The Good and the Evil

(Violence is Not the Only Answer)
Michael T. McPhearson
Jan/Feb/Mar 2002

Horrors take place somewhere in the world everyday. America mourns an unspeakable horror. The day began with the promise of a beautiful and clear fall morning. The kind of day that reminds one of how joyful life can be. Tuesday felt like a special day. My boss and I were discussing business when another employee entered and asked, "Did you hear anything about a plane crashing into the World Trade Center Towers?" We both said no and partially dismissed it as a rumor or unfortunate freak accident that we would learn more about later. After a radio news report shocked us into the reality of the morning, we turned on a television. In a short time we learned more than we would have ever imagined possible.

Quickly the enormity of the terror strike became evident. I prayed that the death toll would be low, that maybe somehow most of the women, children and men would make it out. I still cannot believe so many have perished. I wish I could wake myself.

I immediately began to contemplate our response. What would we do and more importantly what would it accomplish? I did not doubt that we would take military action against someone; but against whom, and with how much force? I wondered if there was a way we could find a nonviolent solution. I quickly concluded then and continue to believe that there is not a rational response that does not include a measure of violence. I say this from practical, strategic and pragmatic views. Practical in that it would be political suicide for national politicians not to respond with cries of retribution. Most politicians believe they have little choice. Strategic in that those responsible for the attacks are playing for keeps and more attempts are sure to come. Bin Laden and others like him, will not stop until they get whatever it is that they want. I, as well as most Americans expect the government to protect us and one of the answers to providing protection is to capture or kill anyone who was involved in the September 11th attack or is planning a similar action. Pragmatic in that while I believe in nonviolent approaches to change, I also believe it is unrealistic to think that socioeconomic disputes will be resolved without the threat of and or use of some force. Social change is always accompanied by violence. Nonviolent movements succeeded because the ruling parties saw the alternative, violence, as a greater threat to the maintenance of at least a semblance of the status quo than to accept the demands of the reformers. In other words those in power believed that they could maintain some of their status, prestige, etc. through nonviolent means rather than trying to repress the change at hand and loose it all. Class barriers are never shattered nor wealth opportunities redistributed without violence playing a pivotal role. I do not say this to mean that such dynamics will always be the case nor am I attempting to lay a foundation to justify violence. I do say it to infer that we as humans to this point have not developed adequate social infrastructures nor remedies for meaningful nonviolent reform to take place.

Declaration of Human Rights United States Constitution Amnesty International USA Green Peace United Nations US Government

Jan / Feb / Mar 2002