Activism

In a recent Tom Friedman article he reminded us that that the US gives $1.3 billion to Egypt in military aid and an insignificant amount in aid for social programs such as education. People such as Joseph Nye can write all they want about “soft power,” but in reality they are admired while largely being ignored. Almost all social scientists agree that such military aid merely props up the regime, which then uses the monies to oppress their own people. What is needed is more money for programs such as economic development, health improvement, and education.

Why is this situation allowed to continue? The answer lies in the American military complex that President Eisenhower so presciently and powerfully warned us against. It is remarkable to look back at the furor over arms merchants—merchants of death as they were called—at the time of WW I. No such voices are lifted today as the military-industrial complex, with its revolving chairs, lobbies vigorously for the desired expenditures. Ours has become a “culture of war,” as my colleague John Dower has so pungently put it, and in a society engulfed in fear and violence homeland security matters far more than social security.

There are no comparable lobbyists on the other side, advancing the funding of books. As mystery writers keep reminding us, follow the money trail. CEOs of major defense industries make “obscene” amounts of money each year. The bookish types spend their lives doing good—and like monks of old embracing relative poverty.

As Reinhold Niebuhr famously remarked, “The world is not a place of justice.” This must be read, however, not so much as a lamentation as a challenge. America is an empire—think of New York as “the empire state”–and has been so since its founding. That empire has expanded across a continent, whether by armed force or by missionary religion (a more refined form of force), since its very beginnings (see Richard Slotkin’s classic account, Regeneration Through Violence), and subsequently beyond its own continental shores. This must be known, and that knowledge constantly reiterated.

Such analysis is not enough. Actions must follow. One possibility is the bringing together of various organizations, such as universities, libraries, and NGOs into a concerted lobbying group. “A book, not bomb” day could be organized, including perhaps a demonstration before the Capitol in Washington DC. Also, various campus demonstrations could take place. Those who know more about the Internet than I do should be able to suggest ways of operating on that media. Imagination should be encouraged.

The task is to bring together analysis and action. One good starting point would be for someone to edit a book on the subject. Special interests can only be countered by larger numbers of people pursuing a common interest. They will need to do so in a myriad of ways. A challenge must provoke an adequate response. There is no question but that the challenge lies before us. It will take many hands and minds to respond to it. Avanti!

IRAN AND THE NUCLEAR BOMB

“Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf?” could be the theme song of this article. Or, alternatively, I could write about the hypocrisy of those opposing Iran’s possession of such a nuclear bomb. Especially, Israel. Let me declare my position at once. I do not approve of the present regime in Iran led by the theocracy and the Revolutionary Guards. I also believe that sooner or later, and probably sooner, that regime will fall, and a more democratic one take its place. As for Israel, I see little hope of its abandoning its strident positions, and especially as voiced by its dogmatic, monomaniacal prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu,

In fact, Israel is becoming more and more fundamentalist, as the Orthodox Jews multiply and exert their power. I am in principle a friend of Israel, but think that the maxim “Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad” increasingly applies. Unfortunately, while I see the probability of Iran turning in a positive direction, I have less hope in regard to Israel. It is increasingly becoming fundamentalist.

Let us remember that it is Israel that has the nuclear bomb—indeed, many of them. Moreover, the United States is committed to Israel’s protection, by all and any means. I approve of this commitment. I take this position in spite of the hawks that promote it. It is hypocrisy, however, not to acknowledge that Israel is an extension of American power in the Middle East. It is as much so as the Iraq invasion. It is not by accident that oil, as well as power, is at the heart of the matter.

Iran has a long and esteemed culture. It has also suffered from the invasive maneuvers of the West. At the end of the 19th century, it was the British; by the next century, the Americans. Do we not to have to remember the CIA overthrow of a legitimately elected government of the nationalist Mohammed Mossadegh? What if such intrusion had taken place in our country? We would have been furious and unforgiving. Why expect better from Iran?

The whole nuclear fracas is about power and wealth. Iran is a Shiite country. It sees itself as the natural leader in the Middle East world. It naturally uses Shiite people in Iraq, where it sees itself as having more right to be there than the heretical Americans.

Iran with the bomb might feel that the scales are now more equally balanced. It could not have any possible reason to use it aggressively. Are we forgetting that it is Israel that is threatening to use conventional weapons against Iran, in a supposed preventive strike? It is doubtful that it would do so if it knows that Iran could retaliate in kind. As in the MAD world of the Cold War, Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would most likely prevent a war.

