War, Power and Failure: The Politics of Picking Fights

"They have different priorities," Mr. Shaban said of the military wing.  "Don't send rockets while we don't have milk for our children."

The Middle East has become a tragic caricature of the politics of human failings.  Pick any side in the conflict, and you will find plenty of justification for position and rationale for actions taken.  Spin doctors and apologists will gladly help you.

We in the West can cluck our tongues and shake our heads at the obstinate madness of it all - if those people would just put shared survival ahead of individual survival, less people would be dying and suffering - but I go back to the caricature part.

See, we work the same way.  The only difference is the severity of our conflicts and hey, escalation does takes time to spark into war.  World War I was started by one assassination, but had been stewing for much, much longer.

Read the article linked above the whole way through.  Study what it tells us about Hamas, the political strategy behind picking fights and how that fight was seen as the most secure investment that would bring a return of continued power.  

Find it disgusting?  The way resources needed by the people were funneled towards infrastructure for war? How about the cynical, aggressive spin portraying them as bad guys that only we have the ability to stop, as indicated by the hits we've inflicted? 

That's not unique to Hamas, folks; that's our modern political landscape across the board.

One of the lessons I have been taught (but rejected) by political strategists in every corner of the political spectrum is the importance of picking fights.  You can't please everyone, the saying goes, so instead, pick the people you're going to piss off.  It's a more secure investment, attacking one group to mobilize another; you get to demonstrate "leadership" by presenting narrow priorities to a coalition of people you think will vote for you and then shellac your chosen bad guys.

This is the world of War Room politics.

We saw it when the Ontario Liberals took on their traditional allies, teachers, in a by-election in Kitchener-Waterloo.   We saw it from the Ontario PCs when they declared war on foreigners or the public service. We see it federally by a government that is increasingly demonizing everyone - opposition parties, activists, the public service, the courts, etc.

Check your inboxes, people, for all the donation requests we get.  Only our leader can keep the bad guys at bay, they say.  We've scored XX wins because we've had the ammunition to take those bad guys on in the media and whatnot.  Your dollars make the difference!

It's war bonds.  War bonds, War Rooms, fight the good fight, etc.

How many millions do political parties rake in?  How much of that gets invested in walking the walk?  How many volunteer hours do seasoned political strategists, logicians and fundraisers donate to the communities they supposedly want to help as a gesture of good will, of actual leadership?  What do political parties give back, beyond the promise of what they could do if they had power? 

I'd love to see some open data on this one.

The reality is that enemies are chosen for strategic value and fights are picked as ways to gain support, be it money or votes.  All the millions of dollars raised that could go to helping youth from marginalized communities develop entrepreneurial skills goes into the pockets of high-priced experts who aren't spending their earnings in ways that help these people directly.

The undeniable skill of those experts gets sucked into the political ether instead of being applied, even if in moderation, to helping build up the people themselves.

Don't like being compared to Hamas, war room people?  Too frickin' bad.  You can confabulate the differences and degrees all you want; you can justify your actions by demonizing whoever you want, including me.  

The fact remains that the processes used and the overarching rationale is the same.  Pick a fight, wrest resources, score some PR wins and keep hammering your opponents.  That's how you win; that's how everyone else loses.

Yes, attack ads work in mobilizing some people - in the same way drug abuse is a sure-fire way for folk to escape the harsh realities of life.  Do you think a single Gazan would support Hamas if there was an alternative that could demonstrably offer an end to war and an improvement of life?

The black-hat, white-hat "loathe your enemy, step on their throat"-types are hell bent on destroying all alternatives that aren't them.  They don't want the people to have security, safety, good jobs or a quality of life unless it comes through them.

That's not leadership.  That's tyranny.  It doesn't matter if you brand yourself as a tax-fighter or an elite-fighter or a man of the people or whatever; actions speak louder than words.  

When you accept collateral damage as the cost of winning, and invest in war more than the people, you are letting us all down.

Not that a general "we" matters - every time you use the words "coalition of voters" you reinforce the fact that governance is not your priority.  

Leaders don't buy conflict to force others to give concessions.  That's what North Korea does.  Leaders take responsibility for their people and will tear down their own walls if that's what it takes to build homes for their community.

Rockets vs milk.  Different priorities.

On days like today, I weep for humanity.