Jun 17

(Though many don’t want to believe it, the world is getting safer. There will be an end to war, someday, if the world works towards it. To read the rest of our posts on “The World is Getting Safer”, click here.)

This next rebuttal to “anti-pollyannas” (as I call them) isn’t a logical fallacy, but more a plea: fact check your assertions. More importantly, double check that the person you're arguing against hasn’t already debunked said fact.

John Arquilla, in his Foreign Policy article “The Big Kill”, cites a disturbing piece of evidence: civilians are dying in war at greater rates than the past!

“In World War I, perhaps only 10 percent of the 10 million-plus who died were civilians. The number of noncombatant deaths jumped to as much as 50 percent of the 50 million-plus lives lost in World War II, and the sad toll has kept on rising ever since. Perhaps the worst, but hardly the only, terrible example of this trend can be seen in the Congo war — flaring up again right now — in which over 90 percent of the several million dead were noncombatants.”

John Gray’s article in The Guardian paraphrases (and links to) Arquilla’s argument:

“Around a million of the 10 million deaths due to the first world war were of non‑combatants, whereas around half of the more than 50 million casualties of the second world war and over 90% of the millions who have perished in the violence that has wracked the Congo for decades belong in that category.”

There are a number of problems with both these quotes and this argument...

First, this factoid has been debunked. Turns out that academics, like William Eckhardt, studying fatalities and war throughout history, have estimated that “The civilian percentage share of war-related deaths remained at about 50% from century to century." This incorrect factoid about civilian deaths in war was invented in the early nineties and has been erroneously repeated, even by academics, ever since. Thanks Wikipedia!

Second, fact-check your assertions. Gray cites Arquilla, but didn’t bother googling this fact himself.

Third, this is an example of moving the goalposts. The above critics argue civilian deaths matter more than regular deaths. But Pinker, Goldstein, Tertais, and others are arguing that overall violence related to war is decreasing. It’s a different argument. But say you wanted to go with that argument...

Fourth, what constitutes a civilian? Neither Arquilla nor Gray make a solid definition. If they had, they’d run into the tricky problem of explaining why soldiers conscripted to fight in World War I had lives that were less valuable than civilians at the time. (Also, the Sedition Act made it a crime to criticize the draft, so if you wanted to speak out against the draft, you’d go to jail. Ask Eugene V. Debs.)

Is a soldier who was drafted, coerced or conscripted into military service really worth less than a civilian? (Not to mention social ostracization depending on the popularity of a war at the time.) Does this distinction matter? Does this affect John Arquilla’s belief that we need to reinstate the draft?

Fifth, this example is a firmly 20th century example. One of the reasons why deaths in war have plummeted from olden times (think the Thirty Years War as the peak of “total war”) is that civilians are targeted much less frequently. In the 16th century, 18th and 20th centuries, besides conscripting entire armies, those same armies roamed the countryside eating all the food, raping all the women, and stealing all the plunder. If you weren’t murdered, you were enslaved. Listen to Dan Carlin’s series on Genghis Khan and tell me civilians made out great in the middle ages.

Sixth, and most importantly, Pinker himself already debunked this fact. Gray and Arquilla could have read Pinker’s debunking on pages 317 to 320 of The Better Angels of Our Nature.

So anyone writing a review who cites this debunked factoid, is, well, being very disingenuous. And writing a very poor review.

Jun 15

(To read other “Facts Behaving Badly”, please click here.)

Here’s an odd question, from the first line of the The Social Network, “Did you know there are more people with genius I.Q.s living in China than there are people of any kind living in the United States?”

I did not know that.

And though I loved the film, this line always stuck me as wrong. Why? Basic arithmetic. Definitionally, to “have a genius IQ”, you have to be in the top 2% of intellectual prowess and cognitive ability. Since China has approximately a billion people, 2% of their population is about 20 million people.

I think there are more than 20 million people living in America. (Unless one-third of the Chinese people are geniuses...which doesn’t sound realistic does it?)

Writing up posts on the media, Iraq and the military at the start of the year, I remembered another “Fact Behaving Badly” I hadn’t written about yet. Many of the guests on political talk shows during the lead up to war are from the military and most--if not all--support future military interventions.

