DailyJim: The return of “peace” through strength

Hello everyone, welcome to another Daily Gym. This is the episode for Thursday, June 20th, 2024. I want to talk about an article that was in the Foreign Affairs Magazine. I think it said, Peace Through Strength. The Return of Peace Through Strength.

And why I think we should actually try to go for love. Again, so if you've been listening to the podcast, you know that I've talked about this idea of the war between love and peace. And I think this article demonstrates it quite well, at least from the percentage of, I don't know, 15, 20% of it that I read. It's quite long. And that's okay. And I hope to read the rest of it. But it's the end of the evening, and I didn't want to read the whole thing right now. But at least from the beginning, the impression I got was it saying that while Trump was in power, there was a lot of peace in the world, there was peace in the United States, and therefore we need Trump to be in power to get peace again. And talked about, used a quote from, I believe, a Roman emperor, and a quote from George Washington, a quote from a few other people. And then it talks about how we need the peace we need the strength to i guess protect taiwan from china from the strength of china i don't know i the impression i got was again this is beginning i'm curious to see how my view changes on it as i read the rest um the impression i got was that it was saying that the way to achieve peace is to instill fear in a population whether that's a local population or whether that's a population of the quote-unquote enemy but to instill fear in them to be really strong so that they are afraid i think he quoted theodore roosevelt was to i think walk gently or walk softly but carry a strong stick or something or a loud stick.

I'm butchering that quote but this idea of, being strong and how I believe strength instills a certain fear in the other that they will be out, like strong armed that they would lose in a fight to someone stronger than them therefore they will not behave out of that fear and, Which gets me wondering about whether peace is the goal. Because yes, maybe strength actually does achieve peace. Especially in the short term, especially superficial peace.

Because things are quiet. If somebody is really strong and if you say one little thing and that person shouts at that person, well, then if I say one little thing and somebody shouts at me, there's likelihood that I'll be quiet. Because I don't want the person to shout. I don't want the person to get angry. Now, maybe shouting is just very simple. Maybe they physically hit me or they physically hit someone like me to instill fear in me. So then, yeah, maybe this strength would create this feeling of peace.

At least this appearance of peace where the streets are quiet. There is no disagreement at the dinner table. There is no protesting. There is no disagreements internationally.

People just kind of shut up and acquiesce, which...

If that's the definition of peace, yeah, perhaps strength is the best way to achieve that. Now other people have come along and said, oh, there's this concept of positive peace, where it's not just absence of conflict, it's presence of harmony, maybe. I think people have tried to force the concept, the name of that positive peace, but I don't think it really lands very well.

And so perhaps this paper is actually right. Perhaps the paper is saying that to get peace, we need strength. But what if peace isn't the goal we actually want?

Because there is the appearance of peace, where people are not fighting with each other, but inside, do people have the fight? Do people feel the anger, the bitterness, the resentment, the fear, the confusion, the excitement? Are people feeling different things on the inside? Because if they are, then maybe they're not at peace. Maybe they're just afraid. And fear and anxiety doesn't sound very peaceful to me. So maybe there's still a lot of conflict going on inside. And maybe a lot of this conflict bubbles up and eventually explodes out.

And so maybe even that idea of peace, even the idea of, okay, okay, let's use strength to achieve peace. Maybe it just doesn't work in the medium to long term.

And even if it does, is that the idea we're aspiring to? Are we aspiring to be a nation of emperors as the Pax Romana, I believe, occurred during the Roman Empire, not the Roman Republic. And as far as I know, the Roman Empire was filled with dictators who were a bit tyrannical, tyrannical. a lot of tyranny words, hard to pronounce sometimes and, Yeah, but do we actually want the democracy? Do we actually want the unity? Do we actually want that? Because that actually requires conflict. There isn't peace in protesting. Protesting specifically is the, I would say, you know, it's a peaceful protest. Maybe it means peaceful because they're not shooting people, but the idea of a process is to make noise and is to say, we disagree with what you're doing, which is to stand up and confront and actually say that there is a conflict that exists we disagree on something and we are trying to use our voice to tell you how much we disagree about this thing, for me that doesn't sound like peace i don't know i think we've used this word peace and the more i hear it the more i hear absence of conflict and the more i see it as almost an impossible goal that That drives us to pretty intense emotional suppression. But yeah, so I don't know if democracy survives with that definition of peace. Maybe democracy survives with love. Maybe democracy survives with unity. Maybe democracy survives with going through the conflict, having the ability to confront each other, but in a loving way. in a way in which we are united, knowing that we are on the same team no matter what happens. I'm bringing this conflict to you. I'm bringing this disagreement, this confrontation to you because I care about you. And this is where I have some friends who are involved in the protests that are going on in Kenya right now. They're trying to reject the finance bill that the government is pushing through. And one person was saying, we are alone, we are alone, we are alone. They don't care about us. They don't care about us. The government doesn't care about us. And for me, that is not what I'm talking about when I'm talking about conflict. When I'm talking about this idea of unity, this idea of love, it's to say, listen, I disagree with the behavior that you're doing, but I still love you. I still think you care about me. I still think you love me because we're in this together and I want to resolve this conflict together.

And I feel sad but I also feel really damn frustrated that I see so many.

There's so many words, so many conversations taking us in the other direction of saying, nobody cares about us. Just leave me alone. Just leave me alone. Just let us be at peace. Why are you bothering us? Blah, blah, blah. I don't know. I'm rambling at this point, but this whole idea is maybe, yeah, maybe strength is the way to achieve peace in quotes.

But maybe peace is the wrong, maybe peace is not a goal that's going to help us. In one having democracy but two uh living with each other and loving each other and loving life and just being excited and grateful to be alive so maybe you took something from this maybe you i appreciate the time for me to reflect and hopefully you appreciated the time for you to reflect. Curious to hear your response, whether you agree or disagree or to which extent. And again, knowing that if you bring it to me, it's not because you don't care about me. It's because you do care about me or you're likely to care about me and care about yourself and care about other people in your life. So just reminding you, it's okay to care. I'm actually grateful that people care about me and themselves, and I'm grateful to care about others. So on that note, good night, everyone. Talk to you next week.