Political Thoughts: Globalism and Condemnation

on
Image result for global
I am a Globalist

First, until the President really defines what he means by “I am a Nationalist,” and no, “I love our country,” doesn't clarify his position, and instead insidiously implies that other people are less patriotic than he, people are free to assign whatever they meaning they desire to his words.

But I can tell you what a globalist is, and why I consider myself one. A globalist realizes that there problems on the globe that are too large for any one country to solve. Global warming, nuclear proliferation, mass migrations, income inequality, slavery, resource management, persecutions of all types, terrorism, pandemics, and environmental degradation are just some of the issues facing the world. Solving them will require that the United States work with other nations.

And the worst crises of all (except a global rise in temperatures to 2°C or greater) is war. A nationalist seeks war to strengthen their nation, to improve their popularity at home, or to avenge themselves upon their enemies. A nationalist seeks to leverage alliances for aggressive wars. A globalist wants to build relationships to prevent conflicts. They recognize the value of an international structure, of peace abroad, and of the rights of all humankind, over the advantages one nation might seek for itself at the harm of others.

A globalist understands that for a better world there must be global laws, and they must apply to everyone equally, which is why it's disgraceful when the United States threatens the International Criminal Court, or unilaterally abandons international agreements like the Paris Climate Accords or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and also why the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is a joke. A nation which disobeys international law can't hope to condemn others who disregard it as well.

The United States can still find the strength to lead, but it can't afford to go it alone, and it can't bully others into cooperation. These won't benefit the citizens of the United States and they won't lead to a better future.


Tweeted Condemnation

It's impossible to call out every cruelty on Twitter. It's a loser's game. You'd have to spend the entirety of your waking hours calling out the anonymous person who sent bombs today to the Clintons and Obamas, as well as the anonymous people who sent ricin to Collins and Cruz, and the person who shot Scalise, and every time a police officer is killed because of supposed incitement by BLM, and an African American is killed by a police officer, and every time one of the hundreds of people who consider themselves political spokespeople say something grossly insulting or inflammatory, and the many atrocities committed overseas. There is an innumerable amount of tragedy in this world, caused both by mistake and by malice.

Some abominations (and their perpetrators) need to declared, but I find it helpful to limit my displeasure toward elected officials, specifically ones who represent me (sort of like my Events List). Also grossly despicable acts by nations, especially the spilling of innocent blood and any act leading to the destruction of our world. Even so, I'm not going to manage to tag every example, and it's not the end of the world. People shouldn't shame other people because they haven't managed to comment on the latest round of blame.

Of course, most people only call out those on the “other side”, which is easy to do because all one has to do is generalize so broadly that they don't have to consider any individual as they do it.

Anyone calling all Democrats, or liberals, or Republicans, or conservatives; traitors, destroyers of the country, or violent mobsters, isn't interested in debate or their country. They've been whipped into a rage by various demagogues and all they can see is enemies everywhere. Most of them are just being played by the well connected, who send out their inflammatory tweets and rile up their followers, who, in return, retweet them, watch their shows, and buy their books. There are malicious, hateful people and there are grifting, greedy people on both sides.

Violence should be condemned every time, by everyone. And if politicians, and people pretending to be civic minded to earn a prominent spot in the public debate, can't do that, people shouldn't follow them.

Appended to section from Twitter:

Anyone who incites or engages in hatred or violence, especially the president, should be impeached. The "paid mobs" which the Republicans keep condemning are just citizens who are upset about the direction of their country, exercising their rights to assembly and speech.  Unfortunately, once one calls out one form of violence on Twitter, it feels like a necessary obligation to call out all violence.

There are hacks on the pretending to be on the Democratic side eager for cash (see below), and some of the things people of have said, like Holder and Biden about violence, while significantly less than Republican side are not appreciated. There have been attempts on Republicans like Scalise, Trump, Cruz, and Collins, though they might not have been as serious as the escalating threats against Democratic leaders.  They should all be equally condemned, and I'm not sure I've been able to live up to that expectation. I didn't even realize, much less condemn the USA aided bombing of Yemen during Obama's 2nd term.

Also assassinate is a more loaded word than murder, even if technically correct.  They should all be equally condemned, and I'm not sure I've been able to live up to that expectation. I didn't even realize, much less condemn the USA aided bombing of Yemen during Obama's 2nd term. Also assassinate is a more loaded word than murder, even if technically correct.



  
Wait for my rebuttal to myself next week on the usefulness of Twitter (which I can't seem to stop talking about)...

Recent:

Relevant:

Comments

Post a Comment