The Morality of Politics and Justice
Prioritizing the Wrong Thing
The United States has quickly worked its way to the top of the totem pole in its young history through dominating international relations. Lately, it seems, the more time that progresses, the more America turns into a seemingly corrupt country. The nation creates unfairness among security, equality and liberty. Our government has prioritized security through its extravagant military spending.
Due to the government prioritizing security, exponential amounts of money were spent on the defense budget in 2011. $549 billion was requested by Congress for basic military measures and another $159 billion was requested for U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; totaling to an amount of $708 billion in military spending for that year’s fiscal budget. This vast amount of money was nearly equivalent to the military spending of all other nations in the world combined. Currently, the U.S. government spends about seven times as much as China, thirteen times as much as Russia, and seventy-three times as much as Iran; making up for about 39% of the worlds’ total amount of defense spent (Cutting). Is this really necessary? During the Cold War, the U.S faced significantly more dangerous military adversaries that possessed massive armed forces and arsenals. During that time, the U.S. was opposing East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Poland; who were all on the Soviet side. These countries in Eastern Europe were among the most powerful Soviet allies, and were members of the Warsaw Pact. Cuba, North Korea, China, Mongolia and numerous other countries were allies with the Soviets at various times. Despite the enemies that the U.S faced during the Cold War era, the U.S. military spending accounted for only 26% of the total world defense budget (Wittner). Today, we have fewer enemies yet are spending more money due to the increase of technology in defense.
It is argued that the potential of another attack such as that of 9/11 will come with the reduction of money towards our defense budget. Even so, with an efficient plan, there would not be enough money cut from the military to turn it into an ineffective organization. If the government was to deduct approximately $487 billion in the next decade; there would still be a maintainable budget roughly larger than the next 10 countries’ military budget combined (Wittner). The U.S. would still spend $550 billion in the next decade, which doesn’t include the extra costs of war. Kori Schake of Stanford University's Hoover Institution argues that, “our biggest threat is the scattered remnants of al-Qaeda” and that, “our state enemies (North Korea, Iran and Syria) don’t have the means to attack the U.S., and while Russia has Nuclear power; they don’t have enough population to be able to carry out a large scale war” (Cutting).
In order to be able to support the costs required for the overall defense budget, the main finances necessary to support the military are tax dollars. According to Chalmers Johnson, a political scientist and former CIA consultant, as much as $250 billion per year is used to maintain approximately 865 U.S. military facilities in more than forty countries and overseas U.S. territories. When calculating the benefits and losses of these kinds of expenditures, the U.S. should also include the opportunities missed through military spending. How many times have government officials told us that there is not enough money available for health care, schools, the arts, and parks, for public broadcasting, unemployment insurance, law enforcement, and maintenance of America's highway, bridge, and rail infrastructure? Additionally, the United States has put so much money towards protecting our borders that patterns of negligence towards the preamble of the Constitution are becoming apparent. The preamble explicitly states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (U.S.). If the United States keeps prioritizing military while overlooking programs such as welfare, it is defying the preamble and disregarding domestic tranquility.
The Utilitarian philosopher Jeremey Bentham would agree with Chris Gustafson when he says that, “putting such large funding towards defense would essentially be more beneficial than putting the funds towards things such as schools, parks and law enforcement” (National). This is because a cost-benefit analysis would fundamentally lean much more towards national security rather than equality. Bentham would argue that in order for U.S. citizens to be as happy as possible, we must be willing to sacrifice some “pleasures” so that security can remain at its peak. He would compare the notion that citizens would be much more worried if our country was prone to being attacked than if local parks aren’t being tended to. But, even with cost-benefit analysis, it is hard to deny that is a heavy price for making military power the nation's top priority. With more than half of U.S. government spending going to feed the Pentagon, we should not be surprised that in America, it is no longer considered feasible to use public resources to feed the hungry, heal the sick, or house the homeless.
We would do well to recall an observation by one of the great prophets of our time, Martin Luther King, Jr.: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." If the United States desires to create equality and societal uplift of its citizens, there must be a change to where the fiscal budget is being distributed. In the case that the U.S. continues to prioritize military, our country as a whole will slowly but surely reach a breaking point.
