Please Elect a Pacifist

Please Elect a Pacifist

Zack Boyden

We spend far too much time predicting the next war. The only difficulty is that we are about as good as predicting war as we are at predicting economic recessions. Given the nature of human behavior and the consequences of war it’s near impossible to tell when someone’s going to invoke military action against their sovereign state.

Hindsight is always 20/20, of course. Now the signs predicting the World Wars and the American Civil War seem so obvious that even an elementary school student could see them. Looking back, all military preparedness and action seems incredibly justified. 

In contrast, however, American society was fraught with nuclear panic in the ’50s and ’80s, and President Bush’s assertion of an “Axis of Evil” in 2002. In all three of these cases, there was no massive outbreak of war (other than Iraq, which I may remind you we initiated). 

Since the beginning of the twentieth century America has shifted from an isolationist state to the biggest actor on the world’s stage. We take a very active role in world politics and have a foot in almost every international conflict. We are now seen primarily as a military power–according to a 2014 Gallup poll, a large number of countries (including allies such as Germany and Australia) see the United States as the biggest threat to world peace.1

We need to face the music in terms of our foreign policy. Politicians may frame us as just “being safe” or “defending our allies,” but we are often the country to throw the first punch.

I will be the first to delcare it–if history is a reliable indicator, conflict is inevitable. As peace seeking as we may be, we will always be faced with the threat of war looming over our heads. It’s the reason why we have a defense force, and why military action is response to international conflict is nearly always placed on the table.

According to the American Interest, we are entering yet another period of war.2 Russia, China, and Iran are apparently gearing up to fight an international conflict invovling American and her enemies. It is argued that we should prepare for defense.

Coincidentally, we are approaching the end of the Obama Administration. Arguably it’s more important to the average citizen who becomes President in 2017 than what Obama does next. For the concerned voter out there, I plead with you: if you fear war, elect a pacifist.

It seems contradictory. Why would a voter pick someone who is hesitant to call for attack when enemies could be amassing at the gates? 

Let’s take a look back at two presidents, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They were both commander-in-chief for  World Wars, and they were avowed pacifists. Yet when it came time to act, they did and they engaged in war to help our allies.

Of course, that doesn’t make them pacifists in a pratical sense. But in theory, they both considered war to be the last resort. In both cases, arguably, the nation came stronger than it entered the conflict. This is because they made calculated choices about when to engage in a way that benefitted all that were involved, ourselves and our allies included.

Being pacifists, they were not ones to go and pick fights. They realized the moral quagmire involved in taking the first action in a military affair and they allowed themselves to react to upstarts and bullies.

For this reason, I want to suggest that whether you’re caucusing, voting in a primary, or casting your ballot for the elction, please elect a pacifist. I’m not endorsing any candidate–I have faith that the voter will be able to name a pacifist when they see one. If war is inevitable, history has shown that a pacifist will engage–but you can guarantee they will do so at the opportune moment.  

1 http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/

2 http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/12/predators-on-the-frontier/