Whatever It Takes

Nelson Mandela died on Thursday, and the news this week mostly centered on this event.  There was widespread praise for the South African leader, who was central in bringing about the end to apartheid.  Mandela had a vision for his country, and it can be said he was willing to do whatever it took to bring it to reality.  Along with the high praise for Mandela there were those who pointed out his links to communism and terrorism.   

Mandela was part of the ANC or African National Congress, and although he started out as a proponent of non-violence, he changed that position after a bloody crackdown by the South African government on a group of non-violent protesters.  He then embraced the use of violence as necessary to bring an end to apartheid.  At one point during his long imprisonment he was offered freedom if he would renounce violence, and he refused.  He was on the US terrorist list until just a few years ago.

Mandela also embraced communism and communist leaders such as Castro.  It is unclear whether he was a true communist or was just using those associations to achieve his goal.  I tend to believe he did have a soft spot in his heart for communism, but that his primary goal was the transformation of South Africa and not the spread of communism.

Clearly apartheid was a reprehensible thing, and the treatment of the black population in South Africa was abhorrent.  It is sometimes hard to remember the state of the world back in the 1960’s but obviously the United States was struggling with it’s own race problems and we were locked in a struggle against the Soviet Union and the worldwide march of communism.  This was the backdrop to the events in South Africa and so without the benefit of hindsight many viewed Mandela not as a hero but as a black racist communist terrorist.

It is easy to look back and second guess history.  It is easy to look at issues as being clear-cut, simple, and black-and-white, but they rarely, if ever, are.  The age-old question of whether the ends justify the means is a murky one.  The ends for Nelson Mandela involved a peaceful, prosperous South Africa where people of different ethnicities had equal standing.  He held that vision in his mind and used whatever means were at his disposal to achieve it.  In the end he embraced the white community and renounced violence and retribution in order to be true to the vision he had for his country.  For that he does deserve our respect.

When we do not have the benefit of hindsight it becomes a little more difficult to decide the right course of action.  For example, also in the news this week is Iran and their nuclear program.  The United States has vowed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but has just negotiated an agreement with them that would stop sanctions but allow Iran to continue enrichment of Uranium in exchange for allowing inspections.  Israel has vowed to do “whatever it takes” to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, which presumably would include military action.

Sometimes, even hindsight is not 20-20.  At the end of World War 2 Harry Truman made the decision to drop nukes on two Japanese cities, killing innocent men, women, and children in order to bring about an end to the war.  Almost certainly the action did save lives by ending the war sooner but the question of whether the ends justified the means remains.  Truman’s vision was to end the war and stop the bloodshed, and he accomplished that goal.

A couple of hundred years ago a small group of men pledged their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to the vision of creating a new country.  They had a great vision, but the means to that end included violent revolution and war.  Not everyone agreed, but the Revolutionary War was fought anyway.  Had the war been lost, history would have noted just another uprising put down by the British.

The struggle for racial equality in the US had both peaceful and violent components.  The difference in tactics between Martin Luther King and Malcolm X represented different points of view about which “means” were acceptable in bringing about the vision of racial equality.  Dr. King, like Gandhi in his struggle in India, embraced non-violence while still bringing about the change they sought.  It is said that to King and Gandhi non-violence was a philosophy but to Nelson Mandela it was a tool he used.

Sometimes we struggle to bring about a vision of what should be, and sometimes we struggle against what should not be.  When Hitler began his rise in Germany the entire world did not immediately oppose him.  One of the strategies for dealing with Hitler was appeasement.  It was thought that giving Hitler a little room was better than the violence of war.  Unfortunately this strategy did not take into consideration Hitler’s vision or his willingness to embrace any means whatsoever to bring about his vision.  Even when the war began in Europe, Americans saw no need to get involved in stopping the Nazis and their agenda.  The attack on Pearl Harbor, the anniversary of which we also celebrated this week, changed the minds of Americans in a heartbeat.  Suddenly things that had seemed like too much of a price to pay to stop a German tyrant were not just considered but embraced.  By the time Harry Truman dropped the bombs on Japan the cost of that action was justified in the eyes of Americans.

When Ronald Reagan vetoed sanctions against South Africa (his veto was overridden) it was not because he did not want racial equality in South Africa but because he had a terrifying vision of Communism taking over Africa and he was determined not to let that occur.  Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union we have tended to forget Stalin and Khrushchev and Mao and their horrible visions that they wanted to impose on the world.  Reagan was doing “whatever it took” to stop those things from becoming reality.

