Skip to main content

Fear of Power



So a friend of mine gave an example of something unrelated to my post at church the other day. It was the story of her attitude as she drives her school bus every day. She likes to take care to note if a student looks sad or upset or anything out of the ordinary positive she expects, then she makes an effort to get them to talk about it and deal with it before they arrive at school, if possible. In her description of her attitude, she mentioned that she had the power to potentially make or break a student's day. I turned back to her to make the compliment, then: I'm glad it's you with that power.

She got flustered, embarrassed, and felt the need to corner me afterwards and clarify, backing down from the very word "power", as if it somehow automatically suggested its own abuse.

Why can't people think of power as ability, as potential to do, as a neutral tool to be used, like any other tool, for good or ill? "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," objects Lord Acton. Yes, but great power can perform great good, say I. "With great power comes great responsibility," wisely opines Spiderman's uncle Ben, and I concur. But avoiding power to avoid the responsibility thereof is JUST AS irresponsible.

This wonderful woman knows she can make or break a student's day. How many days does she break, do you think? Her very awareness of the power makes her humble in its application. She respects the power, and is all the more careful to use it for good, rather than abuse it.

Nations in general, and the US in specific should follow this model. Yes there is danger to the US being the world's only superpower because the potential for abuse is all the greater. The world outside should hedge against this potential abuse as best it can, and the body politic from within the nation should hold leaders accountable for their use of the power as much as is possible. But wouldn't one rather see the economic and military might of the world concentrated in the leaders of the longest standing democratic constitutional republic, with such a lengthy record of peaceful elections, responsibility of government, and peaceful coexistence with nations, or with a small oligarchy or dictatorship, one that oppresses their own people, one that threatens its neighbors, etc.

America should grow in strength so long as the use of its power remains moral, and not be ashamed of the good it can do. We can make or break the destiny of other nations, and with very few exceptions we benefit the world's peoples in the direction of freedom. We should be criticized and chastised for every genuine abuse of that power. We should refrain from even attempting to impose peace, our own institutions of freedom, or our economic will without clear and present danger to ourselves so as to allow other nations maximum freedom to make or break their own destinies on their own merits. Peace, freedoms, and economic exchanges should be accomplished by logic, by persuasion, and by the free agreements of stake-holding parties who recognize the mutual benefit of these--never by imposition. However, if we refrain from the use of our power for fear of criticism we are also irresponsible. If we fail to use our power in a timely manner to promote the stability of the international scene, to hedge against immoral abuses of power, we are irresponsible. If our use of power to effect good offends some people, so be it. The purple fingered 2/3 of the Iraqi population proved by voting that they appreciated the new freedoms which could only be granted them by the ouster of their longtime tyrant Saddam Hussein, no matter what the left, Iran, Syria, or Al-Qaeda might have to say about the "injustice" of the Iraq war.

I don't know what shape the American response to an increasingly aggressive North Korea will be, especially in the knowledge that it is a client state of the increasing other superpower, China. But I will support any use of power the leaders recommend, because I know they take the power seriously, they are responsible in its use, and the result will potentially liberate millions of North Koreans currently living in squalor and in fear of a police state ruled by a capricious oppressor.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the term “identity”

I didn't want to become one of those grad students who takes forever to find out what he wants to study, so I entered the Masters program at PITT with an idea what I wanted to do as a dissertation: national identity in the Ivory Coast. It sounds like a straightforward enough concept, but I encountered an article while I was taking a history course which looked at several case studies of the construction of racial, ethnic, and gender identities over a variety of geographical locations and historical periods that made me radically re-think the entire concept of identity . It's a concept that makes intuitive sense to most people, I would imagine. It means who you are, right? The layperson could also probably understand quite readily that there seem to be many different levels at which our "identity" can be determined or constrained. A black person may feel more of a racial component to identity than a white person, for example. My religious identity takes primacy over my...

Abortion "Complexities" and Morality

It's just not that hard, folks.  Unless we're dealing with the context of a justified war, there's simply no moral defense for killing innocent humans if there are any other options, let alone for the convenience of the living.  And while both sides may exaggerate to make a point, only one side of the argument does insane logical backflips to hide the true and morally repugnant nature of the acts, their numbers, their consequences, and the assumptions underlying their "justifications". Ever since the leaked Alito draft hinting that Roe v. Wade was about to be overturned, pro-abortion activists have had their day.  I suppose I can understand a certain need to defend against what they perceive as a threat on their liberties and rights.  So now that they've had their time to externalize their fears and put out ad campaigns, and fake being handcuffed at protests in unlawful locations, let's stand back from the emotions and just examine the core moral argument...

Historical Malpractice

  Heather Cox Richardson is a favorite among some of my leftist friends.  Her position as an academic offers imprimatur for her wanton partisanship and her acumen as a historical researcher helps her find the cherry-picked details she needs to cover a false narrative with a veneer of historicity.  I don't usually engage because her posts are long enough that it would take too much unpacking to deal with, but I wanted to take a crack at just a part of this one. Keep in mind that her schtick consist mostly of framing modern Republicans as morally corrupt and modern Democrats as knights in shining armor for all that is good and right, by peppering her argument with so much actual historical facts that you have the feeling of "context" so you don't notice the logical sleight of hand by which her narrative escapes reason and reality.  With that said, here's my summary, responding in snarky kind to her own partisan framing, but faithful to the content of her...