BRUCE MAZLISH

USA, FOREIGN POLICY, AND THE PRESIDENCY

The USA may be a continent, but its view on the rest of the world is insular. At a time when globalization has contributed to making the world increasingly interdependent and interconnected, America, if one views its Republican Presidential candidates, seems to be trying to retreat into itself, to resurrect the idea of American Exceptionalism, and to view other counties almost solely through the prism of military power.

This is one of the most frightening developments in our time, when increasing numbers of our problems require transnational and global solutions. Climate change and ecological exhaustion are two of the most prominent such challenges. In the face of such threats, the USA shrinks into a “know nothing, see nothing, hear nothing” posture.

We need only look at the Republican Presidential candidates to realize the truth of this assertion. Can one imagine Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, or Rick Perry as President, in this regard? Not one of them has shown the slightest awareness or knowledge of a world outside America. Nor has Mitt Romney, the most likely Republican nominee. President Obama at least has credentials in this area, though not by training. He has been greatly constrained, however, by the rampant nationalism of the USA, as demonstrated by poll after poll. Knowing their audience, all the candidates talk almost only about domestic issues.

Can anything be done about this situation? One answer is for “neutral” organizations, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, to insert themselves insistently in the public arena by holding debates around the foreign policies of the leading candidates. Military and Security think tanks must also do their part. Talk shows should highlight the subject. Politics are supposed to stop at the water’s edge. Needless to say, they don’t. Nor should they. The boundary in this globalized world is nowhere and everywhere. The American military knows this all too well. It is time now for the politicians and the public to be aware of this fact, and to act upon it.

Blog #15

“OCCUPYING WALL STREET”

If Thomas Carlyle were alive today, he might describe the occupation of Wall Street by a motley group of protesters as a “Sign of the Times.” It can also be described as a crisis for free-market, American-style capitalism. That system has produced an extraordinary rise of standards of living in America, yet its excesses are beginning to outweigh its benefits, and recently a leading measure of living standards, median income, has fallen by 10% from December 2007 to June 2009, a truly remarkable drop, partly because capitalism has entered its financial phase, in which money is simply moved around to make more money, rather than providing for business innovation and the employment that can accompany it.

If America were a different sort of country there might be a revolution. In this country, however, the free-market ideology tells people that if they are poor or out of a job, the fault is theirs. Reinforced by a Calvinist heritage, expressed in the 19th century in the notion of the “self-made” man (note the gendering of the idea), and with enough examples to show the possibility of success for every person, the belief is deeply inculcated that success is in ourselves, and has nothing to do with the system. The system gets a free pass, and instead of revolution we get self-reformation.

Adam Smith, whose name is so often taken in vain, knew that without the proper supporting institutions and judiciary system, free trade was a “utopia.” Monopolists would take over, and self-interest turn into greed. The result would be an unhealthy society. (On this basis, alternative economic theories to that of the neo-classical one have proceeded under the heading of well-being and contextual economics, emphasizing the implausibility of supposedly “eternal” and “universal” economic laws.) John Maynard Keynes, in an effort to save capitalism from itself, introduced far-reaching economic theories, stressing the need for governmental intervention at critical moments. One wonders how many representatives in Congress, or aspirants for the Presidency, have read their books? It is, clearly, a rhetorical question.

One need not have read their books, however, to know that something is rotten in the Kingdom of Wall Street. The occupiers know it as a first-hand experience. What they need now is to rally around a number of reforms, and to focus their movement around them.

A number of suggestions are forthcoming. One is straight-forward, though surrounded by political obstacles. It is to require that all salaries to CEO’s be no more than 15 times that of the average worker in the company. This would have a “multiplier” effect in causing bosses to pay more attention to the salaries of their employees. This move should be accompanied by the end of “parachute deals” and deferred payment in stock.

It is well known that Americans are opposed to taxing the rich, on the grounds that they themselves may become that rich. This illusion is rooted in the American Dream. Yet, numerous studies show that it is rarely fulfilled: blue collar workers from blue collar families overwhelmingly remain in that class. The ignoring of this fact is grounded in the American illusion that there are no classes in the country. Whenever moves are made toward greater equality, we hear the cry: “class warfare.”

