Daniel José Camacho writes:
Martin
Luther King Jr once said, “When scientific power outruns
moral power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men.”
Now, it appears
Donald Trump might be the man who makes us pay for our country’s moral gap.
Trump has rekindled fears of war and nuclear
strikes by threatening North Korea, saying:
“They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”
True to
form, Trump’s words flew out of his mouth without much thought or
preparation.
In turn, the North Korean government has threatened to fire missiles near
the American territory of Guam.
It’s easy to understand why Trump is
potentially one of the worst people to be in charge of our nation’s nuclear
codes.
Yet, the problem runs much deeper.
Trump’s apocalyptic threat is a
reminder that we need to revive the moral argument for disarmament and against
militarism.
If the road to hell is paved with good
intentions, then the road to this moment has been paved with the consensus of
the foreign policy establishment.
Both neocons and hawkish Democrats
have pushed for an aggressive posture that has US Special Operations forces
operating in 137 countries.
US defense spending consistently dwarfs the rest of the world.
King said, “A nation that continues year after year
to spend more on military defense than on programs of social uplift is
approaching spiritual death.”
Based on our record, it looks like this nation
has been beyond spiritually dead for some time.
Before Trump, the Obama administration brokered more weapons sales than
any other administration since World War II.
Although Hillary Clinton
campaigned on strong gun control, the State Department under her leadership
exhibited little restraint when it came to
selling arms.
In
this environment, it’s not surprising that efforts for nuclear disarmament have
largely been abandoned.
Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry describes the ways in which progress in
this area has been lost.
Now he, and many others, argue that the risk of
nuclear catastrophe is greater today than during the Cold War.
King was someone who acutely understood the
danger of American militarism and nuclear weapons.
In his 1967 Christmas Sermon
on Peace, he said:
“If somebody doesn’t bring an end to this suicidal thrust
that we see in the world today, none of us are going to be around, because
somebody’s going to make the mistake through our senseless blundering of
dropping a nuclear bomb somewhere…”
Recovering King’s political vision can help us
today.
He prophetically warned that there would be consequences for our
country’s “moral and spiritual lag” behind its material power.
He saw all life
as interrelated and caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.
King’s moral framework understood that the
stability of our “world house” required a revolution of values.
The triplet and
intersecting evils of racism, capitalism, and militarism would not be
dismantled if profit motives and property rights were considered more important
than people and the planet.
Trump’s xenophobic policies, giveaways for the
wealthy, and belligerent temperament exemplify this.
As long as war remains a business profiting a
few, peace will remain a low priority.
The problem is not simply Trump or the
preceding presidential administrations, but an entire system that profits from
violent conflicts and war.
According to him, “The total
influence – economic, political, even spiritual – [of an immense military
establishment and arms industry] is felt in every city, every State house,
every office of the Federal government.”
We
see this structure at work as defense corporations profit every time that Trump launches
missiles.
The recently overturned Blackwater conviction of a
private security involved in the deaths of 14 unarmed Iraqis serves as a
reminder of this sector’s power.
You don’t have to be an absolute pacifist in
order see that King’s moral perspective can incisively diagnose our political
situation and prescribe much-needed alternative routes.
As Trump’s evangelical advisers tell him that God
has given him authority to take out Kim Jong Un of North Korea, a radical
redirection of our foreign policy might just save us.
Nevertheless, one obstacle to reviving a moral
argument for disarmament and against militarism is that the majority of
religious liberals never truly followed King in this area.
Instead, they opted for the realism and liberal internationalism of the Democratic
establishment.
Even today, many liberal Christian leaders are too busy writing hagiographies for Obama and
Clinton to put critical pressure on Democrats on the issue of peace.
This coalition will have
to be familiar with the late King who denounced imperialism and pushed for disarmament.
Far from being idealistic, it is King’s
framework which has regained relevance in the Trump era.
As he wrote towards the very end of his life:
“We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent
co-annihilation. This may well be mankind’s last chance to choose between chaos
and community.”
No comments:
Post a Comment