THE VOICE FOR LOVE

THE VOICE  OF FEAR

Positive Public Policy

Grounded in knowing that, when surface appearances are removed, public policy has as its base one of two sources: love or fear. Positive public policy is measured by one standard of morality—do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and other similar spiritual teachings. It does not justify a lesser moral standard based on the immorality reflected in the acts of others.

Positive public policy is a win/win model. In conflicts, resolution is reached through reasonable compromise that weighs each compelling interest against other important considerations. The wisdom gained through the experience of others, even one's so-called enemies, is valued. Such inclusiveness supports unity, embraces transparency, and is marked by generosity—giving more than it takes, knowing that giving and receiving balance out.

Positive public policy is forgiving—the past is laid aside in the interest of the present and future. It is nonviolent, seeking unity through the reconciliation, restoration, and preservation of community. It is holonomous (in accord with the law of wholeness), harmonious, and powerful.

Fear-based public policy

A win/lose model, marked by dual morality—the belief that there can be two standards of morality operating at the same time, one applied to myself and one applied to the other, e.g., the admonition, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."  In this belief, my violence is deemed moral, yours is not. I respond with the attitude that I am not even responsible for my violence—you made me do it. Physical might and emotional manipulation are used to impose control.

Fear-based public policy reflects a belief in scarcity. It is often greedy, taking more than it gives, ignoring the destructive fallout it causes to satisfy immediate needs. It is secretive and suspicious. Rhetoric is used to obscure means and confuse results.

Violence and attack are often tools of first resort, setting off cycles of attack and counterattack. Opponents are labeled "evil," deserving to be attacked. Such policy supports compromises only when it is expedient. It promotes disharmony, imbalance, and disunity. It is costly and destructive, wasteful of resources. It is fragmented, and doomed to fail.

Example I

   The Marshall Plan for Europe and US restoration aid to Japan at end of WW II. The US extended aid to friend and foe alike. (Germany and Japan, the former enemies, were included in the aid programs.) Grounded in forgiveness, it sought to heal all of the war-torn nations. Created strong allies and an enduring era of peace with Germany and Japan and much of the world.

The European Community that formed after WWII and included former foes, now the European Union, is another example.

Example I

   The Treaty of Versailles at the end of WW I imposed reparations on Germany to force it to pay for war damage, although it had adopted democracy after the war. It forbade Germany from having a military and paved the way for later French occupation of a portion of its land. Grounded in vengeance and retribution.

Seeking revenge further weakened Germany, demeaned the Germans, and set the stage for WW II. It helped justify Hitler's call for revenge and conquest.

Example II

After the start of the war in Iraq, public opinion towards the US plunged to historic lows in many Arab countries, including Pakistan, a country critical to our struggle against terrorism. Following the devastating October 8, 2005, earthquake, US soldiers set up MASH hospitals and offered medical care to everyone who came. They helped Pakistanis in remote villages get to areas where they found assistance.

This was unconditional US foreign aid. The result was a sudden and unexpected positive upsurge in the way Pakistanis viewed the US, a change that had been expected to take years to achieve. It is an example of how successful public policy can be when based on the principle, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The principle enhances safety, security, peace.

Example II

In mid-January, 2006, unmanned CIA drones dropped bombs on three homes in a Pakistani village, missing the targeted person, but killing 18 other people, including women and children. The goodwill gained from the unconditional aid that was given to victims of the Oct. 8, 2005, earthquake was immediately replaced by angry crowds demonstrating against the US in a number of Pakistani cities. In addition, the CIA's acts dealt a serious blow to our ally, President Musharif. 

The incident is an example of how unsuccessful public policy can be when based on vengeance. When you attack another, you attack yourself. (The CIA calls this "blowback.") Attack undermines safety, security, peace, for what I give returns to me in some form.