There is another multiplier effect in the 15 times rule. It prevents future billionaires and multi-millionaires from having an outsize effect on the political process. It is well-known that corporations have undue influence on the political process. The judicial decision in the 19th century to treat corporations as persons would be farcical if it weren’t so serious. It has helped lead to a Supreme Court, under Chief Justice Roberts, giving the store away. A strong movement to reverse the corporation as person is badly needed. It is the second practical point around which the occupiers of Wall Street could coalesce and spearhead a national movement.

The final suggestion I wish to make is far more general and amorphous than the first two. It is to help remake the general culture. In analyzing human motives, status and power are key elements. Most people want both, and each contributes to the other. How can we tap into this desire? On the other side is shame: most people wish to avoid it. What is needed is a systematic campaign to single out capitalists who are praiseworthy and make a big fuss over them. Then to single out those who are the true villains and make fun of them and our shame upon them. (Many, such as the Koch brothers of Kansas and Art Pope of North Carolina, are prime candidates.). The campaign must be relentless, even though this may be rough on their families. One must remember how ruthless such individuals are on other families.

These are suggestions to save the capitalist system, and to preserve it from itself. A society dedicated to well-being would be dedicated to the well-being of all, not just the greedy rich. The occupiers of Wall Street must not rest as a small group of “street” people, but become the instigators of a mass movement in America to take the country back from the rapacious few. The way forward is to embrace a few practical but far-reaching measures such as outlined above and make them real. The movement of the occupiers can become one in which most Americans will want to join.

Blog #14

An effective and viable democratic political system needs at least two parties that can present intelligent and responsible alternatives to the voting populace. The Republican party no longer offers such an alternative. This has been made crystal clear in the Iowa straw vote that has just been taken, and in which Michele Baumann emerged the winner.

Can anyone seriously see her as a President, leading this country in the complicated, difficult, and globalized world in which we all live? Anti-intellectualism has been a potent, continuing theme is American life, as the historian Richard Hofstadter demonstrated in his classic book, Anti-Intellectualism in America. The world is a confusing, anxiety-producing place; and simple answers have always appealed to the populace. This is an obvious explanation. It is also a recipe for disaster.

Mrs. Baumann may be seen an attractive woman, but this is hardly a good reason to find her an attractive candidate for President of the United States. It is a measure of how zany this country has become that the voice of someone who would have a hard time getting through the 12th grade of any decent school should have the Chutzpa to present herself as someone fit to lead the single remaining superpower as it attempts to lead the world.

She labels President Obama “anti-American” and considers him a “socialist.” She thinks the threat of climate change to be a “hoax.” She says that Darwinian theories of evolution are opposed by many scientists, and that creationism should have equal time in the classroom. That homosexuals are “sexually dysfunctional” and their orientation possibly changed by therapeutic counseling (her husband Marcus makes his living as a therapist). And on and on.

Her appeal is mainly to the Tea Party, and to the reactionary part of the evangelicals in America. She both voices and appeals to their fundamentalist beliefs in their most naked form. In herself, she has no chance whatsoever to win the Presidency. Indeed, within her own party, she will lose to Governor Perry, who voices the same beliefs but in a louder, better financed manner. Mrs. Bachmann’s importance is as a symbol of what is wrong in this country.

That this person is deemed a plausible leading candidate for one of our two parties speaks to the bankruptcy of that party. It has been made captive to the extreme right wing of this country’s voters. No sensible person can hope to get through the Republican primaries. In short, there can no longer be a responsible opposition party.

The time has come, therefore, to establish a new party. Clearly, it would at first be disruptive of the political process, and take a relatively long time to be a major player. The decline of America, however, is also a long-term process, and we must be prepared for a dim future. My view, I know, can hardly be popular. As Reagan shrewdly observed, it is always morning in America.

THE DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN* (2)

by Bruce Mazlish

The death and disposal in the sea of Osama bin Laden on 5/1/11 seems a fitting book end to the events of 9/11. It cannot be lamented; but it does raise a set of questions. Something like 3,000 victims were claimed at the World Towers and the other 9/11 sites. Al Qaeda, led by bin Laden, has been responsible for many more. Horrible as they are, their number has been fairly limited. In comparison with the Nazi Holocaust and the killing of an additional 6 million or more Poles, Russians and others, the Al Qaeda attack is dwarfted into insignificance. Its major significance lay in the shattering of the belief in American domestic invulnerability. The fear that was created by the small number dead—compare the 60,000 plus deaths each year on American highways—resulted in a major victory for the terrorists.

