The Greatest Purveyor of Violence In the World Today

It should not be a surprise to anyone that there is a culture of violence in the United States unlike that of any other country in the over-developed, so-called “First World”.  The singular notions of “rugged individualism” and the nationalistic fervor of “American Exceptionalism” are engrained in the American psyche and embraced, or at least tolerated by many.  These aggressive, arrogant notions are no accident.  They have been carefully cultivated and disseminated by the establishment media, corporate advertising, and political platforms and speech; not to mention the actual military “adventures” engaged in by the U.S. military establishment around the world since the end of World War II.

With the end of the Soviet Union and the unleashing of a no-holds-barred, global, predatory economic complex, violent competition has become the norm for most of working society.  In everything from vying for a promotion to racing through a red light to beat the traffic, life has become, for most people, a literal struggle for survival.  The excesses of the wealthy elite leave little for the rest of us.  Life is becoming, for many of us mean, brutish, and short.

In business, “corporate culture” comes from the top down.  Low-level managers engage in unseemly, unethical, or criminal activities to the extent those behaviors are tolerated by the executives above.  Likewise, societal norms are to a very great extent determined at the top.  Here, we must be clear what the top of our society is.  Thanks to the Occupy movement and the very visible crimes of financial elites (and the government’s non-reaction to those crimes), many more people have come to recognize just who and what is at the top of the decision-making pyramid in this country.  The two top decision makers are of course the wealthy elites (and here I include not just the wealthiest individuals but also the even more fabulously wealthy families, such as Walton’s, DuPont’s, Rockefeller’s, and the like) and the military.  Way down in third place in terms of societal control is the government.

Which brings us to guns.  And the second amendment, which regulates them.

Much has been claimed regarding the second amendment over the past 40 years: gun ownership is a “God-given right”; that it places no limitations or restrictions on gun ownership; that its purpose was to protect the people from their government, and the like.  Constitutional scholars, those who study the origins and original meanings of what the founders intended as their life’s work, have come to very different conclusions regarding the 2^nd Amendment.  Professor Saul Cornell of Fordham University makes clear, through the historical record, and the actual words of James Madison, the author of the 2^nd Amendment, exactly what was intended.  Thom Hartmann and Sam Sachs, in their recent article also explain the history and meaning of the amendment.  Nowhere in the history of the constitution, is there any evidence the founders intended the 2^nd Amendment to be a safeguard for the people to take violent action against their government.  As Cornell points out, its intent was actually just the opposite.  Since the new United States had no standing army at the time, and many splinter groups and sects were in regular rebellion against various state governments, the “well regulated militias” were the citizen-soldiers needed to defend the government against internal insurrection as well as external invasion.  We call that force today the National Guard. The constitution also addresses the taking up of arms against the U.S. government (Article 3); that’s called treason.   In fact, Shays’ Rebellion in 1786 was part of the reason the 2^nd Amendment was created. 

Today, the 2^nd Amendment is an open question.  Since the War of 1812 the United States has had a standing army and therefore no need for a militia.  The amendment seems irrelevant.  And certainly gun advocates rationale that they need to stockpile large caches of weapons to defend their liberty from the potentially tyrannical government is a hollow sham.  In the first case, it is inconceivable that any individual or group, no matter how committed and diligent, could amass enough weaponry to match that of  the U.S. military.  Also in doubt is the notion that these rabid gun owners will protect me and you (non-gun owners) from government tyranny.  There has been no greater assault on the Constitution and our precious “god-given” liberties than over the past 25 years.  I’ve not seen any of these “freedom fighters” out in the streets.  In fact, if (retired) General David Petraeus were to appear on television tonight and announce that he was now in charge of the government, the gun owners would most likely be out in the streets shooting the protestors rather defending them.

The NRA of course has a vested interest in perpetuating the “gun culture”; it sells more guns to an ever shrinking gun-owning population and is therefore good for its own board members bottom line.  Steven Rosenfeld provides an excellent history of the NRA and its surprising philosophical shift in the 1970’s in his AlterNet article.

Regardless of the history of the 2^nd Amendment, gun possession, or culture, the facts are that guns are epidemic in this country (more that 300 million in the hands of 70 to 80 million people) and that the level of violence in this country is extreme by any measure.  Even if true that most shootings in this country are “criminal-on-criminal”, the level of violence here is greater than in any other wealthy nation.  This culture of violence is a societal problem that requires more than just changes in gun laws.

The military bears considerable responsibility for this culture of violence as well.  With an unlimited budget for the development of weaponry, expansion of influence and involvement around the globe, the militarization of intelligence-gathering agencies, and the growth of intelligence-gathering within the military has unleashed an arrogant, violent, uncontrollable force on the world; a force every bit as predatory and violent as its economic counterpart.  From the military’s financing of violent video games to its backing of violent, propagandist films and pseudo-documentaries, it glorifies killing, cruelty, and indifference to all living things outside its military “unit”. 

None of this belies the fact that something must be done to protect our communities and to change the culture.  One of the first things to do, of course, is to take control of the mechanism of cultural definition out of the hands of the elites.  Culture, or the guiding principles of a civilized community needs to be defined by that community.  It’s not easy, or perhaps not even possible to replace the current “ritualized” modes of thinking with a return to a moral, civilized society.  There needs to be that interceding step of returning to the “rule of law” first.  Restrictions on the types of firearms allowed within a community, how many rounds can be loaded into each weapon, rules for possession and use all must be decided on by the community.  It may be true that no law can guarantee that someone with a mental illness will not acquire a weapon, but such sensible restrictions on weapons and ammunition will reduce the number killed. 

We must recognize also that among the leading decision makers within the wealthy elite are the drug manufacturers.  Drugs to treat mental illness, ADHD, depression, insomnia, and even epilepsy are known to have serious and dangerous side effects.  There are more than 22 international regulatory warnings about psychiatric drug side effect that include mania, violence, and homicidal and suicidal thoughts.  In case after case of violent mass shootings and killings, there is evidence that the shooter was either taking or withdrawing from psychotropic drugs.  From 2004 through 2011, the US FDA Medwatch system received more than 11,000 reports of violent acts related to these drugs.  For example, the SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor) drug Luvox is often prescribed for children diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder.  It is also often prescribed for children for depression.  The manufacturer of Luvox reports that up to 4% of children developed mania in their own short-term clinical trials of the drug.  In a similar controlled clinical trial, Prozac produced the same symptoms in 6% of the children tested.   These statistics highlight the fact that not only must we as a society address the issue of mental illness, but we must also address the issues around the testing and approval of medications used in its treatment.  Clearly, as in so many other aspects of our society, corporations, in this case drug manufacturers wield inordinate power and control.  We must make the manufacturers of these drugs responsible for the consequences of the side effects.

It’s foolish and dangerous to grab onto any simple, one-size-fits-all answer to the culture of violence stamped into this society.  Single answers like armed school guards, gun bans, mental health testing and the like will not resolve what is a complex, societal problem.  Nor is the answer in more and more heavily armed civilians. 

Sandy Hook Promise has the right idea.  Part of their Promise reads:

To have the conversations on ALL the issues
Conversations where listening is as important as speaking.
Conversations where even those with the most opposing views
can debate in good will

This is the place where all positive change begins; exploring all the issues, and coming together as a community to develop comprehensive solutions.  The only way to reach deeply into culture is for people to come together and determine for themselves what they want their community to look like.  The separation, the collective sense of aloneness, the pain and fear ingrained in the collective psyche can only be overcome by reconnecting with each other.  By connecting with our neighbors we will see how alike we are and how much we truly need each other.  That is the beginning of creating just communities.