Moments

I really connect with the song “Grapevine Fires” by Death Cab For Cutie. If you haven’t heard it, I’d say check it out for sure, but then of course I would, I’ve got that connection. Anyway, It reminds me like so many things do, of the finite nature of our lives. As the lyrics wind around the melody, and the harmony of the chorus fills my ears, I’m reminded of the importance of moments. Life is, after all, just a series of small moments. They are less like scenes in a play, and more like single frames in a longer picture. Unlike a film however, there is no rewinding. How would the way we watch a movie be effected if we knew that we could only watch a movie once, and then never be able to see it again. Would we watch flippantly as I’m sure many of us do, talking, or maybe checking our email during the slow parts? Or, would we treasure each part, absorbing it, trying to understand its place in the fullness of the greater story?

The song reminds me the importance of capturing little moments. minute impressions, and the observation of minutiae often taken for granted or ignored completely can have an often spiritual or supernatural affect on us, if we take time to understand their significance. Some of the most potent and memorable times in my life have been very simple. Standing out on my back porch on a chilly autumn morning, watching as the fog settles on the frosted grass, or reading on the couch late at night, while jazz plays softly on NPR in the other room. Moments like these can have a profound power if allowed. They become transformative experiences, moments that allow us to reflect on, well, whatever we might want. Whether we ruminate on ourselves, our friends, things spiritual, political or existential, or simply silence our minds and let the moment wash over us, we learn something.

What people do with these moments is up to them. I think most people dismiss them. I have at times found them uncomfortable, and can’t blame these people entirely. The mind rebels, sometimes violently, against change in its many forms. These moments of enlightenment bring that change, they change something inside of us altering, ever so slightly, the way we see, and understand the world. That’s scary. Many people, myself included, tend to succumb to that fear allowing it to carry us out of the moment, and into the day. We slip back into the stream of time. We pop in our earbuds, blast our car stereo’s, or bury ourselves in work to drown out the voice that tells us to seek the moments. But, when we bury the fear, reject the pace of the day, and allow ourselves, even for just a few seconds to reach out and grab the moments instead of letting them fly-by, we open ourselves up to incredible possibilities.

Some Thoughts on the War in Afghanistan

Since the time of Alexander the Great, the Afghan people have been under the control of one outside power after another. The United States, with our high ideals and democratic values, is at the end of the day, just the most recent in a succession of occupying powers. We are not the first, and we will certainly not be the last. We flatter ourselves that we are bringing the light of democracy to an oppressed people, and we sleep well at night, while bombs rain down on the people of Afghanistan whose interest we claim to serve.

Our occupation of Afghanistan was doomed to failure from the start. Democracy cannot be served to a people on a silver platter, they have to want it, with every fiber of their social being. The afghani people, most of whom live in insular villages, are far removed from whatever government sits in Kabul, whether it the current corrupt administration, the Taliban, the Mujahadin, the Soviets, or the ancient Greeks. They herd their goats, and farm what crops will grow as they have for hundreds and thousands of years. Their primary taste of "government" is whatever bomb, artillery shell or AK-47 chances to kill one of their children. Our ethnocentric view of what constitutes "winning" in Afghanistan, is destroying lives. It is destroying not only Afghani lives, but American lives as well. over 1000 service members have now lost their lives in Afghanistan. That is 1000 mothers who have buried their sons, 1000 husbands who now mourn their wives, and 1000 children who will grow up with the painful memory of a parent who wasn't there, and for what? Both this administration and the last insist that Afghanistan, 300,000 square miles of mostly barren rock, is somehow vital to national security, that should we lose control of it Al-Qaeda will explode once again onto the world scene, and there will be nothing to stop another attack on the magnitude of the september 11th attacks. To me this is a ludicrous assertion, there is nothing special about Afghanistan that would enable a resurgence of strength in the cause of that organization that could not be obtained in the mountains of Iran, the deserts of Saudi Arabia, or the plains of the Serengeti. So to waste American and Afghani lives on a mission that is contrary to the wishes of the American people(a recent CNN poll showed that only 44% of the American people are in favor of the war in Afghanistan, and 42% favor a rapid withdrawal strategy.) is not only morally objectionable, but contrary to democratic principle. I do not discredit the sacrifices of the veterans of this war. I respect, admire and and am thankful for the bravery, honor and courage that our soldiers show everyday, but we shouldn't spend that courage so thriftlessly. We must honor the courage and dedication of our soldiers by wielding it wisely. We must leave the people of Afghanistan to forge their own destiny, as a product of their own will, in their own time, not ours. Last, we must respect the will of the American people, who are growing ever more against this war. The beauty of democracy, is that it allows the people of a free nation to chart their own course, right or wrong. All to often democracy is treated as a fluffy concept used to mollify the people while controlling them at the same time. Both as governors and governed it is crucial to not only claim to embrace democracy, but to practice it as well. In the latter half of 20th century, and into the 21st, America has done an especially good job of failing to do this. However, it is never to late to break out of the complacency we have allowed to creep into our lives, and reclaim the reigns of our national destiny.

