By Akio Matsumura
In childhood we played the game Rock-Paper-Scissors. Rock wins over Scissors, Paper wins over Rock, and Scissors wins over Paper. There is no single absolute power among three partners. The outcome always depends on the opponent’s tactic.
This game also plays out in democratic governance. Government executives have power over their people because they execute the law. The legislative body has the power over the government executives because they produce the law and appropriate the budget. And people have power over the legislature because they elect them.
Now let’s put it an individual perspective, specifically my personal case.
One disadvantage I have is that I speak poor English, and zero Spanish, French, (or Chinese or Hindi, whose speakers total 37 percent of the world’s population). I do have the advantage, however, of meeting so many eminent people in the hundred countries I have visited. Not speaking all of these languages has come in handy: I have a keen eye for understanding intentions and unspoken expressions. It has helped me grasp the total picture rather than become weighed down on an analytical level. I read a situation as if it were poetry, not prose. However, when I debate the difficult issues with my country men in Japanese, each word, each paragraph and the precise meaning of expressions interrupt me from understanding the true intention of my opponents. I find myself missing the total picture of our debate. We must have both perspectives to balance our overall viewpoint; for without the trees, we wouldn’t have the woods! One view complements and balances the other.
I believe strongly in democracy. (Demos: People and Kratos: Power). Government derives its power from the people through laws that guarantee our freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. And democracy does not escape the rule of Rock-Paper-Scissors, thankfully, but the ties can become dangerously tenuous during an election year.
US politicians have their hands full dealing with the issues that will define November’s midterm elections. The two wars and the national debt occupy the majority of the political space. But rising unemployment, immigration, national energy policy, education policy, social security, health insurance, and state deficits continue to crowd the agenda. Each item hampers many lives and it’s difficult to give any one of them priority. However, we must distinguish between war and the others.
All social and economic issues are replaceable, renewable, and restored in the long run. But war takes a different toll. The loss of loved ones, the demoralized lives of young people, the respect of nations, and the destruction of national monuments that make up a shared history are not replaceable. These are immeasurable in an economic sense.
The US Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to declare War. Who, then, determins whether Congress allows our country to enter down such a path?
We do, of course, to some degree. Voters hold Congress accountable—but mostly for social and economic issues. The wars the US are fighting now hardly rile up the American people. Only about 1 percent of Americans are in the military—add families and friends and the number grows, but not yet to any election-swaying amount.
Here lies my great concern. People now are not holding Congress responsible for waging America’s wars. And without this check, politicians can say what they like—use strong rhetoric as they’d like, and mold opinion as they like—to get elected.
This strong rhetoric—let us call it the “vocabulary of fighting”—is more damaging than one might think, in the age of the 24 hour news cycle and instant media. Look at Terry Jones: Who would think that a tiny community pastor in Florida threatening to burn the Koran could generate such strong reactions from President Obama, Secretary Gates, and General Petraeus and fully attract the international media? For one event to spread so widely would have been impossible during a war in the 20th century.
Let’s think back to the game of Rock-Paper-Scissors. I am deeply puzzled trying to understand what would motivate America’s people to take back their check on Congress’ war powers. Some of my eminent friends have mentioned to me that a 5 percent War Tax might be a tool to force voters to consider war more cautiously. But where are the leaders to create such a tax?
Fighting words have caused the escalation of wars and unintended consequences throughout history. This time won’t be any different. And it is of course very difficult to later dam a worsening situation.
We should understand, at the very least, that the vocabulary of fighting in the 21st century is the most powerful weapon to provoke the opponents, and—on the other side of the coin—the vocabulary of perception building is the most powerful tool to achieve our positive goals. Otherwise, politicians talk only at the price of young soldiers.
As always, well thought out points, poignantly raised. The mid-term elections are to me about the people's ability to discern the politician subscribing to the school of "I will do anything to get elected" from the politician of "I will fight for [fill in the blank] because it is best for the country".
