The radio program was NPR’s “On the Media,” and this particular show was an investigation of whether NPR itself has a liberal bias.  During an interview with Tom Rosenstiel, founder and director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism at the Pew Research Center, Rosenstiel commented that bias can be unconscious.  He gave the example of the Philadelphia Inquirer being attacked as biased by both pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli members of the community.  They had a study done by LSU to determine whether there was evidence of bias, and the finding was that they did have a bias:  a pro-peace bias.  What this meant was that they favored whichever side was favoring a cease-fire at any given moment.

Rosenstiel discussed this example further:  ”The problem with that is that the people who are advocating violence at any given moment are doing so for a reason. They’re not crazy, necessarily.  They might be wrong or they might be right.”  He went on to explain that violence is a tactic, and if you just focus on violence itself being wrong, “you want to freeze the situation in a moment of balance that is disadvantageous to whoever is advocating the violence.”  He added that advocating peace may seem benign and unbiased, but in fact there is a kind of bias that enters in, even though it shifts between favoring one side some of the time, and the other side other times.

I found this very interesting, and here are some of my thoughts in response:

1. This helps explain why peacemakers are often regarded with suspicion or even outright disliked by both sides in a conflict!
2. I do not doubt that many peacemakers engage in this kind of “shifting bias,” that favors whoever is less violent in any given moment.
3. But, this is not really how “peace” should be understood!  Those who are simply demonizing whoever engages in violence are not so much pro-peace as anti-violence.  This suggests that “pro-peace” means something more than just being against violence.

In my view, being pro-peace really should be a neutral, unbiased stance:  the quest for a true and lasting peace is a quest to address the needs of both/all sides in a conflict.  Cease-fires alone are not enough if one side still feels disadvantaged.  Just as violence is a tactic, so too are cease-fires and other methods of nonviolent action.  Both violent and nonviolent tactics need to be distinguished from the final goal, which is the kind of stable and lasting peace that comes about when a truly just solution is found: a solution that adequately addresses the needs of everyone.

On this Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, after listening again to some of MLK’s speeches, I am struck by how often he talked about freedom.  And I cannot help but notice the contradiction of how the U.S. keeps going to war to “protect and defend our freedom,” and yet simultaneously curtails those freedoms in the name of security.  The latter is “justified” by claiming that we cannot have both freedom and security.

It seems to me that we can have both freedom and security, but we need something else as well for both of these to be possible at the same time:  we need true justice.

In a truly just world, people have the freedoms they need to live a meaningful and fulfilling life.  And a truly just world also ensures the most effective security:  the security that comes by virtue of everyone having the freedoms they need to live a meaningful and fulfilling life.  If you think about what threatens security, it is unhappy, struggling, desperate people.  In a truly just world, there are effective ways that unhappy people can get the help they need, and so desperation does not rise to the level that threatens security.  This is why freedom and security are both not only possible in truly just world, but are necessary consequences of justice.  We see that the shared root that brings them together is the very concept of justice itself.

Of course, working for true justice is hard, and may require those who are privileged to have to give up some of their privilege (which they tend to not want to do:  see my previous post).  It is much easier for those in power to use that power to claim that we cannot have both freedom and security.  Those in power can play on people’s fears, and use that fear then as an excuse to curtail the people’s freedom.  Conveniently enough, this strategy also has the side-effect of weakening the people, and strengthening the power of those in power.

Therefore, both by questioning the motives of those who make that claim, and by critically reflecting on the deeper meanings of the concepts of freedom, security, and justice, we find that the claim that we cannot have both freedom and security is very likely not true at all.  We can have both freedom and security if we create a truly just society.

Now that I’ve gotten over my own surprise about this (after several years of consistent results), I find myself asking new questions.  Why do people think it will be hard?  Or, maybe more interestingly, why are we taught to believe that it is impossible — why are we discouraged from even trying?  And, finally, if our struggles and conflicts are not grounded in disagreement over what true justice is, what are they all about, then?

I am coming to think that the answer to all of these questions is the same:  those who find themselves on the advantageous side of injustice tend to be highly reluctant to give up their privilege; plus, the privilege that they have gives them the power not to have to give it up very easily.  But because no one wants to believe that their privilege is supported by injustice, it is strongly tempting to deny that they really know what justice is and it is furthermore strongly tempting to discourage everyone else from clarifying its definition.

The real issue, then, is not that we don’t know what justice is.  The real issue is that those who benefit from injustice often become ambivalent about seeking true justice because of the advantages they will lose.

But, there is still hope.  Sometimes people who benefit from injustice are willing to use their advantages to try to bring about the restoration of true justice, even realizing that, if they succeed, their privileges and advantages will be lost.

Why are there such people?  What can bring people to a willingness to give up privilege and advantage?  It is usually two realizations.  The first is that they come to realize that they are not happy with privileges that come at the expense of the suffering of others.  And the second is that they realize that happiness can be found in a simpler and humbler life, because making the best of a humble life demands that you clarify what’s really important to you.  Once you strip away the excess and focus your life on what really matters, you feel a sense of unencumbered freedom that brings a clearer, steadier joy than the thrills and drama of an extravagant life.

A more complete list can be found on the Albert Einstein Institution web page, (scroll down to find them), and so I’ll probably stop posting links here.

Thanks so much to all who have been pointing these out to me and sending me links and newspaper articles!

He has now been in the news a lot.  Here are three recent articles:

From Scientific American:  “Egypt’s revolution vindicates Gene Sharp’s theory of nonviolent activism,” by John Horgan, Feb 11, 2011.

From New York Times:  “A Tunisian-Egyptian Link That Shook Arab History,” by David D. Kirkpatrick and David E. Sanger, February 13, 2011.

Also from New York Times:  “Shy U.S. Intellectual Created Playbook Used in a Revolution,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, February 16, 2011.

“The problem is that war makes lots of money, but peace does not.”

Come to think, it must be very profitable to get economically involved in war.  You have big customers: governments.  You make things that get destroyed, so you have to keep making — and selling — them.

In mediation training, we were taught to assist others in resolving their conflicts by identifying the needs on both sides.  When a person expresses a need for “money,” we are taught to seek more information by remembering that money is not a need but a strategy. We are taught to respond to the person by asking:  “If you had money, what needs would be satisified?”

And so it strikes me that those who profit financially from war have seriously confused means and ends.  They set money itself as a goal, when really it is a strategy; and they allow destruction, violence, and killing be the means to fulfill that goal, when in fact the alleviation of destruction and human suffering ought itself to be the goal.  Thus, they allow the violation of what should be our collective goal become the means to an end that is not itself really a goal at all!  It may imply further goals, but those goals remain unspecified.  We allow those goals to remain personal and private, selfish and invisible.

How is it that we tolerate this?  How is it that we let society evolve to the point where most people do not even perceive how problematic this is?

We have let economics replace morality.  We do not question people’s striving to make as much money as they want, and we don’t at all hold them accountable for what they do with their money.

And so if some people destroy the goals of others (or even their lives, as in war) in their efforts to make lots of money, we don’t hold them morally accountable for this, and we never even think to ask, “even if the ends justify the means, then were your ends noble enough?” because we think making money is always a noble enough goal in itself.  But is it?  If mediators are right, it is not even a goal.

But we as a society have been fooled into accepting it as a goal, and an inherently noble one.  So we don’t ask the additional questions that the mediator is trained to ask:  “what do you need that money for?”  Nor do we ask the additional “impolite” question that mediators, in their non-judgmental mode, never ask:  “Is what you are spending that money for worth the real cost?”