UNdoing The World's Business

The United States is the center of the diplomatic world. That's been the case for quite a while. Woodrow Wilson was instrumental in establishing the League of Nations – even if the United States never joined. And the establishment of the United Nations during World War II was, in large part, based on American initiatives. In 1945 that newly-organized body was formally established when the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco, and eventually was headquartered in Turtle Bay on land donated by the Rockefellers. It was a noble endeavor.

There were many reasons for constituting the organization – initially it derived from the formation of an alliance to defeat the Axis powers, but, by the time it was finally established, the war was over. Nonetheless it was believed that a forum where all nations could meet and talk would be preferable to multiple discussions and multiple treaties between nations, and it was felt that problems could be talked out and wars averted. Honorable goals, indeed.

Declarations of rights followed, and agencies were formed in order to deal with particular problems – problems whose solution would benefit us all, but primarily the impoverished, oppressed, and needy around the world. We might approximate Wendell Willkie's goal of One World.

It didn't take long to discover, however, that serious problems existed. Perhaps the most obvious of these was the veto, that allowed certain nations to block decisions of the Security Council – the most important action organ of the UN. The veto, itself, however, made sense on paper. It was clear that when the organization admitted more members – members who may not have aided in the defeat of the Axis – they might outvote the “heavy lifters” who had done the bulk of the fighting and dying during the war, the nations that founded the UN, and those nations might use the UN for their own purposes. Giving the founders, nations large in power but small in numbers, the power to block actions that might involve them in popular whims, more war, or anything else undesirable, was considered a wise action.

The result, however, was that these powerful nations, with different national interests and agendas, used their veto in the service of political aims, and they have done so to the present. Vetoes provide bargaining leverage when that is needed, and the illusion of being in control, although they know that countries that were once their allies could also veto their own favored programs. Perhaps these were unintended consequences, but they should have been anticipated.

What's left, then, is a General Assembly quite capable of righteous indignation and of talking, but a Security Council that can stymie any meaningful action – and almost invariably does. And the result is that the founders have “protected” their interests in the Council, but the other nations have hijacked the General Assembly. (And they've manipulated it – for example, making Israel the scapegoat for all the world's problems while they ignore the wars, genocides, and tyrannies around the world. Their words result largely from antisemitism and economics, but are framed in the jargon of political correctness and liberal ideology. It's Israel now, but could be another nation once Israel is out of the way.)

That is not to say that the UN doesn't have useful projects which, when not used as political tools, help the disadvantaged. There are efforts to improve health and to feed the needy; there are scientific projects and programs that provide aid in time of natural disaster. But when it comes to man-made disasters – actions and situations that might be viewed as suggesting responsibility – the UN is likely to be paralyzed by one or more of its members. And that's the case when conflict benefits one of the founding nations. Nations are more concerned about their own interests than the benefit of the world.

What are our interests? Specifically, how do we benefit from the UN? Has that organization achieved what it aimed at? Unfortunately there are still many wars, and there have been many murderous attacks to which the UN has not responded. The organization may have provided a forum for talk, but it has not prevented war, because war, murder, and even malicious speech are the acts of people – even if only a minority of people – people who have only their own interests at heart. And while they may try to affect the words and actions of the United Nations, they will not be affected by it. Their personal, and to a lesser extent their national, interests are all they care about. And they want the world to care about them too.

Has the UN made other alliances unnecessary? NATO, the EU, Confédération Interalliée des Sous-Officiers de Réserve (CISOR), the Islamic Military Alliance, the Peninsula Shield Force, and numerous other organizations suggest that this is not the case. Many such treaties and alliances exist outside the UN even though they should have been eliminated long ago.

Sad to note, however, the UN failure has not come cheap. The United States is assessed more than all the other founders combined for “peacekeeping” operations. Erin R. Graham , in an opinion essay in yesterday's Washington Post – one attempting to minimize and justify the cost to the US, – notes that “The United States also pays an estimated 28 percent of U.N. Peacekeeping budgets, due to its position as a permanent, veto-bearing member on the Security Council” but omits any mention of the far smaller assessments for the other “veto-bearing member[s].” It is of interest that our country, which supplies a home for the organization, also pays 22 percent of its total annual budget.

