Good Violence

This morning I awake the day after Patriot’s Day, a day again after a well publicized and gripping tragedy that has taken lives here on the American home front.  I hear, as always, the call of the oath I swore several years ago to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”  And I contemplate the statement of Senator Marco Rubio of Florida when he said on two talk news shows this past Sunday that America has a “violence problem”.  Like the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, CT, this bombing in Boston at the very end of the marathon route, brings to specific relief the question of how we treat and entreat ourselves, our neighbors, and the perfect stranger around us.

My initial reaction to Senator Rubio’s comments was less than favorable.  Whenever I hear those who rail against violence as an innate evil, something that in itself is wrong, I wince.  For anyone who has been on an airplane and encountered turbulence, or on a ship when it sails through a gale, or even simply rode out a hurricane or tornado, you know that nature is violent.  A significant part of the created universe is all about the clash of one body or one force opposing one another.  Any scientist or engineer of good repute will remind you of Newton’s law that states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  So, we have to reconcile that violence is an inevitable part of our lives; a part that we can’t and shouldn’t ignore or try to remove, but instead contend and wrestle with in an honest and open manner.

Then I thought more on Rubio’s comments that we have a “violence problem” here in our country.  From that thinking, I warmed to my long held thought that we do have a violence problem, but not the one that perhaps many want to think about.  The problem is that we lack, and continue to ignore or berate, models of and emphasis on what I call “Good Violence”.  To this end, reflecting on yesterday’s violent act, we have yet another example of the opposite of what I am getting at with this concept of good violence.

Much of this principle of “Good Violence” that I have somewhat cloudily constructed in my head, comes from my cultural and religious heritage and context.  Let me first begin with the fact that I am a global “westerner”.  This means I come out of the euro-centric notion of western civilization, beginning to some extent with the cultures of the ancient middle east, through the Greco-Roman incubator and foundation, through the medieval period, the enlightenment/Victorian/industrial revolution, to the modern era.  I mention this context, as I am greatly informed as a soldier and in things related to morals in regards to violence by such models as the Spartan martial code, the Greek citizen-soldier, the Roman centurion, the Code of Chivalry, and the notion of being a “Gentleman” in Victorian parlance.  Each of these speak to defense of the weak, the well-being of body, mind, and soul, the suffering of the strong for the goodness of all, the notion of valor being about daring to enter into a place of extreme potential harm as a means to create a better good, and so forth.  These pre-spoke and are spoken in the Law of Armed Conflict today.  Violence in these constructs, recognizes the existence of evil in the world, and seeks to counterbalance that force through an equal, opposite, and judicious force of goodness.  This goodness is not one that is pacifistic; it is one that is often violent in its own right.

This brings up the moral question that has pervaded regarding violence in any society, how can it be used for good when it is a primary weapon of those doing evil?  To this I return to my Lutheran, Christian roots.  One of my favorite treatises on this topic is “Whether Soldiers Too Can Be Saved” by Martin Luther.  This is superior reading on this topic, and stems from many of the cultural sources I have already mentioned as well as early Christian writers/philosophers such as Augustine of Hippo.  This is probably one of the best pieces to talk through “just war” philosophy and the moral construct for the use of force.  It delineates when and why force of arms should be employed and when it is abhorrent to do so.  It even goes so far as to speak to why pure pacifism can be a moral wrong when it results in the unjust suffering and oppression of innocents in the face of an objective evil.  Luther, as well as many other Christian and religious writers, is an advocate for “Good Violence” that results in the pacification of evil, the undoing of wrongs, and the relief of the weak/downtrodden/poor.  He doesn’t just say its “OK” to use force, he insists that it is a moral obligation to do so in several instances; stipulating in a strong sense, that passive inaction is wrong when we have the power to overwhelm and overcome the evil around us.  And much of this stems from the witness of Christ himself turning over tables in the temple, praising the faith of the centurion, and warning of the coming suffering that his followers were to endure for the good of those less fortunate.

