Iran and Hillary

As the primaries approach and the endless campaign for the presidency heats up, we will be hearing a strange mixture of religious rhetoric and promises of violence. As a nation, we have apparently become more interested in having a president ready to “kick ass” than one with the vision and patience to work for peace.

The Democrats want the US to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but this is only a start. Is there even one of our church-going candidates who is ready to take the reduction of violence, both domestically and internationally, as a primary goal? For the moment the United States is the richest and militarily most powerful nation in the world, with the opportunity to work toward a non-violent Pax Americana. Yet decisions being made in Washington are steadily eroding both America’s moral influence and our actual capacity. We are becoming a weaker and less respected nation. Arguably, the Cold War was ended by Soviet over-spending on the military, partly in the effort to keep up with the US, and now the extra-budget funding of the war in Iraq is driving us deep into deficits and losing us friends on all sides.

Much of the saber rattling at present seems to involve Iran. The US and Iran should have made peace long since, ending sanctions and opening the doors to full international participation, for this is one of the ways in which a new regime learns civil behavior and responsible world citizenship. Iran has vast material resources and also, even after the departures of recent years, has the richest human resources of any Islamic nation, rooted in generations of increasing education and centuries of high civilization, art, and science. We should be trying to shape the international context in such a way that Iran contributes up to its capacity, eventually becoming an Islamic voice for peace. The American military is said to have turned to certain kinds of torture at Abu Ghraib because they read that Arab men are vulnerable to sexual dishonor. The reality is that honor is indeed a motivating force in Middle Eastern cultures — and therefore that to treat people with respect and courtesy is the best way to elicit honorable and generous behavior.

Oddly enough, Ahmadinejad and George W. Bush sometimes seem like mirror images, playing to the crowds by looking tough, relying on their religiously most conservative constituencies, and so provincial that the opinions of the rest of the world don’t matter. Instead of swaggering, we should be reminding ourselves and our Muslim neighbors that “Islam means peace,” but at the same time who will remind us to read the Sermon on the Mount from time to time and to pay more attention to the peacemakers and to the poor? Not, apparently, the religious right. Maybe the willingness not to swagger should be a political litmus test.

We are often told that voters want proof that a candidate has sufficient “balls” to fight. We do of course need someone in the White House who can make hard and courageous decisions — (even politically unpopular decisions!) — and we are proud to have spent blood and treasure in necessary combat, especially in World War II. We believe in the willingness to sacrifice for principle — but not, surely, for macho show.

If it is really true that the American people prefer pugnacious tough guy behavior to thoughtful reason, this is especially problematic for a female candidate. Hillary Clinton was probably right to hedge her willingness to meet with statesmen from countries with which we are in conflict in terms of thoughtful (and professional) preparation. She would have done better, however, had she emphasized drawing on the resources of scholarship to advise on policies, as John Kennedy did, as well as government experts and the State Department. She is certainly right to defend the integrity and morale of the services that are still needed for defense, but she is not right to join into the clamor of condemnation of Iran at this delicate moment, and it is unfortunate that she seems to feel she needs to. It seems especially important for the woman whom I would like to see as our first women president to resist the pressures of our national taste for looking tough.

If we want a candidate with courage, that courage must include the willingness not only to stand up for peace, not only to study peace, but also to teach it. We might learn something.