There is more to the question about who drew the red line than
meets the eye. The news media seems to be obsessed with the idea that it somehow
is Obama’s red line. During the recent Senate hearing, Secretary of State Kerry
talked about “it” not being Obama’s red line but the red line “drawn by humanity”.
In the Swedish conference, President Obama himself made the statement that the world
can not be silent in the face of “barbarism”. The important thing about the use
of that expression is recognition of the need of the concept that there are
things that man does to man that are not acceptable.
The source of this imaginary red line over which many of us
feel we should not step clearly has a biological basis. It is a cultural
universal. I expect anthropologist could find it even in the most primitive cultures.
Where the “red line” is drawn may be vastly different but the idea is prevalent
that there are things one person should not do to another person. The line will
exist in every culture in multiple and complex ways including extensive
modification in relationship to gender. After we strip away all modifications,
the central theme is that “self-preservation” is our most treasured sense, which
seems to be an innate human emotion as deeply buried in our genome as fear,
hunger, or reproduction. The ultimate in “red lines” we should never step over is
that we should not take another persons life but we obviously do. To overcome
emotions violation of this premise makes we use reason. Unfortunately, in using
reason, people often tend to come to wrong conclusions especially in their
private lives. We must kill anyone who is trying to kill us and execute serial
killers to protect ourselves, fight religious wars, etc.
Reason was something not available to animals. The human brain
started to developed 2.5 million years ago and transitioned from pure animal or
bestial instincts through barbarianism on to what we are today; what we think
is a sophisticated human being.
In the transition period, it seems we developed senses or
emotion such as pride, shame, jealousy, and envy for example, to maintain our
deeply held sense of self-preservation. We refined our sense of “survival of
the fittest”, which included hierarchy dominance—“peck order”. It was no longer just good enough “to be” but
we had “to be top chicken”. Being the top chicken gave some of us pride while
being the bottom chicken gave others of us shame, and envy, which drove jealously
motivated, and sometimes outlandish, behavior. Obviously, not everyone can be
the leader; therefore, most of us accept our position as followers. Others are
never content to accept anything other than being in the top position—like the
movie title, Top Gun. This is where
Bashar al Assad finds himself; he will do anything it takes to remain there.
Inherent in hierarchy dominance is organization: politics. For
centuries, people have been organizing and reorganizing within the context of family,
tribes, states, and nations. In our nation, we have centered our organized on
political parties. As a person interested in evolutionary psychology, I see our
political parties as a reflection of three basic instincts: conservatism verses
liberalism with a small group of libertarians who somehow believe they are not
part of society. I identify conservatism with those who believe in bestial individualism
driven by selfishness, individual choice, while family and group dynamics drives
liberals. I use the term ‘selfishness’ for conservatives not in a pejorative sense but as a biological fact,
a necessary trait for bestial survival, which is the very heart of Darwinian natural
selection. In contrast, I use the term altruism for liberals or progressives,
who base their political life on consideration for other: helping those who cannot
help themselves. The result of altruism is the much disputed group selection in
contrast to individual selection; natural selections made that help the group at
the expense of the individual.
Bashar al Assad is the leader of a country torn by civil war.
If he loses the war, he looses his top spot in hierarchy dominance, which for
him would a devastatingly emotional event, which has caused him to resort to
faulty reason. To insure that his followers know he is committed to win, he
committed a crime for which he knew was over the “red line”: in addition to
using brutality, he committed a heinous crime against humanity; he gassed his
own people. If he loses the war, he will suffer the same fate as Saddam Hussein,
if not at the hands of his own people, then in the hands of the world
community. He has created a position in which he and his Shia Alawite minority
(13% of Syria population) must win—it is now a life or death struggle for not
only him but his followers as well. He used nerve gas in a district that “rebels”
controlled to clear it of women and children. He is now prepared to use heavy
military force against the remaining “rebels” in those districts. His behavior is precisely what authors Bueno
de Mesquita and Smith predicted in their book, The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good
Politics. (Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC called that book to my attention).
We are waiting to see how the Congress of the United States
will respond to our progressive President Obama’s wish to punish al Assad. Everyone
in the world will see what al Assad did as a crime against humanity; clearly,
he stepped over the red line. However, will the conservatives, the knuckle
dragging individualists in the United States Congress see his crimes as none of
our business? In contrast, will progressive see his crime as one more
instance where we as human beings can put our bestial barbarianism behind us by
punishing him so all the world can see that we as human beings do not accept
animal behavior?
Irrespective of what congress does, I think Stephen Pinker
was right when he documented that human violence is declining in his book, Better Nature of our Angels: Why Violence
has Declined. Nevertheless, there is one certain conclusion; Obama did not
draw the red line; humankind drew it along in the road of our transition from
barbarism to being human; thus, separating our bestial existence from what we
are today; the red line is an indelible mark of social progress.
URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated
No comments:
Post a Comment