And there are costs to New York and to New Yorkers. In addition to the loss of valuable property in mid-town Manhattan, and the taxes that would accrue from it, there is the inconvenience of street closings and traffic congestion during General Assembly sessions. Not to be overlooked is the fat that the diplomats from many countries have immunity to all our laws, and, most annoyingly, are exempt from the parking and other regulations which we must observe.

The UN has failed, and we are all paying a high price for that failure. One solution (and I'll have more to say on the subject next week) is withdrawal from the UN and utilization of the property on which it stands. The billions saved by not supporting its bureaucracy and operations could be used to fund the kinds of health and agriculture projects which have been successful – without a “middle man” to drain off some of what we offer. And the absence of an outside controller would give us a greater ability to act in a timely manner.

Obviously it's not that simple. But the first step is acknowledgment that our hopes for unity and world peace have not been met. Perhaps we'd be better off if we were not at the center of the diplomatic world.

That's Not Who We Are, Or Is It?

“Who we are” debates have centered on immigration policy – a topic not covered explicitly in the Constitution. Nor is there any mention in that document of sex, marriage, privacy, or a large number of other issues that dominate the thinking of many Americans. What is present, however, is a ban on the limitation of free speech. And the states can't do it either. But our own people have found a way to subvert the Constitution that gives them freedom and is the basis for the law under which we live.

Yesterday, following demonstrations in Berkeley, California, (UC Berkeley, the university that claims to be the site of the origin of the “Free Speech Movement) a speaker, Milo Yiannopoulos, was prevented from expressing his views. The security forces at the college decided that, because of protests and riots, his safety couldn't be assured.

Students said that they were protesting peacefully and that the violence was caused by outside agitators, anarchists, but a large, and increasing, number of incidents in which a speaker is drowned out or prevented from speaking, exposes not only a hatred of contrary ideas, but a fear by demonstrators of others hearing them. Since 1791 the First Amendment has been part of the Constitution and, in 1977 in the Skokie case, the ACLU maintained, and the Supreme Court decided, that people had the right to express heinous views, even to those who didn't want to hear them. It's not an outdated interpretation. It's recent. There is great fear among many of those who oppose others designated as “strict constructionists” and “originalists,” and they maintain that the interpretation of the Founders in the eighteenth century has to be revised. Whether or not that is the case, it's hardly the first time that a speaker – almost invariably a conservative (or someone who is believed to favor Israel) – has been silenced and denied the right of free speech, especially in academic centers, and often with the aid of faculty. And they will prevent others from hearing whatever they disagree with. Sadly, university officials usually don't enforce rules against such behavior. That, of course, encourages it to continue.

A slightly less obvious form of suppression of free speech has also taken place. It is viewed by its proponents as “sensitivity,” but it is actually “politically correct” speech. And going along with that is the establishment in universities of “safe spaces” in which students will be protected from hearing ideas with which they disagree. It seems that many who seek to learn are only willing to hear what they already believe, and whatever speech disagrees with it must either be replaced or drowned out. It's a definition of education that varies with past expectations. In fact it is a definition that completely negates the idea of a university education that exposes students to ideas they should examine.

Students, however, are not all that different from the rest of society, though they may be more vocal. Protests of ideas have become epidemic – often fueled by professional protesters – and there is an emphasis on euphemism and other politically correct speech and action. Particular groups are in the forefront of the movement – groups that claim a desire for a free and liberal country – but the issue is what they do, not on what they believe or say. And the effect of their actions is to silence those with other points of view.

As I have said before, the real problem is that they are little different from the rest of us in respect to the way that they think. They have their views and want their way. Don't we all? And the Constitution guarantees us the right to say so. But it doesn't give people the right to silence those with other views. Most of us would like to have those with “wrong” views shut up, but most of us would not take action to achieve that goal. The vast majority of those who take such steps were born here. They are our brothers and sisters. They are who we are. And they are wrong. But they have a lot in common with the rest of us – even if they don't represent us.

Who we are – those born here – seems to be self-interested people, but we should not be confused with those who invariably find fault with others, and act more hatefully than those they condemn. Who they are, and what they claim, should not be viewed as typical of all Americans. They are not who we are.

Trick Or Treat

I heard on the radio a few days ago that Americans will be spending 3.1 billion dollars on Halloween costumes this year.