But this odd fact--that soldiers and generals support war--contradicts the wisdom passed down to Michael and me by my father when we were kids. Our dad has taught us an old adage about the military: soldiers hate war. But don’t take his word for it. Here is a legitimate, not-behaving-badly quote from a soldier on war:

I hate war as only a soldier can.”

- Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Address before the Canadian Club, Ottawa, Canada, January 10th, 1946

This isn’t a hard fact, like the debunked Social Network quote from above, but it’s still a “Fact Behaving Badly”, or at least an “Adage Behaving Badly”. On a purely factual basis, do some soldiers hate war? Probably. I can’t debunk that. Do all soldiers hate war? Absolutely not. So we should probably stop repeating this adage, unless we change it to the less impactful addendum “Some soldiers hate war”.

As has been widely discussed since the release of The Hurt Locker, some soldiers and veterans fall in love with the thrill of battle. Sebastian Junger described the phenomenon here, of which he is a self-described victim. (Junger after having seen the devastation of war first hand, still wanted military intervention in Syria.) Many inexperienced soldiers love going to war to see what it’s like, as we wrote about here and here. Officers love war because, frankly, nothing advances a career like successfully leading a battalion, brigade or division in war. And retired generals have a financial self-interest to support future wars; when they leave military service, many generals join the boards of defense contractors and think tanks.

So, adage debunked. But there’s a more concerning rhetorical flourish to this adage, as our next two quotes will prove, emphasis mine, that we need to debunk:

Nearly all soldiers—and this applies even to professional soldiers in peacetime—have a sane attitude towards war. They realise that it is disgusting, and that it may often be necessary.

- George Orwell, August 1944

This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: 'Only the dead have seen the end of war.'"

- General George MacArthur, West Point, May 12th, 1962

First off, yes, MacArthur misquoted Plato. More importantly, both Orwell and MacArthur take the sentiment “soldiers hate war” and add the qualifier “but we should still go to war.” It takes the first sentiment, “War is awful. I’m a soldier. I’ve seen it.” and adds “...so when I tell you we need to go to war, you can trust me.” Coming from Orwell, writing in the middle of World War II, the sentiment is understandable. Coming from MacArthur, who was relieved of command because he was trying to escalate a war, well, you see the danger in this line of reasoning.

The MacArthur/Orwell point of view is both more popular and more dangerous. And a very sneaky rhetorical device. Basically, they’re arguing that because soldiers and veterans hate war so much, if they think we should go to war, well, you know they must be right. They’d only argue for it in the most dire circumstances; it’s not in their self-interest as soldiers, allegedly, though, as I showed above, it actually is.

Which brings us to our last example, from John McCain in the 2008 presidential campaign.

Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war...I hate war, and I know how terrible its costs are.

- From a 2008 TV ad.

I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description....Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war.”

- From a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

Wow. That’s a powerful anti-war statement. But McCain follows the “I hate war, so when I tell you we need to fight another one, you know you can trust me” rhetorical playbook perfectly. In his speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, he continues:

But we must also have an aggressive strategy of confronting and rooting out the terrorists wherever they seek to operate...I hold my position because I hate war...we must sometimes pay those wages to avoid paying even higher ones later.

For someone who “hates” and “detests” war, John McCain sure wants us to fight a lot of them. In Iraq. In Iraq again. In Syria. In Iran. In Ukraine. In Libya.

And that is the danger with adages like this one.

Jun 11

(Though many don’t want to believe it, the world is getting safer. There will be an end to war, someday, if the world works towards it. To read the rest of our posts on “The World is Getting Safer”, click here.)

Probably the most frustrating rhetorical technique you can encounter when you’re debating a topic is “moving the goal posts”, usually used by an opponent losing an argument.

For example, say you’re arguing for marijuana legalization, debating all the pros and cons, and then your opponent says, “Well, if you want to legalize marijuana, shouldn’t we legalize heroin? But heroin is so dangerous!” No, we’re not arguing about heroin or drug legalization more broadly--marijuana is much less dangerous than heroin--we’re debating legalizing marijuana.