It is disturbing to see people simply wanting to oust the incumbent. In your perceptive comment about language (the pen is truly mightier than the sword and often more necessary to maintain perspective), you speak of provocation. It is fascinating how many voters will fall for the loudest voice, rather than the most convincing. The entertainment factor of debate has, in certain circles, trumped the necessecity to build a more convincing case for the debater's position.
If we, as a people, can convince the politicians, we not only care about their positions, but we can tell the difference between noise and quality, we can start to groom a generation of public servants who actually work for the people. Not just placate them, show them something to distract them, then do their own thing, but actually work for what is truly best for the majority of the populace. Or we can provide a knee jerk response from a disgruntled electorate which will provide new faces and old results.
Predictable problems occur when players of the game refuse to declare their rock or scissor or paper. In a constitutional sense it is dangerously irresponsible when a player takes a pass. A current example makes this case. Congress has the authority to declare war. However, for a number of reasons, formal declaration of war has become out of style, and the Executive has willingly filled that vacuum. We have not been at war in Afghanistan for ten years. It looks like war, bleeds and cost like war, but since it has not been declared a war by Congress, the nation is not charged and challenged to treat it for what is actually is. The continuing ten-year non-war is very favorable for the military-industrial-congressional complex, and perfect for sound bites in the coming congressional elections. “We have got to reduce government spending,” “The deficit dooms future generations.” How many sound bites do we hear about specifically ending the non-war in Afghanistan, and immediately passing a war tax so that everyone gets to play in the game? There is, after all, a direct correlation between the cost of the non-war and the increasing debt.
Points well-taken. I hope Andrew Bacevich's new book, "Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War," will gain a wide audience.
Akio, the best thing among your articles is that you squeeze positive aspects out of this world's affairs and businesses. who decides to set wars? it cannot be a common man (people) then why the common man only suffers and why is he granted with all the loss.The common man always suffers when he transfers his powers to the new role he adopts like politician, legislative or executive. your metaphoric idea rock, paper and scissors equalize the power of three but the common man needs to be wise enough to win the game for bringing peace onto our planet.
Akio,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I’d like to address the points in reverse order.
First, would a Tax on war help Congress think deeply about the ramifications?
My initial thought is no. Although it would help us validate what we already know; financially speaking, war is not affordable. The true wage of war is death and not even the thought of the ultimate consequence puts a stop to it. Naturally, it is offered that this is the case because people actually making the decision don’t have their own lives at stake. Easy for me to say, I’ve never served in the Executive Branch and have not put on the uniform.
As for the second item, who determines whether Congress allows our country to enter war?
I’m in agreement in that voters have the right of ensuring the system of checks and balances works. However, not everyone exercises it. Two thoughts come to mind:
1. Convenience: in today’s world of technology and real-time gratification, we no longer wait in line at the DMV, we can even have groceries delivered to us. But it takes 4-5 hours to actually perform the act of voting (if you don’t vote early). Some people would argue that a technology solution would make elections prone to tampering. Others would say the Florida re-count in 2000 was tampered with because of the lack of technology. We have credit scores, social security checks and balances, pay taxes, mortgages, bills, we even take college courses and go to work by telecommuting online; it's time for a technology offering. Make it conveniently available to the people. Further, use technology to report not just the votes for one candidate or another, but a % of people who turned out, by State, County, City and Neighborhood and how their decision to vote (or not) impacted the results. Perhaps we should consider a reward or penalty system. I’m not saying this is the solution, but if you don’t vote, how can one expect support from government in the way of unemployment subsidy or healthcare?