Now, I do not believe that my western context is exclusive of general human witness.  The ancient and time honored code of Bushido, for instance, can lead one to identical conclusions.  Nor is this a simple Christian set of virtues, as numerous faiths (Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, etc.) share the values of using ones means to aid others and overcome the presence of evil amongst both believers and non-believers.  Lastly, nor can I believe that my innate masculine bias makes my view unique, as there are numerous examples of the employ of force by female legendary heroines and deities the world round.  And I believe there is a universal fiber that all humanity shares when it contemplates “Good Violence” in such things as the widespread value of the martial arts (typically of eastern forms, but others as well) and the popularity of theatrical performances and movies where the weak overcomes the strong, the oppressed over the oppressor.  It also is reflected in the natural world, our core instincts, as we seek to protect young, to defend our homestead, strike out when cornered.  At our best, we recognize that while force is never the preferred course, there are times that it is the right thing to employ violent action to produce the good and/or overcome the evil.  If nothing else, our experience in World War II should have been evidence enough that one has to fight for what is right in the face of dominating evil forces (and to this, Dietrich Bonheoffer's example is specifically compelling).

So this brings me back to yesterday, and the violence wrought then.  There was nothing noble or good in that violence.  It was cowardly, it was meant to attack the innocent, it was brutal without regard for minimizing harm.  To this point, so were the attacks at Sandy Hook, at Columbine, on September 11^th, at Oklahoma City, and on and on.  The news is replete daily of bad violence, the wanton use of force for purposes other than protecting, defending, and a higher good.  So again, in part, Marco Rubio is right, we have a violence problem.  The problem, isn’t the fact there is violence, it is that the violence is coarse, it is unwarranted, it is without regard for innocence or guilt, it is graphic, it is gratuitous, it is more often evil.

To me the prescription isn’t to merely do what we can to minimize these forms of violence through study, through passive means, but to also re-inculcate in our society the virtues of “good violence” for the right purposes.  We have quickly cast away from some of the historic constructs of the virtuous warrior I describe above for some good reasons: a) they were and often are overtly male, b) the historic record provides a smaller number of individuals than advertised that actually lived up to those principles, c) we have instantaneous knowledge and thoughts about events that doesn’t allow legend to form, d) our media has increasingly chosen to highlight the story of bad violence compared with the do-gooder because of the incentive structures they inherently live within, and e) we live in a very multi-cultural society that is increasingly linked with every other part of the globe so having an ethno-centric model (from whatever it comes from) is often distasteful and creates distance.  We simply cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater, however, in my belief.

What I am proposing is a new virtuous code of honor that promotes “good violence” and the person using that violence as a person to be followed.  We need leadership that doesn’t try to do the impossible (remove violence from our existence) but try to curb us to a higher calling, to rise above and thwart the evils around us; peaceably if we can, by force if we must.  We need to have stories and examples shown to us of the nobility of person overcoming the odds, fighting for virtue, discarding the bad.  Why shouldn’t we see the police officer taking out a mass murderer?  But at the same time seeing the family of the victims and the assailant healed in common purpose to prevent the causes for one to choose to kill other innocents.  Why can’t we see the soldier fighting her way in to rescue a woman in labor in Afghanistan who has been held captive by a local war lord?  But also at the same time see the brave Afghan sheik work night and day to bring education to his rural village for both his daughters and sons.  Why can’t we believe that if a nation is oppressed by a tyrant that we should take action to remove that leadership?  But at the same time we see the need to not just topple a corrupt government, but to lend the aid needed, when we take such action, to rebuild that society in the way that works for them and not us.  This modern day chivalric code isn’t about knights in shining armor, but it is about encouraging service, loyalty bound by virtue, bravery in the face of inestimable odds.  This is not being afraid to pick up the club, and do the violence to upend the wrong.  It is also not being afraid to pay the sacrificial effort to heal the wounds before and after.

To me, we do have a violence problem in America.  It is agreed that we have too much “bad violence”.  I am not calling for more violence, but what I am saying is for us to realize that there is a calling to use virtuous violence when it is applicable and accept its consequences.  I am one who thinks about this very problem every July 20^th, the anniversary of when I first sent a person home who was within my command.  Thankfully this soldier is still with us, and is doing well.  But as an officer I think on the orders that I give that put my soldiers in harm’s way; and the key question for me in this application of violence is, what is its goodness?  I am called to defend, and I will.  To that end, we all need to think on what and how we defend that is good; who is our neighbor, and how we deal with them and the world is critical.