The Problem with War No One Talks About

There’s no shortage of reasons for people to hate war.  From the mass casualties to the displacement of civilians to the impact on the economy to the famine it can cause, war causes no shortage of problems for humanity.  However, there is an issue that most people don’t talk about when discussing war.

Wars don’t just produce winners, losers, and stalemates.  They also change countries, redefine their culture, build new alliances, and change national or international politics.  War has the potential to destabilize order and create new crises.  For that reason, it is worth discussing how that can (or could) change the political landscape.

After the United States removed Saddam Hussein, the country fell into a power vacuum with a shaky democracy.  As a result, Iran started setting up shop and backing militias that served its interests.  It also managed to build a relationship with Iraq through shared culture and religion.  

On the other end, the terrorist group ISIS rose in the absence of Saddam’s leadership and used hardship in the country to gain supporters.  As a result, his removal also led to the rise of a major terrorist organization in the region that the US also later had to fight.  Unintentionally, the US created an ally for one of its greatest enemies, and a new monster it also had to defeat just by eliminating one of its longtime enemies in the region.

Another example of strange relationships being forged during war would be the Napoleonic wars.  During the war with Napoleon, Prussian, Austrian, and Russian leadership had to come together as allies to oppose his efforts and stop him from conquering Europe.  However, all three nations were historic enemies so once the shared threat was gone, so was their unity.  War can create temporary alliances, but once the threat is gone the status quo will return.

The point is that war doesn’t just result in immediate pain.  It also causes regional crises and destabilize relationships among the populace.  It can also cause weird friendships that don’t last or get replaced when the moment arises.  So, it may be worth considering how current conflicts are already changing the region.

In Iran, the death of the previous Supreme Leader led to a power vacuum among leadership.  Since there’s no confirmation that the current Supreme Leader is even alive anymore, it seems that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is taking over the government and exerting even more control on the government than it already had.  As a result, the pretense of being an authoritarian theocracy is evaporating as Iran is about to become a military dictatorship with a theocratic front.

Meanwhile, there are even further divides in the Middle East.  With Iran’s attacks on regional states, already weak relationships with the country are gone as everyone (deservedly so) hates them.  Also, this is impacting other alliances as the UAE left OPEC, helping grow a rivalry between them and Saudi Arabia.  In short, the Iran War has shifted the balance of power in the middle east and made the Iranian Government even more authoritarian.

Another conflict that has potential to reshape the world order is the Ukraine conflict.  Obviously, what’s happening with Russia matters to Europe as Putin has claimed that many of the regions border it are historic Russian territory, trade between Russia and Western Europe is at an all time low which is impacting multiple national economies, and this is causing infighting across NATO as debates come on who should pay for how much of the military alliance.  So a former superpower attacking a country trying to join the biggest military and economic alliances on the globe shaking up their continent’s economy isn’t surprising.

What is surprising is the possible fallout.  Russia has seen its economy stagnate, especially in its capital city, and become increasingly dependent on China.  There has been a push for Russia and China to join forces, but that has resulted in Russia becoming a junior partner as China is starting to push its influence more into the country and seems to have plans for what it wants to do with Russian territory.  With that happening and the decline in trade, Russia is seeing its influence and connection to Europe shrink.  So it's looking to be another “once great empire” with limited influence and continued military defeats against Ukraine could result in it being seen as not much of a threat to European nations.

The elimination of a European threat may be seen as a positive, but like Napoleon’s downfall, the end of a shared threat brings about old rivalries.  After all, both Ukraine and Poland are historic rivals who have a shared hatred of Russia.  When their common threat disappears, how long might they stay as allies?

This is an interesting question.  Poland intends to have the largest land military in Europe by 2030 while Ukraine has been leading the way in drone technology.  If those countries found themselves both wanting to dominate Eastern European cultural influence, they may find themselves in a Cold War.  So one must wonder what will happen if Russia is defeated like the West wants.

So, will Iran become the Middle Eastern North Korea?  Will Russia become a vassal state to China?  Will Poland and Ukraine go to war?  Honestly, there’s no way to make predictions like that.

