The Golden Rule Isolates and Fails

© by Gary Wood
November 28, 2007

Ask anyone what the ‘Golden Rule’ is and you will hear many a similar answer. Very simply stated it is treating others the way you would like others to treat you. Often referred to as the ethic of reciprocity it is taught, in one form or another, by many different faiths and ideologies. Although some members of the Christian faith believe it was first introduced in the times of Jesus the ethic actually existed long before yet was embraced within the teachings as it has been embraced by so very many.

Study the teachings for Buddhism and one hears expressions like, “Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.” The Baha’i Faith has expressions such as, "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." Throughout the Old and New Testament there are sentiments similar to, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In the Analects Confucius taught, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Islamic teachings are filled with the idea as evidenced in, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Turning to Jainism teachings we again find the golden rule concept in reading, “Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.” The underlying principle of Jewish law can be found in the teaching, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

With so many claiming the golden rule is truly a sound way to treat others and is a good way to be treated why does it isolate and fail? In the Republican debates most of the candidates support a form of the preemptive interventionist policy currently embraced by the Bush Administration and used by many administrations in the past. In the debate last night Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) defended the current policy and claimed the policy supported by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the type of policy that “We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.” Paul’s policy is one of non-intervention as embraced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. According to Paul he is not an isolationist, “I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.” In other words, do unto others as we would have others do unto us or the Golden Rule.

I’ve heard this type of interaction throughout the campaign this year as the Iraq war is one of the key issues being hotly contested. Most candidates in both parties want to continue some level of presence in Iraq. I hear commentators and political leaders across the country discuss the need to win, secure, and maintain a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Many also make the comment (as they do on many topics), “...except Paul.” If you were to review a transcript from last night’s post-debate coverage on CNN you would have heard those two words more than a dozen times.

Yet, everything I study and read about the idea of non-intervention as a primary foreign policy to follow indicates it is foundational and consistently inline with the teachings of the ethic of reciprocity. Within foreign affairs how we treat countries is indicative to how we want to be treated, isn’t it? Using a policy of preemptive intervention sends the clear message we, the government and citizens of the United States, treat other nations this way and therefore it is fair for other nations to treat us this way. According to McCain we create Hitler type leaders if we use non-intervention instead. If the policy is to trade, talk, and travel to each other’s country while respecting the sovereignty and right to defend one’s own borders McCain and others say it isolates the U.S. and it fails. A foreign policy based on the teachings of the Golden Rule, that is, to treat others as we would have them treat us is wrong according to most of the candidates who want to take over as POTUS.

If the Golden Rule isolates and fails between countries it also is a failed philosophy among individuals. It cannot be an ethic of reciprocity on the one level and not on the other. The Golden Rule must either be rewritten or it must be retired as a failed teaching among most philosophies and theologies if we are to accept a preemptive intervention policy. Perhaps the other interpretation of the Golden Rule is more accurate among the current political leaders in the United States. You know the other Golden Rule, “He who has the gold rules.”

SSDD: Same Stink, Different Day

©by Gary Wood

November 28, 2007

As a young airman, in 1970s Grand Forks, I first heard the reply SSDD. It was a very common response when asking someone how they were doing. Some of you reading this are saying the second ‘S’ does not stand for ‘stink’ yet you can appreciate what substance caused the stink so for this article that is what I’ll use, staying politically correct and away from the word filter police. I was watching more of the news regarding the campaign going on for the POTUS and it sure reminded me of SSDD.

The first Presidential campaign I actively worked on was in 1972. It was a different campaign from today simply due to the fact a sitting President was running for reelection. Looking at modern history there is one way SSDD would not apply. The last time there was no sitting President or Vice President running was 1952. Eisenhower won on a campaign promise to personally end the Korean War while maintaining a strong defense against Communism abroad and sound, honest fiscal policies at home. Aside from the 1952 campaign each of the subsequent races for the White House have had someone running that currently held one of the two highest elected offices. Strangely, the media’s leading candidate for the Democratic nomination does have the full support and backing of a former President, Bill Clinton.

One thing that smacks of SSDD is the idea of a Clinton in the White House. Hillary Clinton, if elected, will join a 28 year tradition of having either a member of the Bush or Clinton family serving as either the President or Vice President. Some speculate after eight years of a Hillary White House perhaps another Bush will get elected and after yet another eight years of another Bush it will be time for Chelsea Clinton to take up residency for her eight years. If this gives you a reason to smile you see the humor in the scenario, if you awake in the middle of the night in a cold sweat you see the disaster in this scenario.

Listening to the debates and stump speeches of the candidates truly does embrace the pure essence of SSDD. The same stink being spewed in today’s campaign promises is similar in aromatic displeasure of campaign promises made in a different day, even a different decade. Remember the promise made in 1988 by George the First, something about “Read my lips...” and then came the taxes and then came Clinton in 1992. Go back a bit further and listen in as Richard Nixon promises to restore law and order while defeating Hubert Humphrey. Have you heard any candidate promise the same type of sentiment today? Here’s a hint, listen closely to Rudy Giuliani!

It was not long ago, especially if you are my age or older, we had a former governor from a small state talk about the advantages of electing a Washington D.C. outsider over corrupt politics within the beltway. Jimmy Carter beat Ford in 1976; Ronald Reagan returned the favor by championing outsider sentiment once again while defeating Carter in 1980. Have you heard anyone picking up the cry of being from outside the beltway this year? There are many, even a couple of small state governors, Richardson and Huckabee. SSDD.

Some will remember a time when religion finally took a back seat to policy discussions, when Kennedy became the first Roman Catholic to win in what was the narrowest popular vote ever. Today there is another trying to be the first to win the Presidency while being a member of a less than popular religion and opponents use the issue to cloud policy discussions. Will the Mormon question be silenced by actual policy? Perhaps not if the policy is not delivered as dynamically as Kennedy was able to deliver it and when one listens to the campaign promises of Mitt Romney one can easily sense SSDD.

If we listen closely we can hear much discussion from many candidates in favor of programs and policies which will create bigger government and higher taxes. This was not very popular throughout recent elections. The SSDD does not seem to be garnering the wrath it has in the past. Perhaps too many have promised, while on the campaign trail, the idea of smaller Federal government and lower taxes while citizens see the size and cost of their Federal government ever-expanding even after voting for the smaller promise.

Those candidates blatantly trumpeting promises that knowingly will enlarge both the size and cost of government seem to be even more popular than those who are not. Are we now so accustomed to the stink it actually smells funny without it? Simply look at the popular polls to find the big government candidates who are either leading or near the lead. There’s Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain to name a few. As a matter of reflection note the names of candidates proposing smaller government and lower taxes...go ahead...look hard. There’s Paul and, well maybe Huckabee, oh, Hunter and Tancredo...what about Kucinich? Oh, nope, he wants the new Dept. of Peace and more.

Change, there is one SSDD that is everywhere in every election. How many state they represent true change? Perhaps the focus is on small variations rather than truly making things different and we misunderstand their meaning. Change is an extremely ambiguous concept but in the two-party political arena have we seen any major differences over the years or is it all becoming the same stink, different day?

The Party's Over

There should be no more party affiliation, the Democrat and Republican Party control must end!

read more | digg story

Our Empire Implodes Our Nation

There is little doubt as we move forward it is our desire to influence the world that directly weakens us as a nation. We become weaker as we desire to militarily strengthen the world's views.

read more | digg story