The President’s bluster about asserting the power of the United States over nations such as Canada, Cuba, Venezuela and Greenland is not only disturbing to the people of those countries, I also find it disturbing as well as embarrassing that the leader of our country chooses to expand and abuse his power. The order of the day appears to be that a powerful nation has the right to assert authority over weaker nations. Consider Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Israel’s war in Gaza against Hamas, China’s threat toward Taiwan, the United States action against Venezuela, as examples.
The concept of the rights of the powerful does not only play out among nations. It is becoming prevalent within nations as well. In America there is an increase in the use of fear, threats, and actions against citizens by Homeland Security, ICE, presidential executive orders, and financial pressure on universities and businesses to adhere to the will of the President. Sam Sifton of the New York Times writes that Stephen Miller, a top Trump policy adviser, expressed the idea, “We live … in the real world that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time.” Some would say, “the law of the jungle.”
However, as human beings in the modern world, we do not have to give obeisance to the law of the jungle. There are more possibilities than choosing to be puffed up with power and self-aggrandizement. The possibilities are legion: USAID, Doctors Without Borders, UNRWA, SNAP, disaster relief (local and international), Habitat for Humanity, Veterans for Peace, U.S. Institute of Peace, embassies, offers for asylum, International Cultural Youth Exchange, religious institution’s aid and assistance programs, sharing cultural music, “ICE out for Good” vigils, and so many more alternatives to the flaunting of military and economic power.
Ironically, those with superior military and financial power, could choose to use their influence to end a dependence upon the wages of war. The most powerful United States has the resources and freedom to reject war and facilitate peace.
Refusing to use their power for coercion could demonstrate honorable restraint, relieve others from the need to build up their own armies, could modify dependency upon superior/inferior relationships and encourage empathy, understanding, and cooperation. Also, ethics and morality could become a foundation for resolving differences.
However, power tends to corrupt. As much as I would like my country, with its extraordinary power, to cultivate humility in relationships with other countries, it seems very unlikely, without some incentive from citizens, that the U.S. will stop rattling its sword or that President Trump will refrain from bullying others to secure his personal preferences.
It is more likely that change will begin with the people giving incentives to the elected leaders in Congress and to the executive branch of government — incentives like that proverbial story of the woman who pounded on the door of her master’s house and would not go away until she could deliver her petition. Beating down barriers between the people and the powerful may be more effective than beating on a neighbor or a nation state. It could be replacing the law of the jungle with the law of the land of the free.
John Buttrick writes from his Vermont Folk Rocker in his Concord home, MindsCrossing. He can be reached at johndbuttrick@gmail.com.