The United States has quickly worked its way to the top of the totem pole in its young history through dominating international relations. Lately, it seems, the more time that progresses, the more America turns into a seemingly corrupt country. The nation creates unfairness among security, equality and liberty. Our government has prioritized security through its extravagant military spending.
Due to the government prioritizing security, exponential amounts of money were spent on the defense budget in 2011. $549 billion was requested by Congress for basic military measures and another $159 billion was requested for U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; totaling to an amount of $708 billion in military spending for that year’s fiscal budget. This vast amount of money was nearly equivalent to the military spending of all other nations in the world combined. Currently, the U.S. government spends about seven times as much as China, thirteen times as much as Russia, and seventy-three times as much as Iran; making up for about 39% of the worlds’ total amount of defense spent (Cutting). Is this really necessary? During the Cold War, the U.S faced significantly more dangerous military adversaries that possessed massive armed forces and arsenals. During that time, the U.S. was opposing East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary, and Poland; who were all on the Soviet side. These countries in Eastern Europe were among the most powerful Soviet allies, and were members of the Warsaw Pact. Cuba, North Korea, China, Mongolia and numerous other countries were allies with the Soviets at various times. Despite the enemies that the U.S faced during the Cold War era, the U.S. military spending accounted for only 26% of the total world defense budget (Wittner). Today, we have fewer enemies yet are spending more money due to the increase of technology in defense.
It is argued that the potential of another attack such as that of 9/11 will come with the reduction of money towards our defense budget. Even so, with an efficient plan, there would not be enough money cut from the military to turn it into an ineffective organization. If the government was to deduct approximately $487 billion in the next decade; there would still be a maintainable budget roughly larger than the next 10 countries’ military budget combined (Wittner). The U.S. would still spend $550 billion in the next decade, which doesn’t include the extra costs of war. Kori Schake of Stanford University's Hoover Institution argues that, “our biggest threat is the scattered remnants of al-Qaeda” and that, “our state enemies (North Korea, Iran and Syria) don’t have the means to attack the U.S., and while Russia has Nuclear power; they don’t have enough population to be able to carry out a large scale war” (Cutting).
In order to be able to support the costs required for the overall defense budget, the main finances necessary to support the military are tax dollars. According to Chalmers Johnson, a political scientist and former CIA consultant, as much as $250 billion per year is used to maintain approximately 865 U.S. military facilities in more than forty countries and overseas U.S. territories. When calculating the benefits and losses of these kinds of expenditures, the U.S. should also include the opportunities missed through military spending. How many times have government officials told us that there is not enough money available for health care, schools, the arts, and parks, for public broadcasting, unemployment insurance, law enforcement, and maintenance of America's highway, bridge, and rail infrastructure? Additionally, the United States has put so much money towards protecting our borders that patterns of negligence towards the preamble of the Constitution are becoming apparent. The preamble explicitly states, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” (U.S.). If the United States keeps prioritizing military while overlooking programs such as welfare, it is defying the preamble and disregarding domestic tranquility.
The Utilitarian philosopher Jeremey Bentham would agree with Chris Gustafson when he says that, “putting such large funding towards defense would essentially be more beneficial than putting the funds towards things such as schools, parks and law enforcement” (National). This is because a cost-benefit analysis would fundamentally lean much more towards national security rather than equality. Bentham would argue that in order for U.S. citizens to be as happy as possible, we must be willing to sacrifice some “pleasures” so that security can remain at its peak. He would compare the notion that citizens would be much more worried if our country was prone to being attacked than if local parks aren’t being tended to. But, even with cost-benefit analysis, it is hard to deny that is a heavy price for making military power the nation's top priority. With more than half of U.S. government spending going to feed the Pentagon, we should not be surprised that in America, it is no longer considered feasible to use public resources to feed the hungry, heal the sick, or house the homeless.
We would do well to recall an observation by one of the great prophets of our time, Martin Luther King, Jr.: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." If the United States desires to create equality and societal uplift of its citizens, there must be a change to where the fiscal budget is being distributed. In the case that the U.S. continues to prioritize military, our country as a whole will slowly but surely reach a breaking point.
