Dear Friends,
It seems to me that one thing about the Christmas terror attack on the US homeland is the stark way it illustrates the difference in the debate from the Bush administration. After September 11, 2001 until November 5, 2009, the citizens of the US suffered no terror attacks on American Soil. Now, on Christmas, we have a second, a near miss. It was only a near miss due to the grace of God. In stopping the explosives from going off.
But the debate I hear on ABC News is about a Republican’s campaign tactics. Fox News had some small debate about whether the tactics the Bush administration used to keep US citizens safe was more effective than those the Obama administration’s to date. That comes close but misses the mark.
We have two different policies;
The Bush policy was to use every method possible to stop any and all terrorist attacks on American Soil from happening. If the World community didn’t like it… OH well. While engaged in keeping the American people safe we will go after every threat to the American people no matter where it is. Eventually the terrorists will see the futility of their action’s and will die or be captured.
The Obama policy to date has been. We will put on a nice face to the world, so that, it will disarm those that seek to radicalize the masses by telling them that America is evil. With the radicals disarmed we will then round up the radicals. Then the threat will be eliminated once and for all. Pragmatically with this strategy we cannot protect all the people all the time.
The real debate is now framed as which strategy do you believe in? The premise of both are different. The one is based on the notion that not one person is an acceptable loss, the other that, to loose few to save the many is noble.
That my friends it seems to me should be the real debate. Instead, like a husband and wife who don’t want to discuss the real issue, our unbiased media dance around the subject. Needling and wheedling to distraction. Never quite getting on the same page. Until we argue the same argument we will never come to a logical conclusion.
Both arguments have merit. But We need to look into the premises of the two a little deeper to see which one is the more Human Hearted principle.
As we have been arguing for many blogs and BBS postings, we agree with Kant and believe that the individual must be considered to be… an and in and of himself. This is the fundamental yardstick that we put to every question at the International Capitalist Party.
Lets take an extreme example of when society must reason this principle. Lets say one person has an incurable virulent airborne illness. Further this person is the only one with it and the illness will die with this individual. Is it societies right, to execute this person, to protect itself from this disease that could potentially kill millions of other people?
To do so would invalidate that society’s moral power. The Human Hearted way would be to isolate the person, keep them comfortable as possible, while trying to procure a cure. To do so would be in both the person’s best interest and society’s. Because to eliminate the person and burning the body denies society’s ability to ascertain the cause of the disease and the cure. Incase such a disease should get into the general population in the future. The human hearted principle is the best for the individual, society and mankind‘s physical as well as moral health.
So to apply this principle to our situation would be to say that people are not expendable. Expediency is never the Human Hearted way. Think about your own life…
When has the easy way been the best way… Long term?