I watched a documentary this week on North Korea.  North Korea is a totalitarian regime that does not tolerate any dissent.  The people are not free to speak their minds or criticize the government under penalty not only of death but of the death and imprisonment of your entire family.  The reporter who was allowed to visit a North Korean family in their home saw no pictures of family members on the walls of the home, only depictions of their great leader.  Under the eyes of six North Korean government “watchers” the family did nothing but praise the leader and the government.  It was a frightening scenario and it is clear the North Korean government cares about itself and the totalitarian leader and not a whit about their people, many of whom live under deplorable conditions.  The North Korean government does “whatever it takes” to make sure the people stay in line.

In contrast, the people of Egypt have in the last few years taken to the streets and overthrown two leaders, because they did not like where the country was headed and they had a vision of what things could be like and they are determined to bring about the vision they have for their country as a free and democratic nation.  There was violence and bloodshed but they managed to avoid war.

Back to the United States, let’s examine again the idea of a vision of what needs to be, and what means are appropriate to bring about the ends we seek.  For example, we recently came together and agreed that something needed to change with regard to our health care system.  What we had was dysfunctional, prices kept rising out of reach, and many people simply could not afford proper medical care.  There were discussions and debates and proposals and arguments.  We all agreed there was a problem, and we needed a better plan.

Unfortunately, we did not and do not all have the same vision for where we need to end up.  We do not agree on the “ends”, or the means.  Our president had a vision of a health care system managed and controlled by government, a “single-payer” system where everyone would pay into the system based on their ability to pay, and health care would be provided based on individual needs, with government, not insurance companies, making decisions about health care.  He could not manage to bring about the single payer plan but managed to enact a “stepping stone” to it, in Obamacare.  To do so he had to pass a law using special rules and favors for certain states and without a single vote from the opposition party.  He had to make claims that were not true in order to get it passed.  He has had to circumvent the constitution and use executive orders and waivers and delays in order to implement what he wants.  We have to endure price increases and cancellations and poor management, and yet the president has vowed to continue doing “whatever it takes” to see the program implemented.

On the other side of the health care debate are a group of people who have vowed to do “whatever it takes” to stop Obamacare and chief among them is Senator Ted Cruz, who led the charge to shut down the government in order to try and get the law repealed.  Many Republicans agreed with his ends but not his means. 

The attack on the World Trade center was a horrible tragedy and an evil plot carried out by terrorists with their own vision of what the world should look like.  We vowed to do “whatever it takes” to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice, and we went to war as a result, a war that continues to this day.  Also partly as a result of 9-11 we enacted the Patriot Act and expanded the NSA in order to do “whatever it takes” to keep Americans safe from terrorism.  Little did we realize that the means to this end would involve sucking up all of our phone calls and e-mails and eroding our civil liberties.  We set up the Department of Homeland Security to protect us, and they have since bought tons of arms and ammunition and armored military vehicles to “protect us” with.  I don’t believe their vision is the same as mine.

Whether it is Nelson Mandela or Harry Truman or Barack Obama the question of whether or not the ends justify the means remains a thorny one.  Perhaps the answer may be that “it depends”.  First, what is the vision and whose vision is it?  Are you fighting to prevent a terrible future or struggling to create a better one?  Second, what means are you considering and are they, in and of themselves, justifiable?  Lying and dropping a nuclear devise are hardly in the same category but philosophically speaking both are to be avoided if at all possible.

We must also consider who our opponent is, what they have in mind, and what the chances of success are.  Hitler came pretty close to establishing his vision of totalitarianism.  Mandela achieved his goal, as did Reagan.  Truman stopped the war but at a very high price.  The jury may still be out on Obamacare but the president has paid a pretty heavy price for his dishonesty in the court of public opinion.  Whether it will be worth it remains to be seen.

In the end, it is an imperfect world and we are imperfect people.  Nelson Mandela was no saint.  He was a man with a vision, and he was able to bring it about without war.  Our founders created the greatest nation on earth but had to shed blood to do so.  It may be that history will call on us to make tough decisions, to stop tyranny or right wrongs that need to be righted.  The decisions will not be made with the benefit of hindsight and it may not be clear what the right path is.  But men with courage and vision and conviction will always be among us.  Let’s hope they consider the means, and not just the ends.