Artist Statement
My artwork takes a critical view of social, political and cultural issues in the United States. In my work, I demonstrate American ideology of war and power. Having engaged symbolical subjects enables my work to reproduce familiar visual signs but arranges them into new conceptually layered meanings. Lady Liberty is the most prominent character in the picture because she symbolizes America and the overwhelming presence it has on the world. In her hand is a machine gun being held high; this emphasizes on the idea that war is above anything else in her (America’s) eyes. It takes top priority and therefore needs to be the “top” subject in the picture. Her other hand holds a book with a red money symbol on it. This piece of the painting reveals the fascination of money in the country and how money is the ultimate definer of what “leads all”. Lady Liberty is standing on top of the world because she is the leading subject of the two main American ideals: war and money. I elected to put the numbers of how much each military spends on their specific country because I highly believe it has strong key points in the ideas of pathos and logos The amount depicted in the U.S. is in red because I wanted to portray the vast difference in what we are spending versus another country; the color automatically attracts the audiences eyes to that specific number versus any of the other ones.
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death” –Martin Luther King Jr. I incorporated this quote on my painting because it links exceptionally well to the overall idea of my Op-Ed- how the U.S. government is prioritizing security over liberty and equality therefore neglecting the preamble of the constitution. It also brings in a different element into the art because rather than completely focusing on “money and war” it the painting, it adds the idea that there are benefits to not being as infatuated with those two standards.
“A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death” –Martin Luther King Jr. I incorporated this quote on my painting because it links exceptionally well to the overall idea of my Op-Ed- how the U.S. government is prioritizing security over liberty and equality therefore neglecting the preamble of the constitution. It also brings in a different element into the art because rather than completely focusing on “money and war” it the painting, it adds the idea that there are benefits to not being as infatuated with those two standards.
Project Reflection
In preparation for the final piece in the Morality and Politics of Justice project, we began by learning about justice. To do this we read The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, articles on the Mexican-American war, and Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from Birmingham jail. We spent some time on justice before moving on to moral philosophy. The four philosophies that we focused on were: John Rawls Justice as Fairness, Libertarianism, Deontology and Utilitarianism. John Rawls Justice as Fairness is a moral philosophy that states that every person is to have equal rights to the most extensive basic liberties. It also states that economic and social inequalities are to be applied to everybody’s advantage and that any position is open to all. Libertarianism endorses complete freedom over one’s own body without interference of the government, unless one is harming another person. Deontology is doing the right thing for the right reason, without outer influences affecting the outcome. Finally, Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing universal happiness and pleasure over pain. After studying justice and moral philosophy, we wrote an Op-Ed about a current political controversy and without taking a political party’s side, we determined how just the issue was through moral philosophy while also taking the balance of security, equality and liberty into consideration. Our Op-Eds had a base structure of defining justice and how an individual’s role is in creating a just society is relevant. Lastly, we made a visual piece corresponding with our Op-Ed that had rhetorical impact and integrated pathos, ethos and logos while supporting our argument. .
This project ignited many new outlooks for me about my opinions that I base off of emotions. I learned that to form a solid opinion, I need to have a concrete understanding of the issue before I decide my final outlook on the matter. I have learned that morals in the government are vague. Just because the government declares something, it does not make it any more morally correct. There is an unbelievable amount of underlying information that the government has withheld from U.S. citizens and the more that I find out about them, the more I question the authority in charge of this country. The Morality of Politics and Justice project enabled me to understand rhetoric in a way much more in depth than anything I had done before. For example, rhetoric is essentially a trademark of American politics. Speechmaking has always been an athletic pursuit, punctuated by the well-timed sarcastic jab or sweeping insult. Otherwise, what would be the point? Protecting political speech is found in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. If political speech were not poignant, direct, explicit, colorful, indeed overheated and frequently uncomfortable and unwelcome -- short of libelous and directly life-threatening -- it wouldn't need to be protected, would it. In politics, rhetoric has the potential to be the final opinion-swaying element between two political candidates. Understanding the power of rhetoric has made is possible for me to override the persuasive undertones that it is always firing at you. It allows me step back and analyze my own judgments. This project enabled me to not only break free from the barriers of powerful rhetoric, but it also facilitated my breaking free of political barriers and looking at things from an open perspective.