In the case of the Nazis, a memorable Trial took place in Nuremberg. Out of this grew not only convictions and judgment, but a body of international law of extraordinary significance. War itself was declared a crime, and “crimes against humanity” were established and identified. This development must be seen as a landmark in human history. The Nuremberg Trials were followed by those in Yugoslavia and Rwanda. The further institutionalization of an International Criminal Court in 1998 marked a further highpoint (in spite of the fact that until now the ICC has not been particularly effective). Elsewhere I have summed up these developments as a “Judicial Revolution.” 1

What has this to do with bin Laden? He was a non-state terrorist, So are the members of Al Qaeda. And so are the prisoners held at Guantanamo. International law must be expanded from its Nuremberg roots to cover present circumstances. If the Navy Seals were ordered to capture bin Laden rather than to kill and dispose of him, he could have been brought to trial. Such a trial would break new ground, equivalent to that of Nuremberg. It would have suited the changed conditions, where terrorists commit crimes globally, and are not to be treated as state actors.

Nor are they to be treated as war criminals. They are simply global terrorists. When the Bush administration pronounced a “War on Terror,” this was a category mistake of enormous consequences, based only on domestic politics. At one stroke it elevated the terrorist to being an equal foe of the US, even though its resources were miniscule compared to the might of America. It turned criminals into warriors.

In passing, it must also be noted that the Bush administration justified torture against the Taliban and Al Qaeda on the grounds that they were not state actors and thus did not fall within the scope of the Geneva Convention, which established regulations for the treatment of prisoners of war in armed conflicts. The moral, if not the political, casuistry of this position is obvious.

The sort of trial that I am suggesting (undoubtedly followed by imprisonment for life; the death penalty in my view is immoral) would set a precedent for civil trials of the detainees at Guantanamo. The latter is a singular blot on the American commitment to justice. It is shameful. If American politicians raised the issue of National Security, requiring military trials, that would be permissible as long as outside observers were allowed and transparency prevailed. But justice must be seen to have been done. As Robert H. Jackson, on leave from the US Supreme Court and chief prosecutor at Nuremberg for the US, proclaimed, in 1945, “We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants to day is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow…We must summon integrity to our task that this trial will commend itself to posterity as fulfilling humanity’s aspiration to do justice.” At this moment, the record of former President Bush and Vice-President Cheney, when they have self-admitted to approving of torture, against all the rules of war—a stupendous bit of arrogance and stupidity—would convict them if in the dock at Nuremberg.

Back to bin Laden. His trial, followed by that of the detainees at Guantanamo, would have sent a message that no one was safe from capture and a fair trial, in which justice would be seen to have been done. As low as America has fallen, it could stand tall again in the community of nations. International law would now have changed in accord with the changing nature of events.

There is another subject that has an affinity with our discussion so far of bin Laden. It is the subject of assassins and assassination. The name comes from an 11th century sect in what is now called the Middle East. It was a normal form of warfare; obviously, one tried to kill the enemy’s leaders. The deed, if not the term, existed long before the 11th century. One need only recall Caesar’s death. To go forward, the 19th century in Russia witnessed the assassination of four Tzars. Even the US has seen its fair share, with Booth’s murder of Lincoln of particular note. In 1914, the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand touched off WW I, illustrating how such an action can change history. Evidently, assassination can be important, and has been practiced over the centuries.

What is not obvious is how it accords with our moral feelings. All killing, whether in war or peace, is abominable; but sometimes it can be argued as necessary: a “just war” such as against the Nazis. If the assassination of Hitler been possible (there were a few attempts), would it have been justifiable? The answer for most people, I suspect, as well as myself is “yes.”

What of the American use of “drones,” targeted with pin-point accuracy and low “collateral” damage, to kill a particular individual or a few? In what way does this differ from an artillery strike, except that it is more efficient? Is it part of a “war,” or rather the killing of criminals?

