Well I think it's a nice idea but then I had the same one which I forwarded privately:)
Why shouldn't we have a Department of Peace? It would focus of promoting cultural and language studies, but also projects that affect the planet and require the cooperation of many nations. It could also help reconcile warring or traumatized regions.
We could work more effectively with international bodies on disaster relief, on resource allotment to areas stricken by famine and disease, and we could also help share technologies that help people survive well within their environments and with each other.
Hmm...because that's all stuff the State Department and DoD already do? Because it would be creating yet another redundant bureaucracy that would take on a life of its own? Because that's all stuff the UN already tries to do and look how well it's working out for them? Because you know what kind of people such a "department" would attract, and what kind of gobbledygook rhetoric they'd churn out and there's only so much Dramamine in the world (and do we really need what would in effect be a federally funded NGO to add to the piles already out there)? Because what does this new group do when we actually have to go to war? Work at cross-purposes with DoD? Because once established, we'd never be able to kill this beast because "think of the signal it would send"? Because, while it might start with the best of intentions, what this thing would turn into a few years down the road would just be a horror.
That's for starters.
Kucinich ran on this in '04, so he was a little ahead of you. :)
This is one of those "really sounds nice on paper" (to a lot of people at least) deals that just would not work I'm sorry to say.
I think philosophically though, a Department of Peace that didn't overlap with State or DOD, and which had primarily internal responsibilities of education and improving knowledge, which in turn would facilitate global relationships, is a good idea.
The fact is, State isn't neutral, has economic concerns, and its goals are often in conflict with other Departments - including DOD and even the President and Congress. In short State has its own culture and its own goals.
DOD obviously has a certain mandate that is usually called into play when communication has failed - or assumes that it will. In other words it anticipates and conducts wars - the opposite of the peace idea.
The UN SHOULD be doing much of what is described in the Peace Department ideas, but it doesn't. Therefore the US might want to take a leadership position because nobody else is, and there's clearly a vacuum. Human Rights is one of the most glaring examples of the UN's failure to rise above political, regional and religious biases.
My idea would have been much more limited that Kuchinich's - focusing primarily on helping to educate Americans but also building non-political, cultural bridges between people around the world. One of the things that has dismayed me within our own community, has been an apparent lack of interest in or even contempt for, Middle Eastern cultures - even though we Jews are rooted there, Israel is located there and a substantial - maybe even a majority of modern Jews have direct Sephardic or other Middle Eastern connections. In America there's little knowledge of the Arab or Central Asian worlds at all. A Department of Peace could help open doors into other worlds.
Obviously, this should be done by concerned parents, on a high-school level, in universities - but in practice people often can't see the end of their own block let alone into the heart of Iran. Wouldn't it be helpful to provide a mechanism to help people get to know each other?
Note: this isn't endorsing "multiculturalism" or even "progressive" politics - because I doubt that anybody can accurately define what that is. However, it would be progressive simply to help encourage language and cultural studies. I can't imagine that over the long run we wouldn't benefit from such programs and if such a philosophy were part of our government's structure.
It would also send a powerful message: that the era of the "ugly American" is dead and buried, that we are ordinary, curious people; and that our minds and hearts are open.
I'd hate to see the education program of a "Department of Peace". There is already a huge revisionist history misinformation problem in our existing intitutions of learning.
As with every good intention - this would be a recipe for disaster.
First - once the federal government gets hold of something the idea of "limits" is ludicrous.
Second - who gets to pay for all this nicey-nice? Why - the American tax payer of course. Thank you - I really wanted to pay more taxes.
Third - no matter what we do. No matter how many concessions we make. No matter how much we give and give and give and give. No matter how much studying of other cultures... we will always be perceived as the "Ugly Americans" because it's in the best interests of every other country in the world to portray us that way.
If you think the UN is bad... just form a Department of Peace. It will promote NOTHING. What it will do is create more laws and regulations on everything. And considering the current state of "cultural education" - any form of "teaching" will simply be indoctrination.
Also, we aren't even allowed to teach things related to our own culture. How about if we start there first before teaching things about other cultures. Know yourself before trying to understand someone else. But that's not PC at the moment. So, most kids are growing up with no idea of the basis of our country and how our culture evolved to this point. Now there's a sound basis for teaching them about everyone else in the world!
OK - try this: what about just encouraging the study of languages and art/music history?
There's nothing revisionist about that!
I agree, revisionist history is a real problem and many of our universities seem to have been buying into politically motivated tropes, especially in re the Middle East - but also the changes regarding previously highly regarded "Western Civilization" are alarming. For example "colonialism/imperialism" is apparently taught as merely a Western invention, which is patently ridiculous, and it's also apparently regarded as completely bad, which I think is silly. Look at the Roman roads alone! The fact is, people move around, the exchange of goods, services, people and ideas is an ancient and universal phenomenon, and without it - we'd probably all still be living in caves. A more nuanced approach is demanded.
What else I find alarming: art, music, language courses are apparently the first to be cut when schools run into funding problems. Yet, those are the very studies that foster creativity - and one of the greatest assets in American culture is our creativity.
Maybe I'm straying a little off-topic; I apologize if this is so.
No doubt the taxpayer would carry more of a load. But I'm worried about the direction we're going now. I'm worried about revisionism, politically motivated departments and studies, the loss of interest in culture and creativity, the fact that it's hard to communicate, the general dumbing-down of our civilization, the lack of pride in our own culture.
Obviously on the elite end of the spectrum, we're seeing young people with absolutely breathtaking ability, accomplished at such a young age it's humbling. But what about the rest, the majority - let alone the poor or less advantaged?
Globalization is going to make it ever more difficult for all of us to compete. Education is the very core of our civilization and it represents a path forward, especially in an era which sees a rising tide of religious extremism.
I don't claim to know all the answers, but suggest that we do indeed have a need here, becoming ever more apparent.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Well I think it's a nice idea but then I had the same one which I forwarded privately:)
Why shouldn't we have a Department of Peace? It would focus of promoting cultural and language studies, but also projects that affect the planet and require the cooperation of many nations. It could also help reconcile warring or traumatized regions.
We could work more effectively with international bodies on disaster relief, on resource allotment to areas stricken by famine and disease, and we could also help share technologies that help people survive well within their environments and with each other.
In turn we too would learn.
So why is this such a bad idea?
Hmm...because that's all stuff the State Department and DoD already do? Because it would be creating yet another redundant bureaucracy that would take on a life of its own? Because that's all stuff the UN already tries to do and look how well it's working out for them? Because you know what kind of people such a "department" would attract, and what kind of gobbledygook rhetoric they'd churn out and there's only so much Dramamine in the world (and do we really need what would in effect be a federally funded NGO to add to the piles already out there)? Because what does this new group do when we actually have to go to war? Work at cross-purposes with DoD? Because once established, we'd never be able to kill this beast because "think of the signal it would send"? Because, while it might start with the best of intentions, what this thing would turn into a few years down the road would just be a horror.
That's for starters.
Kucinich ran on this in '04, so he was a little ahead of you. :)
This is one of those "really sounds nice on paper" (to a lot of people at least) deals that just would not work I'm sorry to say.
The practical aspects you mention are daunting.
I think philosophically though, a Department of Peace that didn't overlap with State or DOD, and which had primarily internal responsibilities of education and improving knowledge, which in turn would facilitate global relationships, is a good idea.
The fact is, State isn't neutral, has economic concerns, and its goals are often in conflict with other Departments - including DOD and even the President and Congress. In short State has its own culture and its own goals.
DOD obviously has a certain mandate that is usually called into play when communication has failed - or assumes that it will. In other words it anticipates and conducts wars - the opposite of the peace idea.
The UN SHOULD be doing much of what is described in the Peace Department ideas, but it doesn't. Therefore the US might want to take a leadership position because nobody else is, and there's clearly a vacuum. Human Rights is one of the most glaring examples of the UN's failure to rise above political, regional and religious biases.