Critics of the “world is getting safer” theory (“anti-pollyannas” as I call them) move the goal posts a lot. Though the argument is about whether society is less violent--using real, physical violence--critics move the goal posts asking, what about other metaphorical forms of violence? What about “slower” forms of violence? What about income inequality? Or America’s prison population? (You can find examples of this phenomenon here and here.)

First off, most “slower” forms of violence have also probably gone down. (For example, more countries are democracies today than at about anytime in world history.)

More importantly, the problem with critics citing these “slower” forms of violence is they are moving the goal posts. Pinker, Horgan, and others aren’t arguing all violence has disappeared or will disappear, just that wars and violence are becoming less frequent.

To see one example of moving the goal posts, as will happen a lot in this series, we’ll turn to John Gray,:

Then again, the idea that violence is declining in the most highly developed countries is questionable. Judged by accepted standards, the United States is the most advanced society in the world. According to many estimates the US also has the highest rate of incarceration, some way ahead of China and Russia, for example.

In short, an anecdote that willfully ignores the global prison population or whether that global prison population is trending up or down. Though America has a massive over-incarceration problem, it’s an exception to the larger trend. Europe doesn’t have a massive over-incarceration problem, which, again, proves that the world is getting safer. Some people debunking Pinker actually point this out, without realizing...they’re proving his point. (And this argument is about more than America.)

Professor Christian Davenport makes a similar “moving the goal posts” argument:

“In my view, states engage in not less but different levels of severity—for example “torture-lite” (e.g., immobilizing individuals to make them more physically manipulable [sic] instead of old-school torture such as removing skin from individuals, stun grenades instead of real ones…”

Me personally? I prefer stun grenades to real grenades. Or not having my skin ripped off. Later, he equates killing someone for theft versus imprisoning them; it takes a real leap of logic to argue that the latter isn’t an improvement over the former. As bad as the American Justice system/prison system can be, our modern legal system is infinitely better than either mob rule (lynchings) or the divine right of kings and aristocrats capriciously doling out capital punishment.

More importantly, arguing that the world is getting better doesn’t mean you’re arguing that everything is perfect. To correct the issues of the “legal system” of the ancient world, we adopted the modern legal and penal system. But that system has problems. What happens next? We fix it.

The reason violence has gone down is that humanity has gotten better, and also gotten better at getting better. I could see, in relatively short time, America reforming its prison system. We’ll be writing about this more in our ‘Most Thought-Provoking Event of the Half Year”. Prosecutors across America are already taking steps to address racial disparities in the justice system and it should be an issue in the 2016 election.

But here’s the rub: say in the next ten years America cuts its prison population in half and abolished crueler practices like indefinite solitary confinement. Would the person arguing against the “world is getting safer” theory change their mind? Will they say, “Huh, I guess the world is getting safer?”

I’d predict no. There will always be other problems in the world, and the pessimists will perpetually find new things to complain about and say, “This new problem exists, thus the world isn’t getting safer”, despite the evidence.

And that’s really why moving the goal posts is a fallacious argument.

Jun 10

(Though many don’t want to believe it, the world is getting safer. There will be an end to war, someday, if the world works towards it. To read the rest of our posts on “The World is Getting Safer”, click here.)

It’s a cruel world out there, folks. Turn on CNN and you hear about another plane crash. Turn on Fox News and see ISIS taking another town. Hell, even the the local morning news broadcast has a story every day about a shooting or car accident.

Sociologists have a word for this: “mean world syndrome”. Mass media makes violence seems more prevalent than it actually is. This doesn’t just apply to the average person; it also applies to critics and academics who don’t think the world is getting safer. (Or as I dub them, “anti-pollyannas”.) In other words...

They use anecdotes!

Imagine someone who is trying to disprove that the world’s population is growing larger, pointing out that their grandmother just died. Or imagine a global warming denialist pointing out that it’s snowing outside. No one said that people weren’t dying and that there would be no more winters. They said the population is growing and average global temperatures are rising.

For most anti-pollyannas, the best way to disprove the “world is getting safer” theory is to bring up an anecdote of an isolated incident of violence. No one said violence no longer exists, we said it’s becoming rarer. (Ironically, as the world gets safer, incidents of violence may actually get more news coverage.)

