Don’t Become a Monster in Order to Defeat a Monster

On July 21, 2005, shortly after the horrific terrorist bombings on the London transportation system that killed 52 people and injured over 700 more, the Irish band U2 played their song “Miss Sarajevo” at a show in Milan. U2’s frontman, Bono, himself no stranger to political violence having grown up amidst The Troubles, introduced the song with the words, “We’d like to dedicate this next song to those who lost their lives in London last week and who are maimed and injured today. And we would like to turn our song into a prayer. The prayer is that we don’t become a monster in order to defeat a monster. That’s our prayer tonight.” And it is mine today.

The world is filled with monsters. It has been since the dawn of time and will be until it all turns to dust again. Whether the monster is the palpable – terrorism, war, crime, or hate – or whether it is things more subtle – unfair trade, dangerous rhetoric, or erosion of liberties – how we respond matters. It matters a great deal.

Vladimir Putin is a monster and invading Ukraine was monstrous. But so too is placing the blame at the feet of Ukraine or making the leader of that country supplicate himself to your ego before you help. Equally monstrous against this backdrop is an American president having the temerity to diminish another independent nation by declaring it should become one of our states or the recklessness to utter expansionist ideas such as taking Greenland or the Panama Canal. Call them negotiating tactics if you will, but it only serves to diminish us and our moral high ground, equating us to the very real and monstrous expansionism of Putin. The idea of America is hundreds of years in the making, an idea stacked upon the shoulders of hundreds more years before that of philosophical thought. Our friendships have developed through world wars, shared mutual need, and shared enemies. Our image and our might are valuable, but both can crumble. Inconsistency, extreme self-interest, and worse yet, abuse of our might, are monstrous and they will deservedly ostracize us from the global community. NATO has invoked its Article 5 on collective defense only once, in our defense after the United States was attacked on 9/11. While it is fair to say other nations should pay more toward their and the common defense, this narrative that we are taken advantage of is as monstrous as it is childish.

Terrorism is also a monster. Every nation has the right, and every leader has the responsibility, to defend the homeland, particularly against the most heinous and barbarous of attacks on innocent civilians. That is understood. And there was no act of terrorism more heinous or more barbaric than the one Israel suffered in the October 7th attack. But at some point, self-defense can start to look an awful lot like vengeance. Cities in rubble, mass displacement, women and children killed, and starvation are also monsters. Talking about that, cautioning a friend against that, is not abandoning that friend nor is it antisemitism. And even if vengeance were the answer, you better get every single one of them. Because if you don’t, you have given to the monsters left standing all the material they require to recruit and create more monsters.

Porous borders, that allow criminals and drugs to pass through, are a monster. But labeling the majority who merely seek a better life as the most heinous sort of criminals is rhetoric that is as potentially dangerous as it is wrong. It’s wrong because it isn’t who we are. And it’s dangerous because we should not be surprised when in an environment of constant rhetoric about increased crime, we see the monster of an innocent person shot through a locked front door for approaching the wrong home or in an environment of constant demonization of all immigrants, we see the monster of a hotel filled with asylum seekers set ablaze.

Dangerous gang members and dangerous incitement are monsters. Someone in our country illegally or on an immigrant visa who is deemed to be a danger should be removed. That is common sense. But disappearing someone – especially one with established roots such as demonstrated employment or a family – is monstrous. There must be due process. One man in America should not get to decide these things unless that one man wears a black robe. And the reason one man representing the judicial branch, as opposed to the executive, should get to make decisions of such import is because his work is appealable to a group of three and their work is appealable to a group of nine. Officers wearing face coverings picking someone up off the street and moving her thousands of miles away from her family shouldn’t be how the land of the free conducts itself. And certainly, if we have made a mistake and removed someone who should not have been removed, bring him back now and stop pretending you can’t. As NPR’s Steven Inskeep put it: “If I understand this correctly, the US president has launched a trade war against the world, believes he can force the EU and China to meet his terms, is determined to annex Canada and Greenland, but is powerless before the sovereign might of El Salvador. Is that it?” Sacrificing an individual at the altar of ones political agenda is monstrous. And lastly, if all someone on an immigrant visa has done is to exercise the right of free speech or peaceful assembly, I would ask what are we so afraid of? Cannot America survive the voicing of contrary opinions? Even if you think an individual US visa holder isn’t deserving of due process or equal protection under the law, isn’t someone who is a spouse or parent of an American citizen so deserving? I don’t know if these people in the news these last few weeks are worthy of my defense or if they are people who should legitimately be removed. But how a free nation, how a good people, does it, matters.