There are many factors that can change the outcome of wars, politics, and culture shifts in a region.  There’s the desire to always assume the worst case scenario, but that’s usually unlikely.  Time will tell what will actually happen.  All of this is merely factors to consider in our current world.

Which highlights the actual point of this blogpost.  Though war has obviously terrible aspects, the long term effects it can have on domestic and international politics is staggering.  As a result, it reshapes the world we live in as friends become enemies, enemies become friends, and enemies become even worse enemies.  Time will tell what our conflicts today will lead to, but most likely they’ll lead to conflicts of tomorrow.

The Room Where it Happens: Why Politicians are Disconnected from Voters

Most people familiar with the U.S. know how important politics is in its culture.  We pioneered 24-hour news, college campuses are synonymous with activism, and we essentially redefined several countries' governments to reflect our own.  The vote is considered sacred in parts of the U.S. and our Democratic system of government is something many politicians are constantly calling on the public to defend.  So why does it feel hollow in the modern day?

It feels increasingly that voting and political involvement are a waste of time.  If you take a look at how politicians vote vs. public opinion, you’ll find huge gaps on how voters feel vs. how politicians vote on issues such as balancing the budget, war, campaign finance reform, and much more.  As a result, many Americans, especially younger ones, have a negative view of the country’s government and a negative view of Democracy.  One must wonder where that view comes from or why people feel the way they do.

Well, the obvious scapegoat is massive corruption.  It’s easy to claim all politicians are liars or that they all take bribes once they get to Congress and sell out on their alleged principles.  While there’s some evidence of that, that’s at best an oversimplification.

The truth is that it’s actually because of a natural disconnect between elected officials and the average voter.  Many people who get elected don’t have as much connection to the needs of their constituents either because of background, history, social connection, or even geography.  As a result, their relationship to the public is weak, and that thus furthers division in the United States.

Aristotle noted that politics is the association of people within the polis, the community.  For me, simplifying his writings, that means the relationships of people in a given group.  It’s why concepts like church politics, office politics, marriage politics, and such other examples exist.  So we are in “politics” with the people we have connections to.

That’s the real problem with division in the U.S. that doesn’t get as much conversation as it deserves.  When people don’t have those relationships with each other, there is no social connection and, indirectly, there is no country.  Thus, different factions form within a nation’s borders and it becomes not a question of “what do the people want?” but “whose coalition is bigger?”

If we take a look, then, at the average politician vs the public, what they end up dealing with is significantly different.  For the voter, they get hit harder with higher prices, taxes, crime, job security, and plenty of other issues that are extremely relatable to the average person.  As a result, what they care about is what they experience immediately or has the biggest likelihood of hurting their way of life.

Politicians, of course, also experience these issues so it’s still of concern to them.  Sure, the average congressman is still wealthier than the average American so they feel it differently, but all people are human so “kitchen table issues” still impact those at the top.  However, what’s on their plate is different because of the people they spend time with on a given day.

The average politician also has to meet with a vast group of people.  They have to meet with lobbyists, foreign dignitaries, each other, activists, staff, and more to stay ahead in elections, get legislation passed, and fulfill basic human needs like social connection.  Also, quite a few actually sleep in their office or live in/around DC so their “community” of sorts isn’t their base but their fellow politicians.  As a result, that adds to the disconnect just by having them engaged more away in a city than at home.

It just goes back to the nature of government.  The average person doesn’t have to declare war, handle humanitarian crises, or reconsider existing tax rates to pay the federal budget.  The average politician, well, is supposed to if they’re doing their job.  As a result, the culture, purpose, and requirements of the job put a wedge between the public and the office holders.

Now, one might be tempted to ask if there’s a way to bridge that gap and reconnect the elected officials with their constituents.  I don’t want to say it’s impossible as that would be dismissive of the question and there are ways politicians can spend more time with their constituents.  However, the divide isn’t just a recent problem but an eternal one.

Every person on this planet only has so much time to spend and only so much time they can spend it with at any given moment.  Just like being friends with everyone isn’t possible, being connected to people all the time isn’t possible either.  So relationship prioritization and social connection will still dominate any field a person finds themselves in as well.