Commenters here at On Violence have provided us two perfect examples of using anecdotes. As we wrote about a few weeks ago, someone on the blog argued the world isn’t getting safer because North Korea is a dictatorship. Next, we had a comment on Facebook that the world isn’t getting safer for cartoonists. Looking at the statistics and larger trends instead of isolated anecdotes, the world is getting more democratic and safer for expressions of free speech.

(In response to my question about the larger statistics on cartoonist deaths, the Faceboook commentator brought up gun control.)

Using anecdotes isn’t limited to internet commentators. Take Elizabeth Kolbert (who I love, especially for her work on the environment) in her review for The New Yorker (a magazine I adore) of The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker. She opens by describing the mass shooting in Norway a few years ago, an anecdote. But homicides in Europe are down over the last 50 years, last 100 years and last 500 years. This anecdote doesn’t prove a thing.

Or take Ross Douthat (who I don’t love) for The New York Times (which I still kind of respect), who opens his op-ed about Pinker’s book by describing the threat posed to Coptic Christians, “They may not survive the Arab spring.” Well, that doesn’t disprove Pinker’s theory. Statistically, mass genocide is way, way down. And it’s not even a good anecdote: the Coptic Christians survived the Arab spring.

This blog post, by professor Christian Davenport, counters the “world is getting safer” theory by arguing, “After looking at political violence data for about 20 years and witnessing Darfur, the DRC, and Rwanda over the last few decades, I have my doubts.” First off, Davenport should have stopped the sentence at “looking at political violence data” then cited that data. But he uses the anecdotal example about violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to debunk Pinker. Using upper estimates, about 5.4 million people died in their various civil wars that closed the twentieth century, or less than 10% of the country’s population.

Was that really worse than Belgian colonialism at the close of the nineteenth century?

According to scholars, ten million people died under Belgian rule from 1885 to 1908 or 20% of the country. In both absolute and relative terms, shockingly, even Congo has witnessed a decrease in violence. (And the Congo Civil war was the deadliest war the world had seen since World War II.) For a conflict scholar who has studied the region, he should know that. Of course, he didn’t witness that devastation with his own eyes and society didn’t have cameras to capture it either.

And I can keep going, citing Andrew Brown in The Guardian (“This news [that wars are less common] must come as a relief to the inhabitants of Iraq.”) or the blog Utopia or Dystopia (“Regardless of tragedies such as the horrendous school shooting at Newtown...”) or Frank Hoffman in War on the Rocks. The website World Beyond War has an entire article that cites a lot of numbers about deaths in American wars, but doesn’t analyze a single trend.

Edward S. Herman and David Peterson only use anecdotes to debunk Pinker, the more American the anecdote the better. They write, “Whereas in Pinker’s view there has been a “Long Peace” since the end of the Second World War, in the real world there has been a series of long and devastating U.S. wars”. I’m pretty sure those wars are included in Pinker’s data about battle deaths, and I’m also pretty sure there were devastating wars (American and not) before that time period.

The problem with anecdotes is that they’re just that, anecdotes. They don’t prove trends. As we pointed out earlier, saying “The world is getting safer” isn’t saying “Violence is extinct.”

Again, think about the “mean world syndrome”. Many of these critics wouldn’t have anecdotes to open their writing without mass media. Andrew Brown, from England, cites the Newtown massacre in America for a newspaper based in England. Elizabeth Kolbert, for the New Yorker, cites an example in Norway. Would either of these writers be able to use these examples without mass communication? Probably not, which is why they think violence is unchanging.

Step away from the coverage, look at the numbers and you’ll see, yes, the world is getting safer.

Jun 08

(Though many don’t want to believe it, the world is getting safer. There will be an end to war, someday, if the world works towards it. To read the rest of our posts on “The World is Getting Safer”, click here.)

What’s the opposite of a “pollyanna”?

A “pollyanna” is someone who irrationally expects the best. Optimism without evidence. So what’s term for a pessimist who predicts doom as illogically and unreasonably as a “pollyanna”, someone who assumes the worst, even though their world view isn’t based in fact?

Reading the critics of the-world-is-getting-safer “pollyannas” optimists like John Horgan, Steven Pinker, Joshua Goldstein, Bruno Tertais, John Mueller and so on, I’ve decided I (Eric C) need to figure it out. (From Michael C: Real-world-ist?)   

