Researching definitions of "peace" has led me to a simple but important distinction between the two major definitions. The first common definition of peace is when conflict is resolved. The second definition is when harmony is achieved. Both of these definitions seem harmless and even positive on the surface. However, each implies drastically different policies and goals when applied through governance.
The term Peace has been co-opted by many liberal, leftist and even communist movements. The classic peace symbol is a logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The "Nuclear Disarmament" "N" and "D" create the symbol. It was never restricted via patent, copyright or trademark and has grown beyond it's original meaning.
Today, "peace" and "fairness" are common themes used by the political left. These are vague terms. As vague terms, research to find a common definition may bridge some of our political divides. At least, this research may explain some major differences between current ideologies and the policies they pursue.
While this blog attempts to be "fair" to parties with whom we disagree, we are imperfect beings. It is our hope that you will correct us when we fall short. However, in this instance clarity is more useful than "fairness."
Current conservatives occupy the philosophical ground of Lincoln, Jefferson and the founding fathers of the Constitution who opposed the over-reach of the Federalists. Because of this ideology the emerging Republican party will either become the conservative party of private property and free markets or it will go extinct. Conservatives believe that our rights come from God, and that the only entity on Earth with sovereignty is man and not community, not society and clearly not government who is loaned power from the sovereign citizenry.
"Conservative peace" is equilibrium between human beings with competing interests and differing opinions that allows for cooperation. Conservative peace does not require complete agreement, just the absence of conflict. "Peace through strength" is a conservative theme and understanding what is meant by "peace" brings clarity to the adage. The threat of force is not needed to find agreement. Agreement coerced through threat is intimidation. Agreement coerced through force is conquest.
Let's be clear about conquest. It has been the order of the world from the caveman through the Spanish Conquistadors and it still exists today. The right of conquest is an absolute and universal right in every political ideology. It is not a conservative or liberal ideal, it is a political fact.
Modern conservatives are often prepared to seek "peace through strength", but such peace has never been pursued to extinguish opposition.
American progressives and the Democrat party has controlled much of America's political reality since FDR's "New Deal." Under this reality America has established a social safety net and promised a growing percentage of citizens benefits. The Democrat party has become the party of big government and public employee unions. This is a powerful position, and one that wields the threat of government violence and force against the citizenry.
The Democrat party has morphed from the anti-Federalist party that was founded by Jefferson. Since the Republican's broke away prior to the civil war, the Democrats have become increasingly reliant upon their position and promises to hold power. A position which now has reached the end of the line.
Key in the rhetorical battle to gain Democrat support from the public has been the term "peace." President Barack Obama gained notoriety for opposing the Iraq War and treatment of prisoners. However, it has become apparent that Democrat's "peace" is not the same peace as defined by their supporters.
"Progressive peace" is when no one disagrees. It is harmony. This may be restated in many ways, and they all seem to apply. Holding the powerful position as the party of government and holding a force of threat unmatched in human history makes this realization dangerous.
When States and governors disagree with the goals of the left, recalls and federal lawsuits are pursued. When bloggers speak truth about left-wing operatives, families are threatened through "swatting." When tea parties opposed government policy they are labeled "racist" and even "potential terrorists." When facts emerge that prove the government is threatening national security or arming Mexican drug gangs, denials are not given, threats against those seen as "offensive" are made. It is made clear that American citizens may be killed without due process.
When you disagree with the American left, your character is attacked. If smears are not sufficient to end your opposition, they will lie and cheat in order to win. If they still cannot defeat you, expect the threat of force.
Where conservatives proclaim "peace through strength," progressives have on occasion attempted to eradicate opponents:
- President Andrew Jackson vs the American Indian nations during "Manifest Destiny"
- Hitler's National Socialist party vs "inferior races"
- Communists in China and Russia through purges
- Margaret Sanger's progressives vs "undesirables."
For my friends on the left, who see this as a partisan attack, let me guess why you may feel this way.
If you believe that peace only comes when disagreement is over, then my disagreement with your comrades' actions is an assault against peace and possibly against you personally. My disagreement is intolerable. In order to justify what must be done to establish peace, must you demonized and dehumanized the messenger? Seriously, question yourself.
This is only my theory but it explains my observations. Observations of family members who are intolerant of my ideas and opinions regardless of established facts. Observations of acquaintances and friends who demonize and minimize Fox News. Observations of how political processes around us work. Observations of how money is spent by the left. Observations of "grassroots" groups being paid through Craigslist advertisements. Observations of the war on free markets, private businesses, banks and the Marxist term "capitalism." Observations of claims that "the debate is over" and that critical scientists are "climate change deniers."
More notably, this theory explains why Scytl is not the biggest news story in America. "Progressive peace" is when no one disagrees.
Please falsify this hypothesis, if you can.
Hat tip to fellow SLOB Beers with Demo for an excellent link on the forthcoming political revolution.