Wishing Will Make It So

 

God, grant me the serenity

To accept the things I cannot change;

Courage to change the things I can;

And wisdom to know the difference.

This was Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer dating back to the mid-1930s. It was known as the “Serenity Prayer,” and its message carries that emotion.

In January, 1946, addressing the Confessing Church in Frankfurt, Pastor Martin Niemöller said

“They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

It was for the wrong reasons, but Pastor Niemöller made the right decision. He acted from apathy – from a lack of concern about others – but had he spoken up, nothing would have changed, except for the likelihood that he, himself, would have been taken away sooner. It wasn't that he had the wisdom to be able to distinguish between what could and could not be changed; it was simply that he didn't want to get involved. But that was because even in retrospect – his poem was composed after the war – he saw words as his only option. Words. As if the pen were mightier than the sword. But it isn't. Words are certainly powerful, but that power has its limits.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

More words: Every now and then I see a bumper sticker that reads, "An eye for an eye leaves the world blind."

It's nonsense, of course; it's the kind of self-righteous and vacuous pronouncement that characterizes much moralistic rhetoric; the kind of philosophy that, some decades ago, produced "Make love, not war" and "Suppose they gave a war and nobody came" stickers -- stickers sported by people blinded to reality, who felt morally superior to those aware that the world contained individuals who preferred war to love -- who would come to a war -- people with whom we had to deal.

The unwritten message is that if someone attacks you, turn the other cheek; don't fight back. But that leaves you blind while the attacker can see. Or perhaps you are already blind. Turn a blind eye to evil and only the good are disabled.

An eye for an eye won't work. Certainly no eye for an eye rewards the "bad guy," putting him further ahead of the good. Even "an eye for an eye" merely allows him with more eyes to continue, coming out even or benefiting from the situation. It's the strategy of the war of attrition, of the uncaring who force those who do care to capitulate in order to prevent further loss of life. It's carried out by those who don't value the lives they sacrifice – especially if they're other people's lives, most especially women and children. President Reagan said, "History teaches us that wars begin when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap."

But must we wait to be blinded before responding? Should we not care when we're not directly involved? We tried isolationism and it failed. And what's a "proportionate" response to mass murder? Should the relatives of those who died on 9/11 be satisfied that those directly involved were killed? How do you dissuade those willing to die, or have others die, for their cause: those who know they'll ultimately be freed if captured before completing their missions – given another opportunity to murder? How do we discourage terrorist acts, apart from giving in to the terrorists or blaming their victims for existing? Sadly, the views of too many are governed by politics and economics rather than concern for right, wrong or justice. But I doubt that the families of the Lockerbie victims are comforted by the "rehabilitation" of Muammar al-Qaddafi,ⁱ or that the families of those killed on September 11th, 2001 get closure knowing that Saudi Arabia is our "good friend" and ally.

But what, if not "an eye for an eye?" If we cannot prevent murderous acts, two eyes for an eye or three or four will lessen the advantage, punishing those who choose violence. Disproportionate? Not really. They who would try only to limit rather than stop terrorists may feel morally superior, but any tyrant will gladly yield the moral high ground for the terrestrial low ground. They'll concede morality in a shot. But it's you who will be shot.ⁱⁱ Terrorists mustn't be appeased. Those who send others to murder are themselves murderers and should be punished appropriately. In times of peace the death penalty may be fit for debate, but wars must be fought with complete victory as the goal. Were we too quick to reject Senator Goldwater's 1964 "[E]xtremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!" and to veto our generals' call to fight wars to win rather than to achieve a stalemate? Nearly one hundred years before Goldwater, President Lincoln spoke of "firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right ..."ⁱⁱⁱ Perhaps these should be our watchwords. "Firmness" and "Right." We shouldn't be embarrassed by fighting for what we know is right. We mustn't be blinded to what is right by moral relativism or self-defeating breast-beating. Our actions should be swift and overwhelming. "Shock and awe" may have been too limited geographically, and ended too soon. If our acts seem harsh, the costs of inaction must also be considered. After the "War to end all Wars" came the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) which outlawed war entirely. Then came Chamberlain's proclamation of "Peace in our time." But these were followed by the Holocaust and, more recently, Cambodia. And now we have Darfur, Rwanda and Mumbai. Still we have not reacted. The world is not Hollywood. Wishing won't make it so. Action is required.

Turning the other cheek, accepting less than justice may make us feel morally superior, but there is no superiority in death over life, no virtue in slavery over freedom. Refusing to fight back may make us feel good, but it will leave us, and the world, blind and in chains. Words have meaning. But without actions to accompany them – to back them up – they are self-indulgent tributes to our vanity, to moral superiority irrespective of the physical cost.

Though he believed we must accept the things we cannot change, it is worth noting that Reverend Niebuhr, in his “Serenity Prayer,” urged us to have the “Courage to change the things [we] can.” He was a “liberal” but supported interventionism and power politics, rather than depending on words and hope alone. We can all learn a lot from him.

Next episode: “Invitation To The Dance”

i     Or the “compassionate” release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi.

ii    Of course your mortality will be accompanied by morality. You'll die happy and virtuous.

iii    Was President Lincoln a war-monger and extremist? Should we reevaluate him, or our criteria for “extremist?”