As I wrote a few weeks ago in the introduction to our recent salvo on the world getting safer, I’ve been researching the criticisms of Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature. Mainly, I wanted to make sure I was keeping an open mind, not falling into the trap of a confirmation bias, which seems especially likely on this subject. (I would have focused more on Horgan and Goldstein’s critics, but their books didn’t have the same reach, so they didn’t have the same pushback.)

In short, I’ve been very disappointed with the criticism.

Critics of the “world is getting safer” theory twist logic in ways that, frankly, make no sense. Trying to refute Pinker, Goldstein and others, these “anti-pollyannas” commit obvious logical fallacies. They don’t want to believe (believe being the key word) the world is getting safer, guided more by emotions than logic.

I’ve found at least five examples of logical fallacies critics (or “anti-pollyannas”) use to debunk the “world is getting safer” theory, but there is one bias that overwhelms them all:

Confirmation bias.

Some critics just can’t let go of their current worldview. For the far-left, this means pushing back against the idea that free trade, globalism and state governments have made the world safer. Arguing that the world is getting safer, in their minds, absolves America of its warmongering. The title of “Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence” says it all. The website World Beyond War has an article, “War Is Not Going To End On Its Own” (we agree with this) which argues, “The fictional account of war going away treats Western civilization and capitalism as forces for peace”.

I should point out the irony that those on the far left have aligned themselves with military strategists on this issue, like Donald Rumsfeld advisor John Arquilla, Frank Hoffman and Colin S. Gray who believe war is eternal and isn’t going away. John Grey and Frank Hoffman cite “Plato” debunked quote that “Only the dead have seen the end of war” as proof. (Already debunked by Michael C here.) For right-wing, pro-war politicians and generals, “The world is a dangerous place”.

Both of these viewpoints are dangerous. The pro-war/pro-military intervention types advocate for keeping the American military “ready for war”, which really means keeping it gigantic, which endangers the world. This increases the risk of war around the globe.

The far-left anti-imperialists, on the other hand, have undercut their own success. I’d argue that the work of anti-war activists to document deaths in war zones have made war more unpalatable to the general population. But knee-jerk arguments against Pinker make them appear ineffective. It’s the same problem that faces foreign aid: we’ve been giving money to Africa since the 1980s and people are still starving, so let’s stop trying to help.

No, let’s highlight the successes. (Poverty and starvation are down, globally.)

And by blaming America, democracy and capitalism for violence, despite the evidence, alienates them from the wider population, limiting their anti-war message. As longtime commenter and friend of the blog S.O. has pointed out, the anti-war voices in the world don’t have much reach.

Another bias is at play here, availability bias. More precisely, “anti-pollyannas” fall victim to the “mean world syndrome”. Daily exposure to mass media depictions of violence make people think “the world is more dangerous than it actually is”. If you spend your days studying war (either to decry it or perfect it), a book about how war is on the decline just won’t resonate.

But it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

Jun 01

One of the joys of writing this blog--and something I think we are particularly good at here at On Violence--is coming up with wild ideas to improve our national security. Some favs: An International Criminal Court for Terrorists, Criminals and Pirates. Sending US Brigades on peacekeeping missions. Making Iran our ally in the Middle East.

Today, I present a new one: governments around the world need an Espionage Control Treaty.

I came up with this idea after revelations that the US had been spying on German Chancellor Angela Merkel It was later revealed Angela Merkel had authorized German foreign intelligence service to spy on Germans for the NSA and she is now paying a political price for that. Since that revelation, there have been several repeated espionage snafus that make me think we need this more than ever.

- During negotiations with Iran, it was revealed that Israel was spying on US Secretary of State John Kerry and the negotiations.

- Recently, we discovered that the Russians had tapped into President Obama’s cell phone.

- China has been accused of spying on American corporations to steal intellectual property.

Since you can’t have a really good treaty without a really good acronym (START is probably the king of all treaties in this regard), we need one for this too. I propose “Restrictions on Espionage and Spying Treaty”, or REST.

