When former Mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani indicted the Democratic party for being too “cosmopolitan” at the Republican National Convention, I lost feeling in the left half of my body, then collapsed on the floor.  After regaining consciousness and mobility, I did a few dictionary searches for the word cosmopolitan.  I was quite sure that I had missed an important definition change, because Giuliani used the word so pejoratively:

“I’m sorry that Wasilla, Alaska isn’t ‘cosmopolitan’ enough for Barack Obama…(moderate to heavy cackling like a vampire).”

Wikipedia, my non-biblical source of transhistorical Truth, confirmed that I did not take a Rip Van Winkle-like nap and that the word still implies the belief in a “single moral human community”.  The original Greek etymology of the word, taken directly, describes a person who believes they are a “citizen of the universe”.  Diogenes (G.O.P. Translation: Sinner) first invoked the idea of cosmopolitanism when he argued against a nationalist conception of the self.  He contended that identity politics, the foundation of nationalism, unnecessarily divided people and overtly denied the simple equality of all human beings.  Immanuel Kant (G.O.P. Translation: Nazi) later used the idea when he attemped to describe what a “perpetual peace” would look like on the international scale.  For Kant, cosmopolitanism expressed the idea of a mental space where people could co-exist without killing each other for shiny rocks and the right to say, “Fuck me?! Fuck you!”  He imagined a federation of republics, not democracies, for fear of stupid people taking over and ruining all of the hard work of the intelligensia (see page 487 of the Oxford English Dictionary for the definition of the word ‘foresight’).  Even though their territories and citizens were divided by name, Kant believed that universal disarmament and diplomacy under the guise of cosmpolitian thought could put an end to violent international conflict.  Martha Nussbaum, professor at the University of Chicago, home of the Fightin’ C++ Programmers, is the most prolific contemporary advocate of cosmopolitanism in her studies of international relations.  She sees an important place for the belief in a singular morality amidst the sectarian violence of the post-modern world.

So, what am I talking about and why is it relevant to the 2008 presidential election?  In this second installment of “The Issues at Hand”, I demonstrate the fortitude to follow through on my promise to address each important issue of the campaign. This, of course, stands in contrast to that piece of shit Sufjan Stevens, who, despite whatever claims he makes, clearly isn’t going to write a folk album for all fifty states.  [This entirely separate topic brings up a lot of questions like, what the fuck would be on the “Idaho” album? How many songs about potatos is too many? Could he write a song for Sarah Palin’s minor in political science at that state’s flagship “”””university””””? How many quotation marks does it take to get a point across?]  The issue that I’ve decided to take on revolves around the question of American hegemony – to what extent should the United States continue to forcibly assert its military and cultural dominance on the international community/shitstorm?  The above comment by Giuliani highlights the anti-cosmopolitanism that defined the Republican National Convention and enumerates the conservative commitment to coercively projecting American power abroad.  This is unacceptable.

The rhetoric of the RNC on the issue of a guiding framework for foreign policy, most notably the chants of “USA! USA! USA!”, securely places them in the camp of malignant nationalism.  What is most important to them is that the citizens that reside within the historically arbitrary borders that define the United States have it better than anyone else.  The constituency of the Republican Party, or, more accurately, its “con-stitch-ency”, believes that America must possess the best of everything at the expense of others.  Historically, this makes sense – after World War II, the US was handed a massively powerful place on the international stage that allowed it to define the norms and institutions that govern global politics and economics.  This was very helpful for the American standard of living and now we have it better than just about anyone.  The downside is that when you play the game of relative power, it is zero-sum and someone else must lose.  Enough people have lost enough in the world that now people are rising up against us (see wonderfully stupid post-9/11 books like “Why They Hate Us”).  Dividing up the world into “us” and “them”, as the object of Walther’s man-crush, Pink Floyd, sang, is the fundamental anti-cosmopolitian project.  Unfortunately, Karl Rove a.k.a “The Architect” a.k.a. “Angry Because He Was A Fat Fuck That Girls Wouldn’t Give A Reach-Around To” knows that nationalism is the best way to win an election and has once again engineered a campaign to make the vote about “patriotism” and “military service”.  I’m starting to realize that without wars, there wouldn’t be any military service for Republican candidates to use as an excuse for a patriotic qualification.  Oscar Wilde said, “Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious,” (and my mother said “The Rock” wasn’t educational) and that is precisely what flag-waving nationalist conservatives are – vicious.  They don’t want innovation in energy policy, because that would engage us in a non-zero-sum game. If you can keep getting more of something with renewable energy, that means you can’t take something from someone else.  You can’t own the wind or the Sun and that fucks the Republican understanding of private property without proper lubrication.

