objective truth, our democracy may not survive. And then the pursuit of the truth through the freedoms of the First Amendment will no longer be possible.

---

[1] Forbes.com, July 21, 2020, “Nearly A Third Of Americans Believe Covid-19 Death Toll Conspiracy Theory”

Listen, Learn, Act

Listen, Learn, Act

 

by Ted Miller

(originally posted in Tumbleweird July 2020 - tumbleweird.org)

 

For the past several weeks, the top 15 entries on the New York Times list of non-fiction best sellers have been almost exclusively books about racism. It would seem that Americans are suddenly writing and talking about race, and that America is suddenly open and eager to listen and learn. Or, I should say, it seems that white America suddenly wants to learn about race. Black Americans live with racism in America every single day.

 

Nothing I can write in this column is more important or powerful than the voices and writings of Black people whose words have fallen on the deaf ears of white Americans since before Frederick Douglass gave his speech about the Fourth of July in 1852. I challenge you to open up your hearts and minds to books by Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) authors. Read articles by BIPOC columnists (including those featured in July 2020 issue of Tumbleweird), listen to podcasts by BIPOC anti-racists, watch documentaries, educate yourself. If you want to know about racism in America and in yourself, but don’t know where to start, there is a list of resources in the Tumbleweird issue, copied below. 

 

And as you learn more, use your own voice, your own financial support, and your own actions to dismantle the systems of oppression that have been built on centuries of racist ideas and policies. 

 

Maya Angelou said, “Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better.”

 

For me, I’m trying to know better so that I can do better. I know many others are trying to do the same. 

 

Perhaps this really is a turning point in our reckoning with the violent and racist history of this nation.

 

Black Lives Matter

Resource recommendations:

Anti-Racist Resources

Books:

Anti-Racist Reading List from Ibram X. Kendi: bit.ly/ibramxkendi-list

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou

Dark Matters by Simone Browne

Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates

Democracy in Black by Eddie S. Gladdening Jr.

Blood in My Eye by George L. Jackson

The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison

So You Want To Talk About Race by Ijeoma Oluo

The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein

Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson

This Bridge Called My Back by Cherrie Moraga & Gloria Anzaldua

They Can’t Kill Us All by Wesley Lowery

Their Eyes were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston

You can also order books today from these Black-owned independent bookstores!

bit.ly/Black-Bookstores

Podcasts:

1619

About Race

Code Switch

We Live Here

Solidarity Is This

The Nod

Television and Movies:

12 Years A Slave ( available on Amazon Prime)

13th (available on Netflix)

Amazing Grace (2018) (available on Hulu)

Dear White People (available on Netflix)

Fruitvale Station (available for free on Tubi)

I Am Not Your Negro (available on Amazon Prime)

If Beale Street Could Talk (available on Hulu)

Malcolm X (available on Netflix)

Selma (available on Netflix and Amazon Prime)

The Hate U Give (available on Hulu)

The Innocence Files (available on Netflix)

The Tuskegee Airmen (available on Hulu and HBOGo)

Websites:

aclu.org

naacp.org

endslaverynow.org

zinnedproject.org

juneteenth.com

blacklivesmatter.com

eji.org

Will it be different after?

Will it be different after?

by Ted Miller

(originally published June 2020 in Tumbleweird)

I think it is grief,

this sadness,

this anger,

this fear.

They say the first phase is denial,

but there is no denying the virus is
here, 

no denying it is deadly,

no denying it is real. 

Tell the hundred thousand dead it’s a
hoax.

Tell their families they would have
died anyway.

Tell the million infected it’s just the
flu.

Tell the sick to get back to work.

The virus doesn’t care.

But the virus carries a message, if only
we can hear.

The virus has laid bare the truth, of
what was true long before. 

We are all human, but we are not all
the same.

Some of us are essential, but not
essential enough.

Essential to work the fields.

Essential to butcher the meat.

Essential to nurse the sick.

Essential to serve our food, to mind
the store, to work the assembly
line, to cut our hair, to deliver our
goods, to clean our houses, 

to be invisible,

as our essential wants and needs are
met.

But not essential enough to have
their basic needs met. 

Not essential enough to live without
fear

of poverty, of hunger, of deportation,
of sickness, of death.

The virus knows no boundary

of class, or race, or wealth.

But the virus exposes disparity

among class, and race, and wealth.

Millions now unemployed, no
income, no health care, no
savings, crippling debt

and we blame them for being poor.

“They might get a few extra dollars!”
we cry,

angry that they are undeserving,

while ignoring the billions sent to
Wall Street 

with no strings attached,

believing in the trickle-down that will
never come.

Black, Brown, and Indigenous people
dying at twice or thrice the rate of
whites

and we blame them for getting sick
and dying.

