"Teach Peace" as a political slogan

I think I can see how conflict resolution is being politicized, and why it is raising the hackles of some on the political right. Those who opposed the war are now using "peacemaking" as shorthand for their moral superiority.

In his blog entry "Teach Your Children Well -- Teach Peace" Russell Shaw writes:

"Somewhere, maybe in your town, there was a house with an empty seat at the Thanksgiving dinner table... It's the house with several large American flags, "W" and Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers on the window of the SUV parked out front... This is a family who from their boy's early childhood, told him to stand up and fight. To not back down...
This is a family who taught their son that there is "right," and there is "wrong," and there is "good," and there is "evil," and shades of gray are for the weak-minded... This is a family that believed, and taught their son, not to question authority and to always follow orders..."

To distill the post, the son signs up for ROTC, goes to Iraq, and is killed. The denoument is thus:

"We must, instead, ask, what can this family teach us? There will be other wars. And other boys who want to play with guns, and who will have the urge to fight when they feel wrong. But in other houses, there are sons who will learn not to play with guns, who will learn to think rather than to react, who will be taught that sometimes the difference between good and evil is not as stark as a President or a preacher might say, or that their country is not always right. Sons (and daughters) in these houses will learn that turning the other cheek is not a sign of weakness, but of strength.

For it is in these houses that peace will be taught."

Now I'm the first to admit that I am sympathetic to the overall observation being made here. "Shades of gray are for the weak minded" is a pretty easy sentiment to oppose. But this is absolutely the wrong way to make this point.

To say "here is a family -- look at their values, they're all wrong" achieves nothing. It makes anyone who sympathizes with those values feel attacked, and it makes the other side -- the "peace" side, in the simple formula of this entry -- seem moralizing, patronizing, and simple minded. This false dichotomy takes us farther away from the understanding we need to establish.

There is truth and nobility in patriotism, to sacrifice, to being a soldier and fighting for one's country. This article washes right over that. There is phoniness in all the empty platitudes bandied about on the left regarding "peace" and "understanding" as well. No one has a monopoly on truth.

That's the irony of this post. In making his point, the author violates many of the core tenets of pratical peacemaking: don't demonize your opponents, don't create paper tigers so as to make your points look more reasonable, and don't engage in stereotypes.

I think Mr. Shaw learned his lesson pretty quickly. The comments on his post quickly took him to task. fISHON put it pretty plainly:
"What a load of self-righteous, sanctimonious s**t. Mr. Shaw, I can't speak for other moderate liberals, but you definitely embarrassed the hell out of me."

I think observerDAN got closest to my perspective in his comment:
"I agree with the comments about stereotyping. Certainly the "us" against "them" perspective is the largest impediment to peace anywhere. And as for the poster who noted that peace is not simply absence of conflict: I agree perfect peace, communication, understanding & diplomacy are the ultimate goals.

However, I would be deliriously happy if all the peoples of the world would simply make the decision to settle all conflicts nonviolently. Period. All the time.

We don't have to agree with each other. We don't have to respect each other's point of view. We can believe that the "other" is completely wrong. But we MUST agree to settle our differences without violence. Personally, professionally, diplomatically and even on Faux News. If we can just get the world to THAT point, I'll be thrilled."