Emotional Intelligence | Main Page on American Politics

What it Means to Be an American

I was born in the USA: I have a passport. But I strongly oppose what the Bush administration is doing. So does that make me more of an American or less? Does it make me a "traitor" or an "enemy combatant"?

Over the past 7 years I have gotten very involved in the lives of many young people, believing I could make a difference. I am inclined to think this is part of what makes me an "American." To me, an American is someone who is idealistic. Who is guided by ideals, dreams, principles. To me, an American is someone who believes each person can make a difference. In their communities, in their schools, in their country and in the world.

But to make a difference, you have to get involved. To get involved you have to take some risks. You have to make some sacrifices. When you see two people fighting, you can either keep on walking or get involved and try to stop the fight. If you try to stop the fight, you might get hurt yourself in the process. But to me, this is what we, as Americans, do. We get involved. We try to stop the fights.

We try to stop abuse. We try to stop oppression.

But somehow we have lost sight of the larger picture. Somehow we have been led astray.

I am not quite sure how this happened, but it definitely has happened.

We have invaded Iraq, something which will likely prove to be the biggest foreign, and domestic, policy mistake in the history of the country. I feel encouraged to see that even the Republicans are now starting to refer to it as a "mistake", but they are divided in what to do about it.

One thing I can suggest is very simple. Admit it. Apologize for it. Try to make amends.

This works amazingly well on an individual level, and I suspect it will work better than the alternatives on an international level.

I believe Americans owe the Muslim and Arab world an apology. I believe to be an American it means to be able to admit your mistakes, and to apologize. Many Americans refer to themselves as Christians. I believe this is also the path Christ himself would follow. Though I do not label myself with any form of religious affiliation, I share many of the ideals promoted by the original Christian. I suspect, if he were actually to return, he would feel terribly saddened to see what is happening in his name and in the world. From my readings of the Old Testament and the New Testament, Jesus truly was a revolutionary thinker and he would not support the Bush administration's "Old Testament thinking".

I would like to see the people in America reflect on what really are the ideals and principles of both the founding fathers of the USA and the founder of the dominant religion there.

But getting back to the issue of getting involved and taking risks. I admire those who get involved and try to help. But I don't believe the Americans invaded Iraq to help the Iraqi people. And I definitely don't believe the Iraqis feel helped.

On a daily basis in my travels I encounter the declining respect for America. I would like to see this reversed. The decline has been a long process, though quickened by the current administration. To restore the respect for the United States, I suggest that the individual citizens let their political leaders know that it is possible to get involved and to help others around the world without killing them and destroying their property. I believe Americans will, in the long run, be much safer at home and abroad when they follow the guideline of "make friends, not war."

I don't recommend an isolationist, do nothing policy. I would like to see America use its power and influence to truly help others, by stopping fights, supporting those who are struggling for freedom. But what I see happening is the rhetoric is there, but the reality isn't. I am afraid that the Bush administration has used the idealistic principles of the founders of the country, and the good will of the American people, (combined with the primitive instinct of raw fear), to aid them in misleading the people in pursuit of the leaders' and their friends' own interests. More specifically, in the case of Iraq, I have to believe now that Bush's first and foremost interest in Iraq was its oil. It was hard for me to believe the previous administrations were primatily motivated by the oil wells in Iraq, but now with former Secretary O'Neils revelations of orginal Bush's intention to invade Iraq, I no longer hold even a slimmer of hope that Bush was motivated by either altruistic or true national security issues.

The interest in Middle Eastern oil happened to fit conveniently with the interests of the Israelis who have not, in my opinion, made the best of neighbors, shall we say, in the Middle East. If you watch some of the videos in the series called Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land, I suspect you will understand what I mean, if you don't know already.

So if I don't recommend an isolationist policy, what am I recommending then, and what would the consequences be? As I said in the case of trying to break up a fight, you might get hurt yourself. But if you are more powerful than both the two people fighting, you eventually will be able to stop the fight at least temporarily. What happens next though, depends on how you have stopped the fight. What feelings have you created while stopping the fight?

This, to me, is where we can use some of the concepts of emotional intelligence as it is promoted by Jack Mayer, Peter Salovey and David Caruso. In particular, we could apply the concept of emotional understanding and understanding the transitions between emotions.

In the case of two people fighting, the best possible scenario would be that both fighters end up appreciating your help and no longer feel a need to used violence as a way of "solving" their conflict.

To reach this end requires a tremendous amount of involvement, not just walking up and pulling the two people apart or locking either or both of them up. And certainly not just "tasering" them without listening to them or letting them question you. (As in the case of Andrew Meyer at the John Kerry talk at the University of Florida)

But when you get involved like this, it is going to be difficult, if not impossible to please everyone. When you get involved in centuries old religious conflicts, it is even harder. What I am saying is that you are probably going to get hurt yourself in the process of getting involved. The questions are 1) Are you going to be fatally hurt? 2) Do you abandon your own principles when you are get hurt? 3) Do you give up? 4) Do you keep trying a strategy which obviously isn't working? 5) Are you personally secure enough to admit your mistakes, to apologize, to learn something from your experiences and to try to make amends?

Another question might be: Can you forgive yourself even if you are not forgiven? Can you hold your head up high, knowing that your intentions truly were noble? Or do you feel guilty and defensive because you know, even if you don't admit it, that your true intentions were not to help the two people who were fighting, but instead to personally profit from their conflict?

In the case of the 9/11 attacks and what to do now, I suggest that the best path is neither to continue to try to punish the "terrorists" (or "bring them to justice" as Bush likes to say) nor to do nothing anywhere in the world so as not to provoke any one's hatred. I believe there are things one can do which do help, but don't provoke the levels of resentment, disrespect and hatred that the Bush administration has so successfuly created. A large problem though, is that now many people around the world are going to be skeptical, at the very least, of whatever the USA does, and they will, quite understandably, question their true motives. And in fact, I urge the American voters themselves, not to mention the teenagers who are not legally allowed to vote, to question their true motives.

I am tempted to say that one thing the Americans could do is start giving their money to someone else who has a better track record of resolving conflicts peacefully. I wonder if the USA might actually be safer (and have more personal freedom) in ten years time if they were to slash its military budget and instead give that same amount of money to either the United Nations or the European Union with the specific charter of repairing the relations between the Muslim/Arab world and the USA. From what I have seen of Ron Paul, he seems to at least understand that there is a cause and effect relationship in human emotions and behavior. (See the clip about Listening and American politics if you haven't already.

To summarize, what I personally believe is that America should use its power and influence to help others. It should continue to get involved, but it should also realize it can't "have its cake and eat it too." If you are going to get involved in fights, you are going to get a bloody nose yourself at times. In other words, there may be further attacks on the USA. But this will be more a result of the dysfunctional and counter-productive way America has gotten involved in the past. This is the "chickens coming home to roost" or "blowback" as the media are now starting to talk more about. This is just reality, unfortunately.

But another part of reality is that for each action there is an emotional reaction. I hope that those who really do understand emotions and emotional cause and effect, will prevail in influencing the elections in 2008.

S. Hein
December 4, 2008
Istanbul