“Make better choices!” we say

while ignoring the centuries of
inequity built into America

denying equal access to health care,
to nutrition, to income, to life. 

And before the curve is flattened,

before the virus is contained, we
carry our signs and our weapons

demanding America be opened again

so we can have our essential wants
and needs

provided by the non-essential
workers.

We want our liberty, but we don’t
want the responsibility.

We want our freedom, but we don’t
want to be responsible for the cost
of that freedom to others.

“Tyranny!” we cry. “Give us our
freedom!”

Freedom from tyranny?

Tyranny is the hunger of millions of
children every night 

Tyranny is voter suppression that
denies citizens an equal voice 

Tyranny is health care for profit, while
millions get sick and die

Tyranny is the oppression that has
upheld systemic racism for
hundreds of years 

Tyranny is people dying, while you
refuse to wear a mask

Give me liberty, or give me death

But whose death is the cost of your
liberty?

I think it is grief,

this sadness,

this anger,

this fear.

Grief for what could have been

if we weren’t divided

by class, by race, by wealth.

Grief can lead to despair, grief can
lead to action

and action leads to hope, now and in
the time after.

Hope that in the time after, when the
world faces pandemic, climate
change, global recession, or war, 

our response reflects we are all
human, essential, the same.

Divided We Fall

Divided We Fall

by Ted Miller

(originally published May 2020 in Tumbleweird)

We are a nation divided, and that division continues to deepen.

In December of 2016, I wrote about how divisive the presidential election had been. I wrote that we should listen to each other with respectful conversations in an attempt to better understand each other. I said that it was possible for us all to find common ground, even if we didn’t agree on everything.

But that was an overly optimistic opinion. The partisan rhetoric has gotten so extreme that objective truth is under constant attack. We all live in the same country but we live in vastly different realities. 

We are in the midst of the worst pandemic in over one hundred years. The novel coronavirus, which causes the COVID-19 disease, infects, spreads, and kills humans no matter what they believe. 

Facing a common threat in the past has brought Americans together. But since the virus was first recognized as a global threat in early January, it has been politicized to the point that the advice of experts is undermined and everything is filtered through a partisan lens. Government response has been inconsistent, slow, and ineffective. And the blame game is rampant. Rather than uniting the country, the president blames the growing crisis on Democrats, the press, the W.H.O., medical experts, or whatever scapegoat he finds for the day. Political pundits exacerbate the rhetoric with breathless, non-stop commentary.

The divisiveness will only make things worse. Instead of focusing on what must be done to continue to flatten the curve, calls for a relaxation of social distancing are ramping up. Protests are claiming an infringement on civil liberties and railing against government restrictions, turning the focus of efforts away from public health and instead casting the pandemic response as government overreach. 

Yet the virus continues to spread and kill. 

The political divisions in this country aren’t new, but they are being weaponized with surgical precision. In 2016, Russia used an extensive campaign of social media disinformation to divide Americans. Although there is little evidence that election data itself was hacked, pitting Americans against each other leads to a breakdown in our trust in government, which in turn leads to an erosion of our ability to unite as a nation. Efforts to undermine the 2020 election are already happening.

Even without foreign influence, the increasingly partisan rhetoric divides rather than unites. Too many of us amplify that rhetoric with “gotcha” memes and Facebook posts that portray half the citizens of this country as the enemy. Is the hatred so deep that we have lost all ability to work together for the common good? Do we really believe that our neighbor is the enemy?

Democrats are not the enemy of the United States. The media is not the enemy of the people. We are all Americans. Those who believe that only they are the true patriots, that those who disagree with them are the enemy, are the most un-American. E pluribus unum.

If we don’t learn to recognize the weapon of division being used against us, we will never be able to defend against it. We must stand together, or we will not only fail in fighting this pandemic, but the future of this nation is in jeopardy.

Capital Punishment is Never Justified

Capital Punishment is Never Justified

by Ted Miller

(originally published April 2020 in Tumbleweird)

On March 5, 2020, the State of Alabama executed Nathaniel Woods for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everyone involved in his case agreed that he did not kill the three Birmingham police officers he was convicted of murdering. The man who actually pulled the trigger, Kerry Spencer, who is still on death row for the murders, repeatedly claimed that Woods had nothing to do with it.

"Nathaniel Woods is 100% innocent," Spencer wrote in an open letter. "I know that to be a fact because I'm the person that shot and killed all three of the officers that Nathaniel was subsequently charged and convicted of murdering. Nathaniel Woods doesn't even deserve to be incarcerated, much less executed."

But Nathaniel Woods was executed anyway. Did he deserve to die? Did his death serve any purpose?