2. Trust worthy information: perhaps more of an impact on the vote than mere convenience, I suspect people don’t turn out because although it takes 4-5 hours to exercise the "inconvenient" right, it takes far more effort to figure out for whom one should vote. Because of this problem, people vote straight ticket, replace all incumbents or don’t believe their vote will be founded on truth, so they avoid it all together hoping others will pick up the slack. With all the rhetoric, ads (TV and print sent to homes), mediums for communication and articles spinning candidate’s positions in the direction correlated to how they’ve been compensated or “supported”, or worse yet badmouthing their opponent’s position, very few people know what sources to trust. The average American with a mortgage, often two jobs, kids, a car payment and medical bills has the perception they don’t have the ability to get to the polls much less weed through the fodder. Even if they actually take time, you’re right on in that it’s difficult to get a sense for whether what’s being communicated is actually how the candidate feels or where they actually stand on any particular issue.
If we aren’t willing to make voting a technology based system, at the very least, I’m thinking we should develop an “official” online location where candidates get to document their position on the “issues occupying political space” in their own words. Their words could correlate to video clips of the individual, while debates that are held with opponents are posted so voters get a sense for the non-spoken clues. It would be great to post a quantified / measurable review of how incumbents performed against the principles they communicated to get elected in the first place. That way, in a consolidated location, people can get a sense for candidates’ positions, draw confidence that their vote actually matters and take action.
Akio,
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I’d like to address the points in reverse order.
First, would a Tax on war help Congress think deeply about the ramifications?
My initial thought is no. Although it would help us validate what we already know; financially speaking, war is not affordable. The true wage of war is death and not even the thought of the ultimate consequence puts a stop to it. Naturally, it is offered that this is the case because people actually making the decision don’t have their own lives at stake. Easy for me to say, I’ve never served in the Executive Branch and have not put on the uniform.
As for the second item, who determines whether Congress allows our country to enter war?
I’m in agreement in that voters have the right of ensuring the system of checks and balances works. However, not everyone exercises it. Two thoughts come to mind:
1. Convenience: in today’s world of technology and real-time gratification, we no longer wait in line at the DMV, we can even have groceries delivered to us. But it takes 4-5 hours to actually perform the act of voting (if you don’t vote early). Some people would argue that a technology solution would make elections prone to tampering. Others would say the Florida re-count in 2000 was tampered with because of the lack of technology. We have credit scores, social security checks and balances, pay taxes, mortgages, bills, we even take college courses and go to work by telecommuting online; it's time for a technology offering. Make it conveniently available to the people. Further, use technology to report not just the votes for one candidate or another, but a % of people who turned out, by State, County, City and Neighborhood and how their decision to vote (or not) impacted the results. Perhaps we should consider a reward or penalty system. I’m not saying this is the solution, but if you don’t vote, how can one expect support from government in the way of unemployment subsidy or healthcare?
2. Trust worthy information: perhaps more of an impact on the vote than mere convenience, I suspect people don’t turn out because although it takes 4-5 hours to exercise the "inconvenient" right, it takes far more effort to figure out for whom one should vote. Because of this problem, people vote straight ticket, replace all incumbents or don’t believe their vote will be founded on truth, so they avoid it all together hoping others will pick up the slack. With all the rhetoric, ads (TV and print sent to homes), mediums for communication and articles spinning candidate’s positions in the direction correlated to how they’ve been compensated or “supported”, or worse yet badmouthing their opponent’s position, very few people know what sources to trust. The average American with a mortgage, often two jobs, kids, a car payment and medical bills has the perception they don’t have the ability to get to the polls much less weed through the fodder. Even if they actually take time, you’re right on in that it’s difficult to get a sense for whether what’s being communicated is actually how the candidate feels or where they actually stand on any particular issue.
If we aren’t willing to make voting a technology based system, at the very least, I’m thinking we should develop an “official” online location where candidates get to document their position on the “issues occupying political space” in their own words. Their words could correlate to video clips of the individual, while debates that are held with opponents are posted so voters get a sense for the non-spoken clues. It would be great to post a quantified / measurable review of how incumbents performed against the principles they communicated to get elected in the first place. That way people can get a sense for candidates’ positions, draw confidence that their vote actually matters and take action.