In the end, I repeat, all killing is reprehensible. The way to deal with it is to end, where possible, the conditions that make it possible. We have come a long way since Nuremberg in ending war between state actors. It is necessary now to find ways to eliminate the scourge of global, deterritorialized terror, and to bring justice where it exists. The Western nations, especially the US, have been partly responsible, by their imperialistic maneuvers, for arousing animosity in the Middle East. Alas, if the situation were reversed, and bin Ladin were an American defending his “homeland,” one wonders then how most Americans might feel. As the Bible tells us, don’t criticize an imperfection in your neighbor’s eye while ignoring a large one in your own. Awful as bin Laden has been, America, with its unconscionable adoption of techniques such as torture, must also look at itself in a mirror and see if it admires what it sees.

* I would like to thank Gabrielle Spiegel for her inspiring me to write this piece, and her specific comments in regard to non-state actors.

Blog $12: REGULATIONS

by BRUCE MAZLISH

Two cars are approaching each other on intersecting streets. There is a traffic light. For one it is green, for the other red. The car facing the green light proceeds. Alternatively, there may be a stop sign for one or both. In addition, each car must have back lights and brake lights. A signal indicator, though it may not be used, is de rigeur. To make sure of compliance with all these lights and signs, violators, when apprehended, are given a ticket, which requires them to pay a fine. Similar examples can be cited, such as the removal of garbage, health warnings on products, and so forth.

Here, in essence, is the core of regulations. They exist in order to prevent chaos. They are a vital part of civilized life. Strong and weak, equally, are to fall under their rule. Enforcement is a crucial part of the problem. As Jeremy Bentham would observe, certainty of getting caught, followed by fines equivalent to the violation, and their immediate collection are major deterrents to aberrant behavior.

In modern democratic societies, the solution is found by setting up regulatory agencies. They are presumably responsible for their performance to a parliament or Congress of some sort. Unfortunately, to take the case of the US, these seem not to work well. All too often, the members of the regulation board are themselves chosen from the ranks of those who have previously been employees of the very body to be regulated; or become future employees (a safeguard of forbidding them to work for such organizations, say, for 3 years, is helpful, but not always effective).

One example of what is involved can be found in the attempt to regulate dangerous chemicals. As we are told in Green American, April/May 2011, Issue 83, “In 1976, Congress enacted the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which gave the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the right to track industrial chemicals used in the US.” What has happened, we are told, is that of the 85,000 or so chemicals used in the US, “62,000 were presumed safe and grandfathered into use…and never tested for safety. Since then, about 23,000 new chemicals have been introduced into US products and processes…Manufacturers may conduct safety tests, but they’re not required to do so.” Subsequently, only 5 chemicals have been partially banned and only one—PCBs—received a full ban; since TSCA was enacted, EPA has ordered testing of only 200 chemicals.(p. 17)

A qualification must be made. Rachel Massey, the Policy Analyst & Policy Program Manager of the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, and a true expert, commented on this point that “I don’t think the problem is simply a failure by EPA to regulate. Rather, a lot of the difficulty stems from the way TSCA is written and the way the courts have interpreted it, further exacerbated by the role of the Office of Management and Budget in reviewing regulations (See, for example, http://www.ewg.org/sites/asbestos/facts/fact5.php).”

Much of the problem becomes one of “quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who will guard the guards?). A problem addressed by the ancients still plagues us today. I should like to give a tentative answer. Every regulatory agency should have an external oversight group made up of members of whom at least half should be “amateurs,” without past, present, or future employment in the industry under consideration. Bureaucracy is a terrible thing, to be avoided or marginalized whenever possible. Sometimes, however, its virtues outweigh its vices. What I am proposing could be enhanced by insuring that a majority of the oversight board serve pro bono. There are definite problems in this regard, pros and cons, that must be considered; yet, citizenship demands no less.

Is all this too unrealistic? Politically unfeasible? Surely, the lobbyists will prevent something like it from happening? The fact is that there can be lobbyists on the other side; and though they may not be able to command the money that is on the particular industry’s side, they can marshall the votes. Given the importance of the right regulations, and their stringent enforcement, something such as I suggest is requisite. To paraphrase, the price of liberty is eternal regulation.

Blog #11: MYOPIA IN THE POLITICAL WORLD

by BRUCE MAZLISH

Many, if not most people, have driven automobiles. In doing so, they know that they must constantly be turning a little bit to one side and then back to the other in order to maintain their desired direction. Technically, this is known as “feedback.” The great mathematician, Norbert Wiener, has elevated it to a science, which he calls “cybernetics.” In a slightly different vein, we all know that every action provokes a reaction. This is a law of the political as well as physical world.