*Special thanks to my friend Bob Schultz, whose willingness to engage in dialogue is appreciated

A Revolutionary Legacy: John Locke’s State Of Nature and Its Effect on the Founding Documents of America

“These are the times that try men’s souls” These immortal words were scribed by Thomas Paine in the midst of the turmoil of the American Revolution. Such inspiring words were echoed by others of the time, from Thomas Jefferson to Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin. With their ideology and rhetoric they carried the spirits of the American colonies on their shoulders, secured freedom for themselves, and the United States. This revolution would go on to inspire others, and the face of power and government in the western world would be changed forever. However, one must wonder how these great thinkers, writers and statesmen conjured these ideas. Were they the result of some transitory contemplation? Were they pulled out of the air like some wistful daydream on a summers afternoon? Or, were they inspired by a generation of thinkers, having been built on pre-existing ideas of property and human rights? Earlier Liberal philosophies informed and energized the founders of the United States, and the people who sought to bring into the light the tyrannies they perceived. In many ways the seeds of the American Revolution were planted in the death of an older one. Like new life springing from the fertile decay of dead fruit, the thought that perhaps people need not bow to a single ruler took hold, and began to grow. The new philosophy of liberalism that began around the time of the English Civil War and flourished during the Enlightenment, specifically the writings of John Locke, would have an undeniable effect on the founding fathers of the United States. There is a definite link between the thoughts and writings of John Locke, and his belief in the “state of nature” with the revolutionary documents that inspired, and helped to sustain the American Revolution.

The liberal ideals advocated by the likes of Paine or Jefferson, existed in British Society long before the first shots were fired at Lexington and Concord. The effects of liberal thought, as it relates to Locke, on the institution of civil government is evident as early as 1669, when he was appointed as secretary to Anthony Cooper, and the colony of Carolina. According to David Armitage, in his essay “John Locke, Carolina, and the Two Treatise of Government.” Locke was essential in the introduction of liberal ideology to the American Colonies. He writes, “John Locke has become a crucial link in the historical chain joining liberalism with colonialism”(Armitage 603). He then goes on to explain that Locke was greatly responsible for the Fundamental Constitutions, of the Carolina colony, a document that attempted to replace the royal charter of the Carolina colony. The Fundamental Constitutions contained several ideologies that would later become cornerstones of both the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. These ideas included an elected legislature and religious tolerance. Although the Constitutions were replaced after only a few decades, they were none the less important to the continuation of liberal thought in American colonial law. Armitage writes, “Locke's hand in the Fundamental Constitutions was also taken to vindicate the role of theory in the world of governmental practice: after all,who better than such a ‘great philosopher’ to design a new commonwealth?”(Armitage 607). The introduction of philosophy into law-making would be used both before, and during the time of the American Revolution to champion a government that is guided not only by do’s and do not’s, but also by moral and ethical codes, such as basic human rights, the concept of liberty, and personal independence.

