Jefferson’s Formula
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson outlined his justification for democracy – that is – government by the people. Like any good enlightenment philosopher, he used a mathematical-type formulation of argument. He began with his “postulates”, the self- evident truths: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He then argued that governments are “instituted among men” to provide and protect those truths. His next step was that those governments gained their powers from the “consent of the governed”, what we would now call free and fair elections. And finally, that governments that failed to protect “the truths”, could be altered or abolished.
“Consent of the governed”, is, in more modern political parlance, explained as “elections have consequences”. But elections do not provide a “blank check”. The “winners” still have a mandate, and a duty, to act to provide and protect the self-evident truths. They cannot just govern for those that voted for them.
If “the governed” has the right to consent, then clearly there must be a right to dissent as well. Dissent is as much a part of the democratic process as assent. To dissent is a patriotic duty. A government “of the people” must include those that disagree as much as those that agree.
Justifying War
One of the most significant actions a government can take is to go to war. Through most of American history, our leadership spent tremendous energy convincing Americans of the justification for the ultimate action, right or wrong. It took years of division to reach the critical stage that led to the Civil War. It took years of persuasion, the sinking of the Lusitania and a Zimmerman Note that threatened attack on the US to enter World War I. And it took almost two years of war in Europe and an attack on Pearl Harbor for the US to enter World War II.
Justifications were made for Korea (invasion), Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin resolution), Iraq I (invasion), Afghanistan (9-11) and Iraq 2 (nuclear weapons). Sometimes those arguments were valid, sometimes they were not (the Gulf of Tonkin, nuclear weapons in Iraq). But in every one, the leadership of the United States spent time persuading the American people that the sacrifices of war were justified. Remember Colin Powell’s address to the United Nations about the “yellowcake” uranium in Iraq? How about George W Bush speaking from the pile of the World Trade Centers, “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon”.
Putting Out the Garbage
Not this time. Not in Iran. We all woke up ten days ago to war. There’s an old Washington trick, called “putting out the garbage”. News items which are controversial or negative go out Friday after hours, after the news programs and newspapers are “put to bed”. It feels like this war in Iran was “revealed” in the same way, the attacks made in the dark of night (here in the US) in the early morning hours of the weekend.
Sure, we knew that two carrier groups were in the region. We knew that there was a threat of attack. But no one, made the effort to say to the American people, “We are likely to wage a war against Iran”. Even after the bombs were falling, the President of the United States just stuck a video on social media. It wasn’t an address from the Oval Office, it wasn’t live. The speech was from a guy on vacation headed to the golf course. It was a speech to his supporters, not the Nation. He wasn’t looking for “consent”; he simply demanded acceptance.
Two Truths
Refusing to give consent is not the same as not supporting our warfighters. To take an overused phrase, “Two things can be true at the same time”. I can be against a war in Iran, against the commitment of American lives and treasure in a faraway land, against the risk of growing conflagration; and still want the best for those who are at “the point of the spear”. In fact, my refusal is in large part for them. They have no choice but to do their jobs, fly their planes, launch their missiles, carry their guns, risk their lives. I can speak for them, and ask why they are being made to take such risks. I can weigh the values that they are unable to express.
Donald Trump did not ask “the consent of the governed” in taking us to war. He did not come to us, try to convince and persuade; attempt to gain support. He simply presented a fait d’accompli: we are at war, get behind it.
I’m not behind it. We are in a war of aggression, a war to protect others’ interests; financial, Israeli, petroleum interests. We are not in a war to protect the people of the United States. No one asked for our consent. And so I will do my patriotic duty, a duty that extends to care of those who must carry the burden of battle, to say NO to this imperialistic war. And I will continue to support our warfighters, by demanding that their leadership change. The word is “alter”, as in “alter or abolish”.
That’s exactly what Jefferson meant for us to do.