For children and adults, as well as dogs and cats and other pets. 3.1 billion dollars.

People around the world are starving, thirsty from lack of clean water, suffering preventable diseases – and we have set aside 3.1 billion for Halloween costumes.

Our problem is focus. We think, primarily, about ourselves. We rarely pay attention to the problems of others. If we tolerate someone else telling us about his problems, we're not really listening: we're mentally preparing what we'll say about our own difficulties – a description intended to show how much worse off we are than he. We have to be better – or in this case worse – than anyone else. We're always competing.

So it is with our Halloween costumes; and fashion; and technology and everything else. We have to be best. We have to be better than anyone else. It's not enough to keep up with the Joneses, we have to do better. The cost isn't important. Nothing is too good for us. And there's nothing left for others – for the Smiths locally or for the poor elsewhere. Charity? It begins at home.

I'm not a fan of the UN. It exemplifies bias and Realpolitik. Right and wrong are irrelevant to it. But they got it right with “Trick or Treat for UNICEF.” (Actually they get credit for something they didn't really do. The event was created by the U.S. Fund for UNICEF.) Not that it's so successful – they've raised 188 million dollars since 1950 which is far less than we spend on ourselves – but it has taught the lesson that even when we're celebrating we should be mindful of those who are suffering. There is a concept of hiddur mitzvah in Judaism – of enhancing or beautifying the observance of a commandment or “good deed” that this represents (even though Halloween is emphatically not a Jewish observance). An observance is enhanced by caring for others, not just for yourself. Perhaps the extra money that we spend to beautify the commandment would be better spent if we used it to better the lives of others.  Sadly, however, a concern for others is far from universal.

Perhaps the reason for this is that we don't think about others and the difficulties they face. Perhaps we'd be more generous if we faced the problems which confront others daily. Every year in my synagogue, and in many others, on Yom Kippur, a fast day on which we seek atonement for our sins, there is an appeal for support of charities that have the mission of feeding the hungry. On a day that we are hungry we can better relate to the issue and the people who suffer from it. Our hunger is but a “taste” of theirs, yet it is enough to remind us of its pain, and to prompt us to do our part to help those in need. However we should not need such prompting; we should be concerned about all of the needs of others at all times. And we should not only be concerned, but we should offer help to those who require it – wherever they are, and without the prompting to do so.

On January 20, 1961, John Kennedy, in his Inaugural Address, said

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

The same is true of our other obligations. It is a challenge to fulfill our human obligation to others not as fortunate as we. People as well as country. We're blessed to be in a rich country, not controlled by a dictator and, for the most part, not subject to the hardships faced by so many people around the world. It is our obligation to help when we can. It is better to be a superhero than to dress up as one.

Me, Myself, And I

                                                                                                                   

The most famous exponent of self-interest was Narcissus. Perhaps he never existed, however it is from him that we get the concept of personal concern to the exclusion of anything else. But such an outlook is not unique. We've all experienced it.

As babies we were unaware that there was anything outside of ourselves. Our experience didn't include anything else. Even the few sights and sounds we experienced were only relevant to the extent that they affected us. Eventually, when we got older, we began to appreciate the world around us; only then did we recognize that there were others who were not part of us or answerable to us, and they saw us in the same light. We were becoming socialized.

Unfortunately, many never complete the process. Tom Wolfe coined the term “Me Generation” to refer to self-absorbed “baby boomers”ⁱ whose primary focus was themselves. And it was not a small number of people. There was a culture of narcissism that saw the world only as it related to them – individually. That was the prism for seeing, and then judging, everything around them, from politics to personal appearance to the “relevance” of college courses. It was a self-indulgent generationⁱⁱ that promoted the “sexual revolution” and anything else that felt good. Instant gratification and personal satisfaction took precedence over patience and community development. And, to a significant degree, such a perspective persists.

The more common “self-interest” though – the one on which most people focus – is that related to living our lives in a world that is not always to our liking. We need jobs and we seek advancement. We want what's best for us – the “good things.” We look for shortcuts around problems – at least those we choose to see or those we simply can't avoid. It isn't a matter of not recognizing others. Rather we are seeking to improve our own lot – even if it's at their expense. “What's in it for me?” That often involves negotiating with those around us – in the workplace, on the street, and at home. Our goal is to stay ahead of the Joneses. The Me Generation didn't care about others. We compete with them. Our world is a little larger than that of the narcissistic individual. Our kind of attitude probably predominates among most people. For some – the poor and starving, especially in the “Third World”– it's a matter of survival rather than advantage, and it's less focused on competition with neighbors. The focus is entirely on the self.