REST would prohibit, ban or limit forms of international spying. For instance, it could say that governments won’t steal secrets from private individuals or corporations. Or it could prohibit sweeping up electronic communications and sharing them with allies. Or even all human intelligence collection on other governments. In short, it would make most clandestine spying illegal and against international norms.

Now I can hear some established national security voices clearing their throats to call me naive. They’re already preparing to say, “Did you really not realize that we spied on foreign governments? Did you not think they spied on us back?”

Of course I did.

But the brazen spying on a supposed ally by the US did surprise me. In hindsight, it was fairly easy to predict the diplomatic damage. But just because something--like espionage--is always done, doesn’t mean we have to--as a global community--keeping doing it (like slavery or war). And there are two great reasons why we could use this treaty.

First, intelligence could be the biggest waste of national security spending in the world right now. A lot of countries (not the US!), have dramatically restrained their spending on their militaries, but still spend boatloads keeping spies in the field. As Eric C wrote in his “Two Thoughts on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” post, spying often just wastes time, energy and money. Spies try to collect information, while counter-intelligence folks spread misinformation, and then the spies get that misinformation, understand it is misinformation then spread more. A lot of it seems not much better than guesswork.

Second, this is really the only way for the citizens of the global world to ensure our rights to privacy. Right now, the US can promise not to spy on its own citizens, but that doesn’t apply to British, German or Australian citizens. And those countries can agree to protect the privacy rights of their citizens, but still spy on Americans. Then the intelligence services can just swap information. And even if you trust the UK, Australia and other western governments, do you trust the Chinese or Russian governments? Me neither.

So let’s get to some obvious counter-arguments.

First, we wouldn’t “unilaterally disarm”. I bring this up because I can imagine someone saying, “We’re going to give up all our spies and let China spy on us?” Absolutely not. The entire point of a treaty is to ensure a country doesn’t do something unilaterally. So the US isn’t going to stop spying on other countries until it has agreements in place.

This leads to the second counter, which we receive on the blog all of the time, “Is this really enforceable? Do you trust other countries?” Well, as much as I trusted the Russians when we first established arms control treaties. Or trust opponents in war to follow the Geneva Conventions. Essentially, any Espionage Control Treaty would have the same safeguards as any international treaty. Having a treaty, though, gives us a pathway to both inspections and starts the world on a path for a new global norm.

Of course, America doesn’t always follow its treaty commitments. Think Geneva Conventions and the war on terror. That said, treaties help create international norms and I would love for a norm that enforced the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution worldwide. As a person who believes the values that founded America are universal, I’d love a treaty that starts that conversation.

The next argument, what about all the useful information we would lose? As I said above, I’m not too worried. For the most part spies write reports that become footnotes in other reports that are synthesized in even larger reports and no one ever reads most of them. Those reports, the slight edge we go for, are really just one or two steps above news reports, and maybe not even that high. (Remember when the CIA failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union? Remember when the CIA said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?) We could still fund analyst shops to analyze the world; we just don’t need spies collecting vague human intelligence sources and collecting all our digital history.

And what about the terrorists? As I linked to above, a hypothetical “International Criminal Court for Terrorists” would handle those criminal investigations.

Do I think this one will ever happen? Of course not. The spies would hate it. Would we be in a better world with it? Of course.

May 20

(Today's post is a guest post by longtime contributor Matty P. If you would like to guest write for us, please check out our guest post guidelines.)

While doing my weekly web crawling for video game news, I came across what seemed like any other example of exploitive violence showcasing the downloadable content for a (at the time) new game. It’s the typical highlight reel of action and gameplay showing off the “all the creative ways [the columnist] offed history’s worst person.”

I found the article, video, and comments that followed intriguing. Immediately, I noticed I lacked the same enthusiasm with the portrayal of Hitler’s death as most people who commented on the video. Unsurprisingly, this made me introspective.

The graphics seem on par with other B list games and boasted animation that slows to an x-ray mode so you can see bone shatter and the dictator’s heart explode. It’s not quite the over-the-top gratuitous face-exploding Hitler-killing in Inglorious Basterds, which On V has previously discussed, but it aims for a similar strange satisfaction derived from the killing of a mass murderer. Instead of feeling that rush of enthusiasm or laughing as Hitler’s testicles exploded, I simply shrugged and contemplated our culture’s fascination with Nazis as the archetypal villain.