For my Op-Ed article, I think I did well on moral and political philosophy sections on the rubric. I incorporated a counter argument about my subject within the moral philosophy, Utilitarianism. I provide strong examples of what the Utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Benthem, would say about the matter and why such exuberant magnitudes of military spending are necessary (the counter argument). I believe that intertwining the two elements together created strong evidence of how moral philosophy is incorporated with politics. I also think that in my visual piece, I think that pathos and logos were assimilated very well into the art. But, the visual could have been much more refined. I had made the mistake of procrastinating on the visual, meaning that I did not leave myself enough time for significant refinement. There were lines that could have been sharper, and sections that were better drawn out. If I could redo it, I would not make the mistake of procrastination and be sure to focus on making the art beautiful work.
If I had another week to work on this project and article, I would leave more time for refinement of the visual piece (as mentioned above) and I would also focus on streamlining the Op-Ed. Streamlining is a part of writing that cuts out “flowery” and “wordy” language. Instead, it is concise and straight to the point. I believe that streamlining would make my Op-Ed much more powerful and convincing. Along with that, I would provide better transitions between my paragraphs. Right now, the paragraphs are somewhat scattered and unorganized so I think it would be very important for me incorporate ideas from the former paragraph into the latter to enable an “easier read”.
This project ignited many new outlooks for me about my opinions that I base off of emotions. I learned that to form a solid opinion, I need to have a concrete understanding of the issue before I decide my final outlook on the matter. I have learned that morals in the government are vague. Just because the government declares something, it does not make it any more morally correct. There is an unbelievable amount of underlying information that the government has withheld from U.S. citizens and the more that I find out about them, the more I question the authority in charge of this country. The Morality of Politics and Justice project enabled me to understand rhetoric in a way much more in depth than anything I had done before. For example, rhetoric is essentially a trademark of American politics. Speechmaking has always been an athletic pursuit, punctuated by the well-timed sarcastic jab or sweeping insult. Otherwise, what would be the point? Protecting political speech is found in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. If political speech were not poignant, direct, explicit, colorful, indeed overheated and frequently uncomfortable and unwelcome -- short of libelous and directly life-threatening -- it wouldn't need to be protected, would it. In politics, rhetoric has the potential to be the final opinion-swaying element between two political candidates. Understanding the power of rhetoric has made is possible for me to override the persuasive undertones that it is always firing at you. It allows me step back and analyze my own judgments. This project enabled me to not only break free from the barriers of powerful rhetoric, but it also facilitated my breaking free of political barriers and looking at things from an open perspective.
For my Op-Ed article, I think I did well on moral and political philosophy sections on the rubric. I incorporated a counter argument about my subject within the moral philosophy, Utilitarianism. I provide strong examples of what the Utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Benthem, would say about the matter and why such exuberant magnitudes of military spending are necessary (the counter argument). I believe that intertwining the two elements together created strong evidence of how moral philosophy is incorporated with politics. I also think that in my visual piece, I think that pathos and logos were assimilated very well into the art. But, the visual could have been much more refined. I had made the mistake of procrastinating on the visual, meaning that I did not leave myself enough time for significant refinement. There were lines that could have been sharper, and sections that were better drawn out. If I could redo it, I would not make the mistake of procrastination and be sure to focus on making the art beautiful work.
If I had another week to work on this project and article, I would leave more time for refinement of the visual piece (as mentioned above) and I would also focus on streamlining the Op-Ed. Streamlining is a part of writing that cuts out “flowery” and “wordy” language. Instead, it is concise and straight to the point. I believe that streamlining would make my Op-Ed much more powerful and convincing. Along with that, I would provide better transitions between my paragraphs. Right now, the paragraphs are somewhat scattered and unorganized so I think it would be very important for me incorporate ideas from the former paragraph into the latter to enable an “easier read”.