Democrats Are Not Pacifists
War may be the answer to a very specific question, but what about the other implication in The Objective Historian's comment?
The fundamental disconnect with reality that so many Regressive-Democrats have is the concept that "war is not the answer." In fact, that is sometimes true; but in the vast majority of cases, it is the answer. E.g., why do you, as an American have freedom of speech? War. Why do we have elections to determine those in authority? War. Etc. Pacifism is ridiculous on its face as are inanities like an eye for an eye makes both sides blind. No, at some point one side surrenders qua surrenders and a resolution exists just as by any other means of diplomacy.
Pacifism is the belief that violence should never be used to resolve disputes. It is a doctrine that says conflicting parties ought to expend every effort to avoid physical fighting. It holds out the hope that every disagreement has a peaceful resolution and every participant is capable of and willing to compromise. A pacifist who seriously adheres to the absolute version of the creed will neither physically fight with anyone nor condone others who do.
So, are Democrats pacifists? Is there something fundamental in Democratic ideology that endorses pacifism?
I think it is reasonable to assume there are pacifists who politically reside near the Democratic Party. I think it is reasonable to assume there are actual pacifists working within the organization attempting to make its outlook, policies, and candidates more pacifist. It is also, I think, reasonable to say Democrats proclaim an overall preference for the peaceful resolution of conflicts. However, it is in this third generalization that the justification for this post's title arises.
Democrats, like just about every other political party, seek to use government power to solve problems. They propose taxes to redistribute wealth from those who don't need it as much to those who do. They want regulatory agencies to restrain how companies do business. They think it is perfectly acceptable for the state to govern and shape the local, regional, and national economies towards a particular direction; price stability, low interest rates, unobtrusive inflation, full employment, and so on. Most have no objection in principle to government defining the limits of acceptable speech. Most have no objection in principle to universal health care coverage.
In this, Democrats are really no different from Republicans. They both seek to use the state to tackle social and economic problems. A plane of even greater agreement, one which they rarely hesitate to join together on, is in the realm of order and peace. Both parties heartily endorse using the state to protect us and our property from murders and thieves. Neither have any serious principled objection to the current triad of government lawmakers, government law enforcement, and government courts of adjudication.
This is why no Democrat could ever truly be a pacifist. To endorse all those positions is to endorse the direct use of violence or the threat of direct violence against those who won't obey the state's commands. The procedure in America is roughly as follows:
- If the objector isn't arrested outright on the spot, the state sends warnings of its intention to levy fines and/or arrest the objector if compliance isn't met.
- These warnings continue and escalate if the objector continues to resist.
- In some cases, a warrant is issued and law enforcement is allowed to arrest the objector when they come into contact.
- Eventually, law enforcement begins hunting for the objector.
- At some point, private property such as bank accounts and homes are seized.
- Public denunciations, if not already communicated, are made.
Even if the objector is in fact a criminal and has committed a genuine crime, the above process of law enforcement not only acts as violence against the criminal, but also against entirely innocent third parties: the distributed network of individuals who've been taxed to supply the state the resources to provide the law enforcement service as well as those people who would have otherwise gone into business as private law enforcement but would not due to both the state's licensing process and general prohibition against competition in the realm of securing peace and justice.
An honest pacifist who takes nonviolence seriously and steps back to fairly appraise the above system couldn't endorse it. He or she may think crime should be opposed in a variety of nonviolent ways, but such a person couldn't support a state system to do it because the state must engage in violence in order to stay in power and enforce its laws. There may be laws on the books right now that technically don't call for police violence, things like simple executive proclamations and congressional resolutions. Even those legal documents, however, could not have been made without the existing tax structure to pay for the land, offices, supplies, and labor that went into their creation.
This is, to be clear, not normally the focus of those who call Democrats pacifists. The more common complaint is a pacifistic foreign policy where the United States only engages in warfare when the threat of war is imminent or has been fulfilled. Obviously, a government that responds to violence with violence stands in contradiction to pacifism's doctrine of negotiation, endurance, surrender, or retreat. I doubt very much that any Democratic government elected in America would take such a foreign policy stance given the need to win votes from so many people who have a weaker threshold for justifying war.
But even considering that, the same underlying violence that keeps the police, courts, and legislature going is the same underlying violence that pays for the people, services, and physical resources that would write and discuss the hypothetical pacifist policy of negotiate, endure, surrender, and retreat. Who would pay for the army of diplomats these alleged Democrats would need to deploy? How would these foreign service officers, consular officials, and ambassadors get from place to place or communicate among thousands of contacts? Who would pay for the buildings, office supplies, and assistants these people would need to occupy to get their work done?
I'll tell you: millions of individual wage-earners who would have held on to 10-35% of their rightful wealth if it were not for the IRS's threats to harass (send warnings, "audit"), fine, and arrest you...threats that are not empty, despite the general incompetence of state organs. These folks are presented with a choice: either follow our orders or face escalating state violence up to and including your death at the hands of a law enforcement officer if you resist enough.
How could a conscientious pacifist accept that system, so permeated with credible threats of violence and its widespread usage?
No, Democrats are not pacifists. Republicans are not pacifists. This is because statists are not pacifists.