One suggestion would be to have more representatives of groups in communities to balance out that disconnect.  Either to get more people that have a tighter connection to the community into existing positions or create new positions that will reconnect the out of touch establishment.  This is short sighted, though, because it merely adds to the existing bureaucracy and adds to the disconnect.

Changing out the people won’t actually solve the disconnect because it doesn’t actually fix the relationship problem.  If we added more congressmen, that would increase the opportunity for community connected candidates, but over time they’d also get bogged down in the metaphorical swamp that is politics.  Switching out people is also irrelevant if they get the position and can’t actually do the job.  As a result, there may be some change to what policies get enacted in any institution, but adding or changing industries or fields without addressing the relationship issue means more of the same under a different coat of paint.  Perhaps, then, the real thought to consider is thus: do politicians “sell out” because they got corrupted or found out what they wanted was impossible?

In addition, there is another problem that needs to be addressed: the media.  People can act like following the news gives them insight into the workings of DC when in reality it’s its own politics entirely.  The news serves more of a role of entertainment, a manipulator, or a sink for you time than it does act like an actual informer.

It’s the key issue that many news stories that are important usually get limited attention from the mainstream media while they follow other issues that people allegedly care about.  So issues like America’s transition away from Europe in favor of Asia, asking regular factories to start making weapons, and the US surrounding Cuba get limited attention while the world is instead discussing rumors about schools having litterboxes in schools, backlash to the Superbowl halftime show, and Trump feeding koi fish.  Really, the discussions from the media, legacy or online, have many holes on covering important issues so trying to use it to understand current events can have incredibly mixed results and not truly be a gateway to politics.

Now the conspiratorial perspective is that the media is intentionally trying to distract the public from important issues or cover up major news.  However, the truth is much more complicated than that.  The media traditionally cares about what news stories will get the most views so what they talk about is inevitably going to be what gets the most viewers on TV, clicks on social media, or watches/listens on podcasts.  As a result, it goes to the crazier stories as opposed to what may be important but isn’t interesting.

All of this comes back to the key problem which is the disconnect between the different groups.  As our society stops engaging with people more and more, that level of social cohesion starts to evaporate and we break down into separate factions that aren’t connected to each other and thus their interests are completely disconnected.  For this reason, the interests of our politicians, citizens, and media are severely disconnected.

Which is why the general public can’t expect their views to be reflected in current legislation.  They’re not in the room where legislation is being made, so they’re disconnected from policy that affects them, and policies that admittedly aren’t in their area of interest.  So it’s unlikely to matter too much who gets elected in changing major issues when the biggest problem isn’t the specific positions, but the lack of social cohesion and shared interests.

Nevertheless, there is still something that can be done about that.  Specifically, the individual has to get involved at the local level.  Not run for local office, just engage in the community.

As mentioned, politics are the relationships in the community.  So a person who doesn’t have connections to or relationships with their local community, even if they are aware of current events, isn’t engaged.  So that means to make the world a better place, they have to start in their own backyard.

There’s a variety of ways one can get involved in their local community.  Plenty of churches and non-profits need volunteers, plenty of politicians need supporters at their events when they're in their districts, and plenty of clubs or organizations are always looking for new members.  There’s always a way to help and have an impact if you’re willing to make an effort.

Just remember two things before doing that though.  First, remember that you have to grow in virtue and connection yourself.  If you’re not making the effort to be a good person before engaging, the temptation for self-serving attitudes will still be there.  Second, you’re engaging in that group because you believe in it for its own sake.  It’s okay to leave when you’re no longer connected, but what group you engage with still has its own needs and goals so using it as a stepping stone is disrespectful to the group you’re in at the time.

Still, that’s the real way to make change and improve the world: social connection.  You may not be able to stop the next war, but you can still help keep the silverware at the next community picnic clean.  There’s no way to quantify the impact that could have or the doors that could open for people, so give a try.  It’s the only we’re ever going to fix that disconnect and heal the divides that separate us as a people.