Reuters recently conducted a poll on deportation. A full 82% of all surveyed said that “The president should obey federal court rulings even if he disagrees with them.”  Yet when asked if “Trump should keep deporting people despite a court order to stop,” 40% of those same adults said he should. How is it possible that we have become a country where 76% of Republicans say yes and 92% of Democrats say no to such a basic Constitutional question? How have we become a nation incapable of putting on the blindfold of justice and constitutionality to answer that question in a manner that ignores the party affiliation of the current administration? Here’s your litmus test. If you would give a different answer if the president were of another party, your answer is wrong. And that is why following the Constitution is the only answer. We are in weird times where people change their minds not for firmly held beliefs but because someone told them to or because of a knee jerk reaction; when did we become the nation where Democrats now call for boycotting an electric vehicle manufacturer and Republican senators and a Republican president, the supposed defenders of the combustion engine, do free commercials for EVs?

There is no doubt that America’s universities are liberal bastions and some have endowments so large that nation states are envious. But university is where young people should find their voices. They are going to say and write things, or protest for or against things, that their older selves may find naïve or just plain wrong. Good. A university is the safe place to err in thought and search for your voice. A government that seeks to control its universities, and through that action the thoughts of its citizens, toying with the purse strings of grants and contracts that provide a society things such as medical research that saves lives, is a government that has both overreached and punched down. When did we forget that free markets fix problems better than government; a university that has gone too far in one ideological direction or not kept its campuses sufficiently safe will see enrollment drop. Let that fix them. But let our university students also remember that free speech works both ways; they should remember that when from time to time a speaker they may disagree with is invited to speak.

There are bad-actor nations and overzealous-regulatory nations that have gone too far, causing unfair trade issues for our companies and industries. There are ways to handle those things. But tariffs are monstrous. They are a regressive tax on those that can least afford it. They create an environment that stifles competition and kills innovation. They pick winners and losers among products, companies, and countries. They vest too much power into the hands of those that can grant exemptions. They are a bazooka when the tool required is a fly swatter. President Trump’s press secretary said recently, “At the direction of the President, these companies are hustling to onshore their manufacturing.” At the direction of whom? So much for free markets.

Elections should be fair and only those so eligible to vote should be allowed to vote. And there are proper steps we can take. Voter ID, so long as we insure no one is disenfranchised because of affordability of the requisite ID, is appropriate. Having to request an absentee ballot to receive one, meeting the appropriate deadlines, and proper attestations are appropriate. States following their own requirements and showing restraint on making changes after a contest has begun is appropriate. But self-serving rhetoric, particularly oft-repeated rhetoric that one knows is false or exaggerated is a monstrous act that for personal gain needlessly erodes credibility in an institution that is materially credible. And gerrymandering to maximize your party’s districts or minimize the other’s is a monster, a monster that not only robs voters of their voice but also robs our country of moderate politicians who would represent an entire district instead of a singular party.

Government waste is a monster, robbing its citizens of hard-earned tax dollars or the legitimate services they would otherwise receive absent the waste. But sudden firings and locking people out of offices – people who in this decade just half completed have already endured years of pandemic and the economic hardship of excessive inflation – is monstrous. Eliminating programs mid-spend, particularly those that benefit the sick, the poor, and the marginalized, is monstrous. Scaring those who are already scared is, in and of itself, a monster. Having unvetted non-government actors who lack proper security clearances mining our citizenry’s data is monstrous and irresponsible.

Monstrous is the Executive having an axe to grind and siccing his team of sycophants on finding any means to harm the target of his vexation, no matter how archaic the rule or strained the interpretation. Monstrous is starting every policy change by declaring a national emergency so that he can rob the power to control. Monstrous is using power simply because he has it to use. The opposite of that is having the integrity to follow the Constitution for the guardrails it provides, the morality to take care of the least among us regardless of its impact on our wallets, and the sensibility to know that party affiliation should be the least important consideration when evaluating any important issue of our day.

My favorite screenwriter is Aaron Sorkin. In his movie The American President, his fictional president, Andrew Shepherd, says the following.

America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the "land of the free."

We need leaders like this in real life, who will solve our problems and address our challenges without forgetting who we are. But when our leaders do forget who we are, it is we the people that must remind them. And if our Representatives and Senators are more loyal to one man than to “we the people” or our Constitution, then they should be shown the door.