There is a great deal of similarity between the ideas espoused by Locke, and one of the most important documents of the revolution. In July of 1776, when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he centered it around the idea of individual rights. Rights which men were given not by a King or monarch, but by God. The language that Locke and Jefferson use to describe these rights is remarkably similar. For Example, in the “Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government” better known as The Second Treatise of Government, Locke writes, “Everyone, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully...may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another”(Locke 261) This idea of rights stems from an idea which Locke calls the “state of nature” that is, a natural state of freedom that exists outside of structured society. Because of this freedom, which Locke asserts was given to man at creation, men have rights which are extensions of those freedoms and whose possession is contingent only on whether or not the person with the rights somehow effects society. Jefferson’s language is so like Locke’s that it seems unlikely to be coincidental, in the Declaration of Independence he writes, speaking of mankind’s involvement in dissent against a ruling power. He discusses, “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”(Jefferson) and later claims, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”(Jefferson). “The Law of Nature” referenced by Jefferson, is the very same mentioned by Locke, man’s natural state. That state, which is given by “Nature’s God”, in contradiction to the idea that man is subject to a monarch by Divine will. Also, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Jefferson’s unalienable rights are almost identical to Locke’s “preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.” Given the striking similarity in ideology and rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence, it is extremely likely that Locke’s philosophy not only informed the writer, but that Jefferson drew most of his inspiration from Locke’s Second Treatise, instilling in the foundation of a fledgling nation the very essence of liberalism.

It is worth taking a deeper look into the “state” or “law” of nature which both Locke and Jefferson hold as central to their philosophies. This state of nature, is a kind of perfect being, how humankind was first created to live. Locke describes it this way in The Second Treatise, he writes, “we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man”(Locke 261) This thought flew in the face of popular belief at a time in society when many believed that people existed, in essence, to be ruled. Locke put forward that humankind is actually, naturally free. This freedom, inborn, innate to mankind informs, possibly more greatly than any other factor, the revolutionary ideas of those who it would later inspire. Laura J. Scalia of the University of Houston, highlights the political implications of the state of nature, writing, “This state[of nature] explained the origin and confirmed the inalienability of basic human rights. The a priori existence and legitimacy of rights determined immutable limits to government's power”(Scalia 815) Scalia points out the incredible implication of the state of nature, the relatively new idea of inalienable rights, had the power to restrict a government’s actions in regard to its rule of the people. This concept would serve as the keystone of the political ideology of Jefferson, who went so far as to say, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(Jefferson). Government, in Jefferson's view is not only limited by the right’s guaranteed by the state, or the law, of nature, but exists only to protect and sustain them.

In his Second Treatise, Locke cites many of the same rights and limitations of government that men like Paine would eventually use to justify their dissent against the Crown. In “Common Sense,” one of the most important documents in American history, Paine draws heavily on the concept of the state of nature explored by both Locke and Jefferson. However, he also justifies dissent using the language of slavery. Locke, over one hundred years before Paine’s masterwork, wrote of government in similar terms in the fourth chapter of the Second Treatise titled “Of Slavery”, saying, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth”(Locke, 262) he then goes on to say, “This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man's preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together”(Locke 263) There is a tacit implication in these words, that when one surrenders oneself to such “absolute, arbitrary power” that person then essentially becomes enthralled to that power. Void of freewill and personal agency, the once free man becomes a slave, to a lord, the state or the Crown. Thomas Paine warns of this in Common Sense, writing “Conquest may be effected under the pretense of friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into slavery”(Paine). Paine’s language of slavery, so similar to Locke’s would have been particularly effective in a colonial setting where slavery was the norm. While rhetorical, it is nevertheless consistent with the liberal philosophy of Locke’s time, and his view of the despotic potential of unrestrained Monarchy. In an essay called, “The Republic of The Moderns: Paine’s and Madison’s novel liberalism” Andreas Kalyvas and Ira Katznelson explores Paine’s view of slavery, they write “From this common perspective, to live under monarchy is to live as a slave...Slavery, ‘being subject to the will of another,’ is best understood from Paine’s point of view as exclusion from sovereign power; that is, when the people are banned from ‘a power over which there is no control, and which controls all others’ ”(Kalyvas 458) For Paine as well as for Locke, the notion of slavery does not necessarily entail ownership, but a lack of power, a lack free-will. This idea of the lack of communal or personal agency was at the center of both the English Civil war and the subsequent commonwealth, which inspired John Locke’s philosophy, as well as the American Revolution of Paine’s time. The fight against the crown was not necessarily the quest merely for power itself, but the ability to decide how to direct that power. An elected legislature, which Paine and others fought for, does not necessarily imply a freedom from tyranny. A legislature can rob a person of their rights as quickly and efficiently as a king. The difference lies in where that power eventually rests its head, in one man, or in the joint will and consent of the people. This is what both Locke and Paine desired.