On Violence guest posters have addressed previously the role and effect of video games in our culture. A while back, guest poster Will wrote how active participation in a fantasy world can blur the lines between fiction and reality, and I repeat the same. Video games are both reflect and impact our culture. Take the hyperbolic assertion of Hilter as the worst person in history made above by Gameinformer’s columnist. While a matter of perspective, there are a variety of villains in human history, even from the same time period, in contention as the worst person in history. Consider Adolf Eichmann, one of the Holocaust’s actual architects or Himmler the head of the SS. There is also my personal least favorite person; Josef Mengele, a physician who oversaw the terrifying medical experimentation on human beings.

On the opposite side of the war but with similar detest for the Jewish race was Stalin. Then there are monsters whose contributions to human history can be measured in the insurmountable number of lives they contributed in taking or encouraged others to take in their name such as Gengis Khan, Mao Zetong, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Nero, and Caligula.

But the Nazi’s have become the symbol in our culture for the evils of mankind. Consider Fox News’ prominent use of the Nazi regime as a talking point or even the prominent use of Nazi’s in video games as an enemy force.

Killing Nazis in video games is not a new concept. As far back as the original Wolfenstein, we’ve been virtually slaughtering the SS and their commanders. The original Bionic Commando actually allowed kids to make it all the way to the Fuhrer himself and end the regime with his death. We, as consumers, are fine with killing Nazis. After all, we are playing a first person shooter or an action game and there must be an enemy to defeat. Plus, it’s that much more acceptable if our hero is of Jewish descent.

There is only so far we can go with fighting aliens and monsters. At the same time we’re not okay with the Nazis being Nazis. In the original Wolfenstein, creators took heat for portraying the swastika in the game. Even in Sniper Elite, the patch on the Hitler’s arm is not the African division of the German army’s symbol; a palm tree atop the swastika, but a palm tree alone. Other games have tried to diversify the villains, including most notably, Homefront. It simulated a communist invasion of the US by communist forces similar to the movie Red Dawn. But the villains originally meant to be Chinese became North Koreans because portraying China as an enemy would hurt the development company Kaos Games.

I have no affection for Hilter or the things he did or help perpetuate, but I’m beginning to think the way our culture portrays Nazism and Hilter is distorting the lessons we should be learning from one of the greatest tragedies in human history. First and chiefly, the Holocaust did not happen because of one man, but because of an oppressive regime and a frightened complicit people. Second, the danger and ease with which hate and fear can be channeled. And third, the importance of being an active participant in democracy so decisions are not made for you. And lastly, the evils of the present will mirror those of the past.

Consider our present. Racism and hatred are still alive and well and even more prominent than most of us would like to admit. Consider the following over examples:

- Let’s start locally.

- Nazi idealism alive.

- Greece’s fascist party.

- And ISIS.

Or the number of past and active genocides you may not have been aware of.

The simple point being that the simulated assassination of Hitler seems an impotent expression of rage at the evils humanity perpetrated against itself. Video games are an outlet for me as much as a source of entertainment. But there is a distinct difference between the video game industry’s ability to add to the discourse of our culture so long as the focus of games is on things like how gruesomely we can assassinate one of history’s worst people.

Matty P is an avid gamer and PA pediatrician. He has been a youth pastor, ordained minister and EMT. He has also participated in medical relief missions and ministry outreach in Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Just for the record, he is also Jewish by heritage.

May 18

On the surface, the last few years have been terrible for the so-called “head in the sand types” like me who don’t understand that…

1. There are truly evil people in the world.

2. Wars are a fact of life.

Since 2010, in part because of the Arab Spring and its multiple revolutions, insurgencies and general instability, the world has never seemed so violent. More importantly, the U.S. can’t stop intervening in warzones. In addition to trying to wind down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the media/politicians have seriously discussed starting wars (“intervening militarily” in newspeak) in Libya, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Syria and the Ukraine. According to some Republican politicians, only Obama’s weakness has prevented the U.S. from fighting in these places, er, making the world safer.

This seems really bad for liberalism in international relations. Apparently, war isn’t becoming less likely, as Stephen Pinker, John Horgan and others have argued. We almost started six wars in just the last three years!   

