Left and Right Naive about Human Nature When it Comes to the War in Iraq

It has been pointed out by more than a few thinkers, that those on the left and the right share many of the same philosophical presuppositions. I know this is a comment that partisans on both sides find insulting, but it is nevertheless the case. In particular we see the same presumptions on human nature, even though they are evidenced in different ways.

In reference to the War in Iraq, many on the right share a false view, as often echoed by the President, that the longing for freedom is somehow intrinsic to human nature, and that given the opportunity, human beings will build free societies. In fact, it doesn't stop there. They go on to assert that freedom is God's gift to humanity.

The problem with this view, from a Christian perspective, is that it simply is not true. Nowhere does the Bible state that human beings have an innate desire for freedom. Indeed, one of the important threads that runs throughout the Scriptural drama is that human beings will gladly sell themselves into the bondage of sin in order to fulfill their selfish whims and desires. If freedom is defined, not as the ability to do what one wants, but the opportunity to do right, human beings have had much opportunity to do right, but seem to end up, time and time again, so the Bible tells us, "doing what is right in their own eyes."

An official in the Kennedy Administration once said that the best way to foster democracy was, not to offer people more freedom, but to promise them a society where they would be able to accumulate more stuff. In other words, if people were offered a little more freedom or a brand new car, they would probably take the car.

To be sure, this a quite a cynical view, but it highlights the realistic view that the Bible takes in reference to human nature; and it undermines the idea that the human soul intrinsically longs for freedom. If indeed this were the case, why are there not more free societies? Why do free societies take so long to build and implement? Even the "great American experiment" took many decades to stabilize with a civil war in between. So much for internal longings.

The left, however, is no different. Their illusions about human nature stem, not from any deep human longings for freedom, but from the belief that peace can be achieved, and warring factions will lay down their arms, simply by talking and learning to appreciate their differences with others, as we also address their grievances. They continue to think in Neville Chamberlain-like fashion, that everybody can be won over to peace and be convinced to beat their swords and weapons into plowshares with more active diplomacy. They cannot fathom the thought that certain individuals may be committed to ideals that cannot be negotiated away nor talked into compromise. When one looks at the great succession of judges and prophets sent by God to his own people, one after the other over the centuries, it does not speak positively of the power of reason in changing the minds of, at least, some. Perhaps that is why only cross and resurrection are sufficient for what ails humanity.

The right cannot fathom why people would kill and die for an ideal higher than freedom, and the left cannot comprehend why people would kill and die for an ideal higher than peace. Both fail to recognize the power that religious conviction have in the lives of many. Both fail to understand that no matter how private they desire to make religion, it is not and never will be private for those who deem it to be the most important thing in their lives. We only need to recall the incompetent response of the Clinton administration to the Branch Davidians at Waco. All that was needed, so it was thought, was a little forceable action, and the cult members would come out with hands raised; after all, who would willingly die for private religious convictions? In this way, then, the heart of the matter is not about high ideals as much as it is about certain false religious convictions that make war and death acceptable in the name of God.

If freedom is not the innate desire of human beings, does this mean that we should not encourage and foster free societies? Of course not; a free society is a good thing. But we should understand that such societies do not come easy. If they did, the whole world would contain nothing but democracies. This also means that a pre-emptive war should not be a tool to build democratic nations. Think of what is implied in the notion of forcing freedom.

If diplomacy is not always the answer, does that mean we should not try to negotiate? Of course not; diplomacy is a good thing. But we should understand that there will be some, who no matter how much we talk, will not be interested in anything other than achieving the fulfillment of their convictions by any means possible; and they will even use diplomacy as a tactic to catch the enemy off guard. The late, great Mennonite theologian, John Howard Yoder, distinguished his historic pacifism from liberal pacifism precisely in respect to differing views of human nature. Liberal pacifism is a tool for achieving peace believing that it can be realized through discussion, negotiation, and increased appreciation of human and societal differences. Historic pacifism, on the other hand, is not a tool, but a way of life for followers of Jesus who understand that they live in a world at war, and that there are those who, no matter how nicely and kindly they are treated, and no matter how much they are helped, will kill whether the enemy is armed or not.

None of this proposes any profound solution to the chaos that the United States finds itself in Iraq, except to say that we probably should not have invaded in the first place, but neither can we simply withdraw and leave the mess that we have made. If it was naive to think we could forcibly foster freedom in that society, it is just as naive to think that if we withdraw and negotiate, things will be OK.

Fortunately there are Democrats and Republicans on both sides who understand all of this, though they may disagree on what do to. We should listen to them instead of those on the right and on the left, who suffer from a naive view of humanity.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian