Big or small, war creates ripple effects throughout society. One of those ripple effects being the Progressive Era, which emerged due to WW1. Anti-war voices who did not want America to get involved were persecuted and thrown in jail for voicing their opinion. In 1917 the US entered the war, and searching for a way to prevent undermining the war effort, the Espionage Act was enforced. The Espionage Act applied mostly to government employees and threw people in jail for things that they said or wrote. Fast forward a year, and the Sedition Act was created in an attempt to silence anti-war voices. It made it a crime to criticize the government, meanwhile our civic duty is to do so. Without questioning the government, there is no intent to serve the people. Without question, there is no change. The government serves the people in fear of their non-acceptance. Although they try to make it seem otherwise, the power rests in the hands of the people.
The government’s attempt to silence voices that go against them is not a foreign concept. Although we have grown as a nation in many aspects, old habits are hard to break. It is inevitable that people of authority will use their power to ensure that what they say goes. So why do we have to seek out obscure websites in order to hear strong anti-war voices?
Americans do not know enough about the topic to question it because we only hear about pro-war voices. Everything revolves around money. Large corporations could potentially be afraid of losing money and support from the government if they share opposing views such as anti-war voices.
In Daniel Larison’s article titled “Writing Our Own Foreign Policy Destiny” he asserts how the United States feels the responsibility to protect the world. And we believe there is no other nation to take on this job or assist us. For a lot of countries we are the role models. In fact we are the role model of democracy and peace for the rest of the world. In his article, Larison discusses the term hegemony. Hegemony is the dominance of one group over another.The question he poses is how do we maintain world order without being the world’s policeman? Throughout his piece he argues that hegemony is not a reliable defense against a global breakdown of peace. He makes a valid point, stating that we are free to havoc on other countries in the name of upholding the “order” and peace that we have given ourselves the duty of doing. In other words, certain wars are wars of choice, and he proposes we choose a different strategy that makes war less likely. His argument is focused around the idea that unending wars are being fought for the preservation of peace, which he believes does not make sense. The United States assumed the role of policing the world at a time when the rest of the world was facing bankruptcy and devastation after WW1.Larison believes that it is time other national powers share the responsibility of preserving national security. By doing so, the U.S. could devote more time, energy and resources into our own country. In other words, sharing the responsibility would benefit us. His article suggests adapting the forigein policy strategy. This anti-war piece leaves us reflecting, questioning, and thinking. U.S. hegemony made sense during WW1 era, but the world has and is changing, meaning foreign policy should as well. Does taking on the role of global policeman make sense in today's day and age?
I do not have the answer for one reason. I’ve never questioned why we enter war, I automatically assume it is for the best. I think this is because I have trust in the government, sometimes too much trust. Before now, I’ve never heard or learned about the other perspective of the conversation. Like they say, there are two sides to every story and in order to determine the truth, solution, or problem, we must be presented with all of the information and perspectives in order to form the most educated opinion possible. Like I said earlier, our civic duty is to question the government, and it should be the government’s duty to not silence but embrace voices of the opposite viewpoint. This is because if we are not given choices, it makes it difficult to determine right from wrong, just from unjust. But maybe that is what the government wants…
Check out https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/writing-our-own-foreign-policy-destiny/ for more information regarding anti-war voices.
Comments
Post a Comment