I want to share some random thoughts on recent convergences
between events and my reading. The events have to do with injury and death, and
the reading primarily, concerns and NNT’s Antifragile,
as well as some blog sites.
The attack on the Boston Marathon and the subsequent pursuit
and capture of the bombers has taken a total of four lives, with a number of
other people critically or seriously wounded some suffering horrible injuries
that will alter the remainder of their lives. At Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Connecticut last December, 27 persons, including teachers and
children, lost their lives. In Aurora Colorado last summer, 13 people
lost their lives at the hands of the lone gunman. Finally, around the time of
the events in Boston, a plant exploded in Texas taking 14 lives. One never
wants to fall into the logic of Stalin’s cruel adage that “a single death is a
tragedy, a million is a statistic”, but we do need to look carefully at what
mortally threatens us.
Although it’s too early to know yet the full extent of
whatever arsenal the Boston bombers held, it was surely significant given the
firefight that they entered into with the authorities. Yet, immediately before
those events, the U.S. Senate, despite polls showing overwhelming support,
refused to take any action to limit or control access to firearms. The huge
disconnect between the threat of firearms in our society and the willingness of
the federal government to address this issue is truly frightening.
What we learned from the firearms debate, as well from other
debates over a number of other issues, that our political system is broken. It
is broken because the Senate refuses to alter the antiquated and anti-democratic
practice of the filibuster; it is broken because a minority of the population and
often a minority of the minority of the population) can effectively veto any legislation;
and finally, our system is thoroughly corrupted by our campaign financing
system. I personally decided to get involved with rootstrikers.org as a way to
try to get the issue of political corruption addressed (I’ll be more writing
more about this soon).
We also have to consider the stories that we will attribute
to Boston. Was it an act of “terrorism”? Was it at an act of jihad, or was it a
Columbine-like act? I think it is too early to say, but what I fear we are
seeing is a fusion of the two lines of terror. If we limit the definition of
terrorism to overtly political acts planned and perpetrated with some ultimate
political goal in mind, then we still can’t be sure if the Boston bombers
qualify. However, if we broaden the definition to include acts like those at
Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine High School, then surely we have encompassed
possible motives for the Boston bombers. What do the actions of those who
perpetrated Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook have in common with those of the Boston
bombers? All were the actions of young males. It may be that the Boston bombers intended
to give some patina of jihadism them to their attacks, but we may be missing a
much more fundamental phenomena. If history has taught us anything (and I
warily use that tired cliché), it is the volatility and danger of young men. In
India, we see it in some bombings, but most commonly in acts of horrific violence
against women and children. The way the acts of disaffected young men play out varies,
but the inclination—even preference—for violence is marked. Cliodynamics expert
Peter Turchin suggests that we will see an upswing of violence sometime within
the next 10 years. I hope he’s wrong, but events of the last year suggest he
may have some insight.
Boston may show, and it’s my theory in general, that Islam,
and jihadism in particular, are often simply vehicles for disaffected young men
acting out their violent resentments. Religion (and this can include
Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism, among others) can give form and meaning to
the violent proclivities we observe, but none of these belief systems
intrinsically promotes this attitude. Indeed, the vast majority practitioners
and doctrines in each religion prefer peace and compassion.
The photo above (taken from Stephen Walt’s blog) is
perhaps the scariest image of the week. All of us owe thanks to law enforcement
officials who quickly identified and apprehended these violent criminals. (These
young men committed criminal acts—whatever motives we attribute to them—and
they should be prosecuted as such). More importantly, however, it’s the
lock down and manhunt in Boston should give us pause. During that one day,
Boston approached a police state. The radical gun proponents seem to think that
their rights are going to be taken away by a liberal-dominated government seeking
to take away their weapons (a fantasy if there was one), but it’s our desire as
a nation to assure absolute safety that
makes it much more likely that we’d fall prey to authoritarian
government. I’ve said many times before that war is the greatest enemy of
democracy; a war on crime or terrorism is perhaps an even greater threat than wars undertaken abroad. I say this not as a criticism of any elected officials
or law enforcement officials who acted this week in Boston, but as a general
warning. We have to keep the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our historic
and long-standing system of criminal procedure intact. Shame on Senators
Lindsey Graham (R. South Carolina) and John McCain (R. Arizona) for seeking to
undermine and denigrate our criminal justice system.
The other very troubling aspect of the Boston shut down was
the message that it sent to other would-be criminals, whether whatever their
motivations. We have sent the message that a major American city can be shut
down by a single violent criminal at large. Granted, he was dangerous and should
have been treated by both the law enforcement and civilians with the greatest
of caution, but were we wise to send this message? Although there a lot of
precedents that I would not look to
Israel for guidance about, its attitude towards terrorist actions (or criminal
actions) is to go about life as normally as possible. These are the words that
Obama uttered, but they are not the actions that officials in Massachusetts
took.
Largely missing from the news because of how it fit into the
events in Boston, was the explosion of a plant in Texas. This is Texas that
prides itself on its lack of regulation of businesses (“intrusive or burdensome
regulations”) and so-called tort reform (price controls on tort recoveries). I
can’t help but think of India when I think of Texas, as India has this
unregulated Wild West aspect to it. In assessing risks and where to live, two
things I would consider are a state (or nation’s) gun laws (the more
restrictive the safer the locale) and the strength of their regulatory and
legal system. If potentially dangerous entities are regulated and subject to
legal sanctions when they endanger people, then a locale is safer. To
paraphrase Lincoln Steffens (who really got it wrong about the Soviet Union), “I have seen the future,
and it doesn’t work”.
We need to sort out the risks in our lives. We cannot be
absolutely safe, and as NNT argues in Antifragile,
attempts to do so can actually prove counterproductive. This dictum applies to
terrorism, it applies to crime, it applies to gun regulation, and it applies to
other types of regulations. Finding the optimal mix of regulation and control is
the challenge. It’s going to take some hard, clearheaded thinking. It’s going
to involve taking some risks and realizing that the more we attempt to make ourselves
absolutely safe, the more we endanger ourselves.
Here are some discussions of the situations that I’ve found
worthwhile:
Imagine Patrick Henry speaking in his booming voice and
railing against the CORRUPTION of the age. Or, perhaps if you’re not in mood
for a stem-winder, think about how Madison or Hamilton (the two greatest minds
among the Founders—sorry TJ) might address this. Come to think of it, everyone
should be—must be—against corruption, right? However, in fact,
in a manner of speaking, CORRUPTION works. In the jargon of social science, it
results in an equilibrium that has built-in antibodies against change. The
concept is simple: if someone doesn’t participate in the CORRUPTION, then she
or he won’t get elected. It’s that simple. 