On December 23, 1991, Todd Willingham ran out of his burning house frantically screaming that his three young girls were burning up. The wooden house was quickly engulfed in flame and all three girls died from the fire. Willingham was subsequently accused of murder, convicted in the deaths of his children, and sentenced to death. He was executed in 2004, maintaining his innocence until the end. Since then, investigations have shown that witness testimony was questionable, forensic evidence was flawed, and the fire was accidental and not arson. In all likelihood, Cameron Todd Willingham was executed for a crime he did not commit. 

How many people have been unfairly sentenced to death? How many innocent people have been executed? Even one is too many.

On October 18, 2018, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled in State v. Gregory that the death penalty in our state is unconstitutional. The court wrote:

“The death penalty is invalid because it is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner. … As noted by the appellant, the use of the death penalty is unequally applied—sometimes by where the crime took place, or the county of residence, or the available budgetary resources at any given point in time, or the race of the defendant. The death penalty, as administered in our state, fails to serve any legitimate penological goal; thus, it violates article I, section14 of our state constitution.”

Washington State no longer imposes the death penalty, but twenty-five other states still do. 

Does capital punishment serve any good in society? Does it deter crime? Is it fair? Is it just?

Although some argue that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against certain crimes, the evidence does not support such a conclusion. The South carries out over 80% of the executions in the United states, yet has the highest murder rate of any U.S. region. The Northeast with less than 1% of executions has the lowest murder rate. That doesn’t correlate with deterrence. 

Whether a murder is pre-meditated or an act of heated passion in the moment, it is unlikely the murderer spends any time at all considering whether they will face execution for their crime. In fact, a 2009 article published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology found that 88% of expert criminologists believe there is no empirical evidence that executions reduce crime. And as Jimmy Carter reminded us in his April 2012 Atlanta Journal-Constitution article, “the homicide rate is at least five times greater in the United States than in any Western European country, all without the death penalty.” 

The death penalty as a deterrent is myth.

The monetary costs associated with capital punishment are significantly more than those for similar cases where the death penalty is not sought. A January 2015 study published by Seattle University showed that for the 147 aggravated first-degree murder cases in Washington State since 1997, the average costs when the death penalty was sought were over one million dollars more expensive for each case than for similar non-death penalty cases. This was true even when the cost of life imprisonment was included. States which still impose capital punishment spend tens of millions of dollars each year on death penalty cases with no corresponding reduction in crime for that cost.

Moreover, the death penalty is not applied fairly. Since 1973, more than 165 people were released from death row for any number of reasons:  faulty evidence, problems with the conduct of the trial, prosecutorial misconduct, defense ineptness, witness reliability, or other factors. In most of these cases, the individuals were innocent. As in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, there are many cases where innocent men have been put to death with evidence later indicating it was not possible for them to have committed the crime for which they were sentenced to die. 

Is it acceptable to sometimes execute innocent people? Is that really an acceptable cost to society? I’ve always agreed with Sir William Blackstone’s 18^th-century principle that it is better for ten guilty persons to go free than one innocent suffer. That is the way of a just and fair society – protect the innocent. And with the death penalty, an innocent person executed by mistake is an atrocious action by the state that cannot be undone.

As cited in the Washington Supreme Court ruling abolishing the death penalty, race is a significant factor in application of the death penalty. Black defendants are several times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants in similar cases. For crimes where the victim is of a different race, a black defendant with a white murder victim is fifteen times more likely to be executed for their crime than a white defendant with a black murder victim. This disparity is hardly an indication of a fair and even application of justice with respect to race.

Some argue that there are crimes so heinous that the perpetrator deserves to die, that vengeance is somehow justified at the hands of the state. But revenge should never be the basis for punishment under the law. The law should be applied evenly and fairly to hold a criminal accountable. Accountability and revenge are not the same. The state has no place in executing vengeance.

The death penalty is expensive, ineffective as a deterrent, barbaric in its application, and unfairly applied. There is no rational or compelling reason for the government to kill someone for any crime, no matter how terrible and heinous. Vengeance or retribution is an inadequate argument and cannot undo the harm already done. Criminals can be held accountable without putting them to death. 

And the risk of making a mistake are just too great. 

Johnny Ross, who at sixteen was wrongfully sentenced to death and served seven years on death row before his case was overturned, said, “We cannot trust a system that makes mistakes to decide who lives and who dies.”

Johnny is right. The system that imposes the death penalty can’t be trusted and serves no useful purpose. It’s time to abolish capital punishment in the United States.

Note: data is from deathpenaltyinfo.org unless otherwise indicated

Pacifism

Pacifism

by Ted Miller

(originally published February 2020 in Tumbleweird)

I have always wanted to live in peace. Not just an absence of war in my own country, but peace among all people throughout the world.

I don’t like war; most people I know don’t. But war has been a part of human history since we first picked up a club and used violence as a way to resolve differences and maintain the power of one group over another. 