My idea would have been much more limited that Kuchinich's - focusing primarily on helping to educate Americans but also building non-political, cultural bridges between people around the world. One of the things that has dismayed me within our own community, has been an apparent lack of interest in or even contempt for, Middle Eastern cultures - even though we Jews are rooted there, Israel is located there and a substantial - maybe even a majority of modern Jews have direct Sephardic or other Middle Eastern connections. In America there's little knowledge of the Arab or Central Asian worlds at all. A Department of Peace could help open doors into other worlds.
Obviously, this should be done by concerned parents, on a high-school level, in universities - but in practice people often can't see the end of their own block let alone into the heart of Iran. Wouldn't it be helpful to provide a mechanism to help people get to know each other?
Note: this isn't endorsing "multiculturalism" or even "progressive" politics - because I doubt that anybody can accurately define what that is. However, it would be progressive simply to help encourage language and cultural studies. I can't imagine that over the long run we wouldn't benefit from such programs and if such a philosophy were part of our government's structure.
It would also send a powerful message: that the era of the "ugly American" is dead and buried, that we are ordinary, curious people; and that our minds and hearts are open.
I'd hate to see the education program of a "Department of Peace". There is already a huge revisionist history misinformation problem in our existing intitutions of learning.
As with every good intention - this would be a recipe for disaster.
First - once the federal government gets hold of something the idea of "limits" is ludicrous.
Second - who gets to pay for all this nicey-nice? Why - the American tax payer of course. Thank you - I really wanted to pay more taxes.
Third - no matter what we do. No matter how many concessions we make. No matter how much we give and give and give and give. No matter how much studying of other cultures... we will always be perceived as the "Ugly Americans" because it's in the best interests of every other country in the world to portray us that way.
If you think the UN is bad... just form a Department of Peace. It will promote NOTHING. What it will do is create more laws and regulations on everything. And considering the current state of "cultural education" - any form of "teaching" will simply be indoctrination.
Also, we aren't even allowed to teach things related to our own culture. How about if we start there first before teaching things about other cultures. Know yourself before trying to understand someone else. But that's not PC at the moment. So, most kids are growing up with no idea of the basis of our country and how our culture evolved to this point. Now there's a sound basis for teaching them about everyone else in the world!
First thought on my mind upon reading this:
Minipax.
OK - try this: what about just encouraging the study of languages and art/music history?
There's nothing revisionist about that!
I agree, revisionist history is a real problem and many of our universities seem to have been buying into politically motivated tropes, especially in re the Middle East - but also the changes regarding previously highly regarded "Western Civilization" are alarming. For example "colonialism/imperialism" is apparently taught as merely a Western invention, which is patently ridiculous, and it's also apparently regarded as completely bad, which I think is silly. Look at the Roman roads alone! The fact is, people move around, the exchange of goods, services, people and ideas is an ancient and universal phenomenon, and without it - we'd probably all still be living in caves. A more nuanced approach is demanded.
What else I find alarming: art, music, language courses are apparently the first to be cut when schools run into funding problems. Yet, those are the very studies that foster creativity - and one of the greatest assets in American culture is our creativity.
Maybe I'm straying a little off-topic; I apologize if this is so.
No doubt the taxpayer would carry more of a load. But I'm worried about the direction we're going now. I'm worried about revisionism, politically motivated departments and studies, the loss of interest in culture and creativity, the fact that it's hard to communicate, the general dumbing-down of our civilization, the lack of pride in our own culture.
Obviously on the elite end of the spectrum, we're seeing young people with absolutely breathtaking ability, accomplished at such a young age it's humbling. But what about the rest, the majority - let alone the poor or less advantaged?
Globalization is going to make it ever more difficult for all of us to compete. Education is the very core of our civilization and it represents a path forward, especially in an era which sees a rising tide of religious extremism.
I don't claim to know all the answers, but suggest that we do indeed have a need here, becoming ever more apparent.