Yet, this knowledge is consistently ignored in our political life. We are blind to what we know. Thus, in economics the more astute of its practitioners talk of “counter-cyclical” movements. In other words, one must look ahead to see what will come next after present actions. This view, however, is sadly lacking in most cases.

Let me cite a few examples. When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan (a terrible example of their not looking ahead), the US responded by financing and arming the mujahedin (called “freedom fighters” by then President Reagan). This was justified by claiming the need to win the Cold War, without the slightest thought as to its subsequently planting of the seeds for terrorism that followed. Of course, the past gives us 20/20 vision; but it is nonsense to believe that foresight in many cases is impossible. A sense of cybernetics is a much better guide than simple myopia.

Another egregious example is the decision of the Bush administration to invade Iraq. The President, it appears, was entirely ignorant of the fact that Sunnis and Shites contended for mastery in the country. One doubts if he knew anything of the country, its culture, and its history—nor did he make any effort to fill this gap. It is sad to have to acknowledge that for eight years the US was commanded by an affable, well-meaning but not very bright person. One result was the glaring unawareness of what the possible after effects of the invasion would have on both Iraq and the US itself, as well as the US’s position in the international world.

In a more domestic example, the tax cuts for the rich (again the Bush administration; in the eyes of future historians I am sure that the decline of America will be dated from his tenure) plus increases in military expenditures were bound to cause havoc with the budget. I am well aware that this has become a political football, with right-wing Republicans (and some Democrats) shouting that the deficit must be reduced, not by increased taxes on the rich but by cutting social security for the poor. One wonders how the politicians who rant on this matter while proclaiming their patriotism and concern for American greatness can choose to sacrifice their country for paltry political gain.

If one acknowledges the ubiquitousness of myopia in political affairs, what can one do about it? A few suggestions are in order. In every political decision, before it is finally taken, an informed voice should be present to present the “cybernetic” possibilities and ensure that real attention is paid to them. I realize that some would call this political naivete on my part; I respond that it is myopic thinking on their part. Surely, in their personal lives, politicians try to avoid myopia. Can we not expect them to observe similar caution in deciding on their nation’s future? This is idealism; but it is what I call realistic idealism.

The Koch brothers, both of them, went to MIT. Charles, the oldest, took his batchelors’ degree in 1957 in general engineering and then went on to an MA in chemical engineering in 1960. David took his undergraduate degree in 1962. Both brothers, as is well known, went on to become multi-billionaires and supporters of conservative causes. David, who choose to live in NY City, has also been a generous supporter of the arts, as well as institutions such as the Aspen and Cato.

I came to teach history at MIT in 1950. The Institute had decided that it wished to educate leaders as well as engineers and scientists. Under the wise and inspired leadership of Dean John Burchard the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (SHSS) was entrusted with this mission. I found MIT extremely congenial. It allowed me to follow my interest in bridging the “two cultures.” In its main areas the Institute prided itself on being on the “cutting edge;” I felt part of that. It gave generous support to the humanities and the social sciences. From offering a veneer of culture so that the MIT “boys” could talk to the Wellesley “girls” it began to demand of its SHSS faculty that they must have an international as well as national reputation to secure tenure (at least this was the ideal). And while becoming more and more professional and staying within the disciplines, it also encouraged innovative and interdisciplinary work.

I was at MIT from 1950 to 1953 and then left for Spain, to finish writing my first book. I returned in 1955 and stayed there, with occasional visits elsewhere, until my retirement in 2004, aged 80, rising from assistant to full professor, and also serving in various administrative posts. The latter especially allowed me to mix with my colleagues in the other schools. All in all, though from a particular perspective, I felt that I had a fairly extensive view of the Institute (which really felt itself to be a university, although as one wit put it “polarized around science”).

To relate this biographical sketch to the subject of this blog, I was teaching at MIT at the end of the 1950s and beginning of the 1960s when the Koch brothers were studying there. In my teaching of history and political science (where I also gave a few courses), I believed that proselyting in any shape was out of place. If the students asked for my personal views I would demur (although I am sure that the discerning ones could sense that I was “liberal,” to use that much maligned word). What I tried to teach, along with the subject matter, was critical thinking. Whether one was liberal, conservative, or libertarian (or whatever), it was imperative that every student try to apply critical thinking to all positions including his/her own. After all, in the natural sciences, they were applying scientific method. Why not its counterpart in the social sciences?