Throughout history, man has developed ever more powerful and efficient means to kill one another, often in bloody conquests to steal land and resources from those who couldn’t defend themselves; at other times to violently overthrow oppressive governments, or to stop the advancement of despots and autocratic regimes. 

There is evil in the world, and sometimes the violence of war is necessary, if not inevitable. Some wars are justified, aren’t they?

As the son of a military family, a graduate of the United States Naval Academy, and a thirty-year veteran, I have always thought that a strong military was essential to ensuring peace. The ability and willingness to go to war when necessary was the price for our national security. That’s what I have always believed.

Until I met Chuck.

Chuck and I had become friends through a shared belief in the transformative power of music. We had worked together with a non-profit in outreach to our community and, as our friendship grew, we discovered we shared a common set of values. We were comfortable enough with each other to talk about anything. 

A few years ago, after reading one of my columns, Chuck asked to meet with me. Something I had written was bothering him and he wanted to talk about it. That conversation led to ongoing discussions on a wide range of topics, including my experience in the military. 

I learned early on that Chuck was a lifelong pacifist. As a teenager in high school, he had read an essay written in 1955 called “Speak Truth to Power, A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence.” Although he wasn’t raised as a Quaker, the powerful argument against violence presented in that paper changed his life. When his draft number came up for military service, Chuck declared himself to be a conscientious objector and entered Alternative Service, serving a poor Black community instead of going to war in the military.

“I was willing to die for my country,” he said, “but I wasn’t willing to kill for it.”

I can’t imagine that level of conviction as a teenager. I greatly admire Chuck’s unshakable commitment to pacifism and nonviolence. He has challenged me to question my assumptions about war and about peace. If I ever had more than a passing opinion about pacifists, it was that pacifism was overly idealistic and impractical. Pure pacifism couldn’t possibly be effective in every case, could it? Wasn’t violence the only practical response to a violent attack? Isn’t military might the only way to deter military aggression?

I wanted to better understand what had convinced Chuck so strongly, so I read “Speak Truth to Power” which you can find at quaker.org/legacy/sttp.html. To prepare to write this column, I also read papers by Veterans for Peace, searched for other articles about pacifism online, and discovered a blogger named Jonathan Wallace who posts at spectacle.org. In his essay “Violence is Never Justified,” Wallace makes the case that perhaps violence is sometimes necessary, but it is never justified (spectacle.org/1196/just.html).

In my very limited research, one of the points that I have come away with is this: If violence is sometimes justified, what criteria do we use to provide that justification? Where is the line between violence that is just and violence that is evil? Can we know in advance when violence is necessary, or can we only decide that violence was necessary after the fact when the results of that violent act can be evaluated? Who decides, the victor or the victim? Is the cost ever worth it?

Consider the costs of the so-called war on terror. The United States has been continuously at war in the Middle East for over 18 years. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University (watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/):

·      Over 801,000 people have died due to direct war violence, and several times as many indirectly

·      Over 335,000 civilians have been killed as a result of the fighting

·      There are over 21 million war refugees and displaced persons

·      The US federal price tag for the post-9/11 wars is over $6.4 trillion dollars

·      Over 6,900 American service members have died in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

·      Hundreds of thousands more service members have been wounded or died indirectly, each with families directly affected

I’m not minimizing or ignoring the attack we experienced on September 11, 2001. That day will be forever etched in my memory. But is this continual war our only option? Are we safer today than we were before 9/11? Is the Middle East any more stable?

The pacifist reminds us there are other options.

Today, I re-read the speech Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave on December 11, 1964 after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, titled “The Quest for Peace and Justice.” He said:

I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

In that speech Dr. King also said:

There may have been a time when war served as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force, but the destructive power of modern weapons eliminated even the possibility that war may serve as a negative good. If we assume that life is worth living and that man has a right to survive, then we must find an alternative to war.

Fifty-five years later, those words still ring true.

We can’t put an end to wars overnight, but I think we are much too quick to go to war in the first place. Most Americans agree that the war in Viet Nam was a mistake. The invasion of Iraq was justified with false information. We have yet to achieve peace and stability in Afghanistan.  And the current administration is perilously close to war with Iran.

There are alternatives to war: diplomacy, negotiation, the rule of law, investments in peaceful initiatives to combat poverty, hunger, and corruption in other parts of the world. 

Dr. King said we have the capacity to eliminate poverty and hunger, to make war obsolete, and to live in world peace. He and Ghandi are some of the most notable pacifists who showed us by word and example that change can be achieved without violence. 

In our most recent conversation about pacifism, Chuck asked me a hypothetical question. 

“If you saw your grandmother being beaten, would that be a justification for violence?”

“Of course,” I said. “What choice would I have?”

“And why do you think that would be your only option?” he said.

I didn’t have an answer.

We should listen to the pacifists.