The notion that, contrary to Divine Right, self-government is an institution sanctioned and ordained by God, is shared by both Locke, and the revolutionary writers in the American colonies as well. All three of these works, and their writers touched on this. Jefferson famously wrote that all men were, “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.” How then, if those rights are given to humankind by God, can he also have invested supreme power in a reigning king? Laura Scalia explains, “In the paragraph preceding the famous rights proclamation, colonists declared their decision to "dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another" and "assume...the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them." With this statement, colonists implied their right to return to a kind of state of nature, where men were free of government and political bonds. Again, Locke’s state or law of nature comes into play, this time claiming for itself a divine foundation, the same foundation which was, for so long, used to justify rule by a supreme monarch. Thomas Paine approaches the issue of divine right to rule, literally and directly, in a way that would cut to the heart of the predominantly christian culture of the American colonies. Quoting the bible he says, “As the exalting of one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified on the equal rights of nature, so neither can it be defended on the authority of scripture; for the will of the Almighty as declared by Gideon, and the prophet Samuel, expressly disapproves of government by Kings”(Paine). He does not simply offer a subtle implication about the fallacy of kingship without popular consent, but disclaims its validity entirely. Paine takes an extreme, but logical leap from Locke’s thinking into a completely new direction, one which abolishes the absolute monarch entirely. This thought, born out of the idea a natural state or law, would go on to forever form the government of the fledgeling American nation.

The effect of the “state of nature” which John Locke so thoroughly and eloquently explored in the Second Treatise on two of the most important documents of the American Revolution, and therefore the popular conceptions regarding their contents is hard to deny. The state nature informed every aspect of revolutionary thought in the colonies, it justified their reasons for dissent and gave them what they perceived to be a divine mandate to self-govern. The same ideology that was central to Locke’s philosophy was firmly ensconced in the minds of Jefferson and Paine as well. In many ways the people of the United States owe a debt to John Locke and his contemporaries just as much as they do George Washington or Benjamin Franklin. With his inspired thought, and his bravery to stand up to the thinking of those enthroned in the seats of power, he burned a path for those who came later. Without the Second Treatise or his other numerous works, America might have turned out very differently both then, and now.

Works Cited

Armitage, David. “John Locke, Carolina, and the ‘Two Treatise of Government.’ ” Political Theory. 32.5 (2004): 602-627

Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence. Washington D.C.: Library of Congress (1776). Web

Kalyvas, Andreas, Katznelson, Ira. “The Republic of the Moderns: Paine’s and Madison’s Novel Liberalism” Polity. 38.4 (2006): 448-477

Locke, John. "Essay concerning the True Original, Extent and End of Civil Government" British Literature:1640-1789. Ed. Demaria, Robert J. Malden MA: Blackwell, 2008. 259-263. Print.

Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Philadelphia: R.Bell, 1775. Web

Scalia, Laura J. “The Many Faces of Locke in America’s Early Nineteenth-Century Democratic Philosophy” Political research quarterly. 49.4 (1996): 807-835