The Debate in Art: What Is vs What Could Be

Following up on the previous post which tackled the definition of liberal vs conservative, there’s another topic that would be interesting to address: the meaning of art.  Plenty of artists and philosophers have debated the purpose of art and the impact it should have on society.  However, there are two questions that seem especially noteworthy in the modern day: should art be a reflection of the world as it is, or as it could be?

This is not as easy a question as it may appear as there’s no one way to look at the answer.  To go into more detail, the first opinion posits the idea that the art should be as realistic a portrayal of the world we live in and reflect that in storytelling and visual aesthetics.  In short, art should serve as something of an unedited photograph, capturing the world through the eyes of objective reality as opposed to the personal feelings of the artist.  The second suggests that art should be somewhat idealized in its approach to show the world as a reflection of human potential and virtue.  In a sense, it should show what we as people could become if we put in the time, effort, and patience into changing ourselves into something different.

Showing the world as it is gives the viewer an understanding of the present reality in which they exist.  Seeing evil in such a story makes it relatable in the sense that it lets the viewer understand the monsters they will have to overcome in their own lives while seeing good in the same type of story helps them understand how to deal with such problems in their daily life. In other words, it gives us a window into the world we live in so that we may understand it in ways we might not otherwise.

The weaker versions of this approach, though, can lead to egotistical art.  If an artist is only showing their own reality, that can make it unrelatable as it prioritizes not objective reality, but merely personal “gnosis” or experience masquerading as wisdom or understanding.  Similarly, it can then be an excuse to show ugliness as what the world is, showing a cynical worldview masquerading as truth.  In other words, bad art from this concept is usually personal biases pretending to be objective reality, which is why modern artists can make bad content that they claim reflects “the world we live in today” when it’s really just their own worldview.

On the other hand, there is the idea that art should show what we long to be or could become when striving for it.  Many fictional characters, stories, and art pieces can serve to be inspirational to viewers and serve as guides to instill passion in mankind for a better tomorrow.  So this art serves the role of pushing man to do better and make the world a better place in light of obstacles they may see.

The downside of this, though, is Utopianism.  When an artist is removed from reality, they can make something that is not feasible yet claim it is an image of tomorrow.  This can instill an unrealistic image in the impressionable viewer, especially the young, of a world that is never coming.  This is why many parents worry about what their kids consume and what impact it can have on them as they mature.

In many ways, this debate is a reflection of Plato’s philosophy.  Plato believed that there was a perfect world where the forms, the perfect version of every concept, idea, or object, existed and that our material world is merely a broken reflection of that world.  Idealized art, then, reflects these forms of what perfect, virtuous humanity looks like while realistic art shows us the world in its material form that we’re likely to experience.  Of note, Plato in many ways was not fond of art because he viewed it as a reflection of the imperfect, material world but his divide between the perfect vs imperfect here is a good reflection of the divide of artistry here: ideal vs experiential.

Side note: Plato had many thoughts on art from its ability to corrupt to what believed was the ignorance of the average artist.  Similarly, his student, Aristotle, completely disagreed on a lot of Plato’s philosophy and art in particular.  However, that topic could fill its own blogpost so we’ll only discuss the very basics of Plato’s philosophy here.

Now that the two theories on art have been discussed, one may be wondering which thought process makes better art.  The truth is, that question is completely subjective.  Both philosophies have strengths and weaknesses, so either could be useful depending on what story the writer wants to tell or how they want to tell it.  Really, as long as it fits the narrative and adds to the story, either can be a worthwhile approach.

For me personally, though, I tend to lean more towards the idealized.  When built on man’s struggles, art can show us what we can become, what we must overcome, and gives us the inspiration to persevere.  It’s why characters like Superman, Luke Skywalker, and Atticus Finch are so impactful in fiction.  They give us something to aspire towards, and if it’s feasible then that goal can be reached.

Regardless, it’s a debate the artist should have with themselves when they seek to make art.  What do you believe is the right approach?  Well, you’ll only know if you start making your own art.  Well, go right ahead and try.  Your art won’t exist if you don’t make it.