What has all this to do with the Koch brothers? It would be interesting to see what courses they took in the SHSS fields. (I am now too old to look it up.) I am sure that none of them brought to bear the method of critical inquiry, or else it made no impression. Along with a lack of critical thinking, I think the brothers also learned little in the way of sensitivity. Let me illustrate by a story from my earlier teaching days at the U. of Maine (Brunswick campus). Just back from the War (II), I was younger than most of my students, who were also veterans. When they would bring up the subject of unemployment insurance, or social security, they would express their dislike for such public policies. Only weaklings would need them. If a Mainer (incidentally, I love the place and have spent all my summers since the 1960s there) lost his job, say at the Bath Ironworks, he would simply plant some food on an open patch of land, and do odd jobs till the Ironworks started hiring again. Remember that Maine at the time was “rock-ribbed Republican. When I asked them how someone living and working in a city would pay his rent, they were non-plussed; they had simply never thought of that. Empathy was simply not there.

The Koch brothers were brought up in Kansas. Their horizon was limited, and the Catholicism in which they were raised seems not to have enlarged their vision, as that religion does at its best. I sense that both Charles and David are good men. What they lack are certain sensitivities, empathy, and critical reasoning. In that sense, their education at MIT failed them.

BRUCE MAZLISH

Blog #9: Crimes Against Future Humanity

The Nuremberg trials after WW II made famous, or rather infamous, the idea of “crimes against humanity.” This idea has now firmly entered international law, and it is accepted that legal institutions be established to handle such trials and to pass judgment on those brought before the appropriate court. I want to propose now that we also think seriously about “crimes against future humanity.”

Most people who have children worry about them; those with grandchildren worry about these descendants as well. They are concerned not only about their children’s immediate well-being, but with their future prospects. They seek to give them as good an education as possible. Where possible, they try to hand on a house, or land, or stocks to their offspring. The wealthier even set up trusts, not only for their own offspring but for generations yet unborn. (Most people are not in such fortunate positions, having enough trouble just keeping themselves alive.)

Yet most people worry only in individualistic terms. Only their children are the object of their concerns. The result is a “tragedy of the commons” situation. If one or two persons or institutions pollute the environment or create ecological havoc, no big hassle. It’s the multiplier effect that kicks the ball downhill. What I have said is hardly new. It is how effectively to attack the problem that requires additional thought.

To contribute to this additional thought I would like to suggest that we think not only of “crimes against humanity” and how to deter and punish them, as we did in the past, but how to do the same for “crimes against future humanity.”

Such crimes are, for example, contributing to noxious climate changes by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, creating ecological havoc by over-exploiting the earth’s natural resources; we can probably add atomic energy and the dangers therein. Those who run the great corporations responsible for these “crimes” can claim the same ignorance and indulge in the same denial that those who perpetuated the “crimes against humanity” did at the end of WW II. And undoubtedly with a better case. The fact remains, however, that they are creating “crimes against future humanity” that must also be acknowledged and halted as best we can. Needless to say, I am not advocating Nuremberg trials for the CEOs of those corporations complicit in the crimes.

There is a prototype of sorts for how to deal with crimes of the future. There is, for example, customary international law in regard to the environment. Thus, “it may now be considered a requirement under general international law to undertake an environmental impact assessment where there is a risk that the proposed industrial activity may have a significant adverse in a transboundary context, in particular on a shared resource.” This was the judgment of the International Court of Justice in a decision in 2010 on a case brought by Argentina against Uruguay and its building of a power plan on the borders of the two countries. (See Cymie R. Payne, “Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 105, 98) Implicit is the concern for the future.

Alas, we are all complicit in these crimes. It’s nice, of course, to have cheap gas—and damn the consequences. To want cheap minerals and food, even if it means stripping the land of its trees and plants. In the face of these natural desires, the solution will not be easy. Shame is a powerful weapon, and should be brought to bear. As the saying goes, we have met the enemy, and he is not just Exxon but ourselves. “Know Thyself” is the great adage of the philosophers. It is by understanding what we are doing, and changing our mind sets that we can at least begin to take action effectively. It will not be easy. As the great German poet and thinker, Goethe remarked, “Thinking is easy, action is difficult. To act in accordance with one’s thoughts is the most difficult thing in the world.”

BRUCE MAZLISH