Except for that pesky word “almost”. The U.S. avoided wars in North Korea, Syria and Iran, and looks set to both stop Russia from invading the rest of Ukraine while avoiding a nuclear war with Russia. We are close to signing an historic deal with Iran.

I give almost all the credit to liberalism in international relations. Liberal foreign policy--promoting free trade, democracy and international institutions--has accomplished its goals: to further economic growth, create peace and expand liberty across the globe. Along the way, it also prevents unnecessary wars. Here’s how:

1. Democratic politics constrain the executive.

In the case of Syria, the battle between the executive and the legislature stopped a full-blown war.

In the original writings of Enlightenment thinkers, the whole concept of a President was supposed to mimic a monarch. In other words, a dictator. Since the presidency of George Washington, America has always restrained the power of the executive with the checks and balances. Since the Civil War, the power of the presidency compared to the legislature has grown, even under President Obama, who promised to limit executive power. When this happens, disastrous wars like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have been too easy for the executive branch to pursue.

Syria seems to have reversed that trend. The American people refused to let one man--President Obama--decide to start another war. So did the British government. (Again, anyone who defines cruise missile strikes as “not war” needs to look in the mirror and ask, “What is war?”) Most of the arguments for a war with Syria--based on credibility, based on deterring Iran, based on avoiding making President Obama look “weak”--are the arguments for maintaining an executive branch that can declare war unilaterally, like a dictatorship.

Instead, we saw the legislative branch restrain the executive. (And the same thing happened in England.)

I’d add Iraq to this discussion too. Though, arguably, Iraq is in worse shape than any point during our occupation, Obama really, really, really doesn’t want to add ground troops to the conflict. In this case, though some conservatives/liberals and media types are pushing for war in Iraq through hyperbolic ISIS coverage, Obama won’t put boots on the ground without Congressional approval.

2. Economic disincentives discouraged Russia and Iran.

After their invasion of Crimea, the Russian economy went in a tailspin. Their main stock market plummeted. The ruble fell precipitously, forcing the Russian Central Bank to raise interest rates. Foreign investment plummeted next. The markets only calmed down after Vladimir Putin promised no further military action.

Iran experienced similar damage when the P5+1 imposed sanctions, which helped bring them to the negotiating table. Iran remained at the table, and agreed to the terms of a deal as well, because those years of crippling sanctions stalled reasonable economic growth.

The problem that neo-conservatives and unrealistic realists can’t understand is that war isn’t profitable anymore. If Putin continues to push on Ukraine, the result won’t be a war (which could escalate quickly into a nuclear conflict), but greater economic isolation. Removing a huge economy like Russia from the global economy wouldn’t just hurt Russia; it would hurt the entire globe. In short, everyone would lose much more than Russia would stand to gain from “expanding its sphere of influence”.

Of course, Putin could choose to do so anyways and watch as his economy spirals further. It’s not like a Russian ruler has ever been deposed for completely mismanaging a war.

3. International institutions are now the norm.

They help restrain powers. The U.S. and Israel both rely on the U.N. Atomic Energy Commission to investigate Iranian nuclear power. Suspending Russia from the G8 hurt Russian power. A host of international institutions help restrain war with North Korea by coordinating responses to North Korean aggression.

And they helped stop a war in Syria. Sure, the U.N. couldn’t stop a war with Iraq, but it sure stopped one in Syria. Having witnessed the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the inherent difficulty in controlling Libya, most of the world simply refused to fight another war in the Middle East. Thus, President Obama faced the prospect of going to war without the support of the U.N., NATO or the Arab League, or even staunch allies like the United Kingdom. Sure, you could condemn Obama’s coalition building skills, but the more important point is how much weight nations around the world--and even Americans--now put on international institutions. This won’t prevent all inter-state wars forever, but it will help to make them less likely.

(As with all my articles on foreign policy, I have to again clarify that I am referring to liberalism in international relations—which means advocating the principles of international institutions, democracy, and free trade, among other ideals—as opposed to political liberalism—which is an entirely different thing altogether. International relations liberalism holds that as democracy spreads, international institutions strengthen and free trade increases, the number of wars occurring around the world will decline.)