Another level is inhabited by those whose self-interest extends beyond their own time. For them, the future – and, specifically, the future of their own families – is their concern. They feel an obligation to provide for those who come after them. They, too, want to improve “their” lot, but it will be through their descendants. They are concerned for what follows, since it is an extension of themselves; they want to provide for their heritageⁱⁱⁱ – for their children and grandchildren. Like the self-interest that tells them they must beat out everyone around them – that they must win in the competition – this need is to be sure that their offspring are better off than anyone else's. It's selfish, but it's more forward thinking than a desire for personal gains.

Guilt elimination may be another need in the quest for self-interest. Thus, in addition to the premium placed on altruistic behavior by religions, regret and a (rational or irrational) feeling of responsibility, as well as the need to drive it away, are important factors in the generosity of these angels. Their interest in others may seem to be more widely aimed and selfless, but the source remains very personal. Too often it's a matter of self-interest, as perceived by the well-off.

That's not such a big surprise. We all have free will, and we exercise it in every decision we make,^iv even those that involve bad choices. When we choose the lesser of evils, we choose what we think will be less harmful to us. We decide what is in our best interests. And giving away money doesn't present people with unwelcome choices. In addition to fulfilling a religious precept or ridding ourselves of guilt, we enjoy basking in the admiration by others of our generosity. Win, win. Anonymous donations happen, but not very often.

But if we look at the total picture of self-interest, the actions of the majority of people whether rich or poor, we're not very different from the “lower” animals. You may be a Darwinian or a Creationist,^v but it's hard not to see people's actions as aimed at the continuity of the human species. However we reached the point we're now at,^vi the goal for all groups is making things better – for ourselves and our children. And if our designs work, the entire human race will benefit. That may not be our intent, but it is the likely result.

As humans, we're all^vii narcissists.

Next episode: “DABDA” -- I dare you to figure that one out. (Please forgive the terminal preposition.)

I       And the generations since. Nowadays people become so lost in their electronic devices that they have little time for others. Perhaps some use the devices as a way of shutting others out of their lives. In any event, they may spend so much time in this private reverie that they never learn the skills necessary to interact with others.

ii      You're thinking “There he goes again. Things were bad before that. They're no different from what they've always been.” That may be a bit of an overstatement, but I agree that behavior wasn't ideal in the past. But I really think personal behavior is worse now and we, and our predecessors, knew what was bad and we didn't flaunt our actions and lose ourselves in them as much.

iii     That seems to be a major consideration of Presidents. Some seem more concerned with how they'll be judged in the future than how they perform now.

iv      Of course some things are out of our hands. We don't decide when a flood is going to wipe us out, so we cannot act in our self-interest. But we always do so when given the opportunity. Those who choose an oath of poverty see it as in their interest to do so. No one gives away his possessions without a reason. Whether prompted by religion, guilt, or the tax codes, the giver considers it as in his best interests to do so.

v      Unless you're a hard line fundamentalist, the two are not incompatible. Evolution (Darwin's explanation of life's development) is a scientific description of a means. Creationism (“Intelligent Design”) speaks of an end. Most religious people do not view the Bible as a scientific text and accept the idea that some of its content is metaphorical. Many are willing to view evolution as G-d's means of producing life on earth.

vi      It's reasonable to assume that our current state results from the interest of our predecessors in their best-interests and in those of their children.

vii     Almost all. There are some who, like the Lorax (in Dr. Seuss's book of the same name) speak for others, but they, as is true of everyone else, have chosen to do so because they consider that a good choice among the possibilities available to them. From their perspective, it is in their best interests. They may even believe that it is in everyone's best interests, but their concern is really only regarding their own views. They will act for those who don't know better, but who, in their view, will benefit from moves designed to better the world. Whether the ones for whom they are acting like it or not. In a way, those who think they are idealists are actually narcissists. They're assuaging their guilt and fooling themselves.