If the Republicans want to deny the equality of all human beings and their belonging to a single moral community, then they will continue to construct self-fulfilling prophecies of violent conflict throughout the world.  If politics is phrased as a conflict between “us” and “them”, then the anti-cosmopolitans will get their wars.  American hegemony is not what the world needs more of – what our foreign policy needs is to put an end to games of relative power that deny other people critical resources for survival and basic prosperity.  Agricultural subsidies, unfair trade agreements, and attempts to stifle growth in countries like China and India will only be met with more resentment and the perception of “enemy”.  Conservatives get so angry at their “enemies” without realizing that we are the ones who are making that declaration first.  They are our enemies because everything we do on the international stage, save a few token gestures and sincere philanthropy, tells them that the American Dream comes at the expense of the Human Dream.  Cosmopolitianism, Rudy, is everything that people should believe in, particularly in these increasingly anxious times.  But, then again, you should know that.  You lived with two gay guys and their pet Shih-Tzu, dressed in drag, and marched in gay pride parades down the streets of that quaint old town, New York City. I hope you choke on a pretzel. (Just kidding Carnivore, don’t invoke a rendition protocol and send Treadstone after me.)

As much as I enjoy reading every pundit say this and that about Barack Obama and John McCain, I think that it would be much more productive to actually address specific issues.  I don’t really care whose baby Sarah Barracuda’s daughter is having, unless of course it is Alf’s.  As much of a head rush I get from listening to Barack Obama speak, what is the point of agreeing with someone because they are charismatic?  That seems to me to be a dangerous method for making decisions and quite similar to the herd-mentality embraced by Republicans that us so-called Liberals decry.  That is why I am launching an ongoing column, in many parts, called “The Issues At Hand”.  Today, I’m going to analyze what appears for some reason to be a continued talking point in the presidential election – the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Conservatives that compose the “base” of the Republican Party seem extremely intent on continuing to possess firearms, while Democrats have pointed out that guns are for shooting people.  I have chosen this issue first, because, in my opinion, it isn’t very difficult to poke fun at.

This is the full text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Talking Point #1: “Guns are important because they allow me to defend myself from a possible dictatorship.”

I have bad news for anyone who thinks that having an assault rifle or grenade launcher is going to the stop an aggressive American federal government.  They have these things.  One is called the Air Force, the other is called the Navy.  As much power as you feel from gripping your sweaty Republican hands against some American Steel, at this point there is simply no way of ever standing up to the US military.  This is a lost cause.

More importantly, any scenario where the US government “comes after” its citizens either collectively or in part is well beyond highly improbable.  When I say “comes after”, I mean anything that would warrant opening fire on them as they come tanking down Cherry Street to your lovely home.  Let’s say they have some completely unjust reason to pursue you, like being “X” minority.  Is the general idea that you’re going to start killing federal marshalls until they leave you alone?  Wouldn’t it be better just to get arrested and let the other citizens of the country try to save you?  Even if a 1984 state comes to power, it could only happen with the support of the citizenry of the United States.  As a democratic state, if crazy people take office, it’s because we put them there.  It’s almost like this is some huge catch-22: “I need to protect myself from crazy government officials with a gun, but the only way I can keep having a gun is to vote for crazy government officials. Fuck!”  So, short of everyone democratically deciding to hunt your ass down, having a gun isn’t going to save you from any action brought by the federal government.  Stop deluding yourself.  Even under the guise of a “state’s rights” argument, this is ludicrous.  I’d love to see the Texas Air Force compete with the US Air Force.  What would that last, like five minutes?  To those of you who might be saying, “Well, doesn’t that mean we should just arm our states more?”  To which I reply, (1) with what money, (2) we’ll still lose, and (3) internal arms races have not historically proven helpful at keeping a state unified.  The text shown above only appears to support the maintenance of “state militias”.  If you want to join the National Guard, I think that is what the Second Amendment protects.  But having an AR-17 in your closet is not a “state militia”.

Talking Point #2: “I have a gun to protect me from when the Russians/Chinese/aliens invade!”

Yeah, that’s how it’s going to go down.  The Russo-Sino-ETs are going to land their ships on the coasts and start pouring in.  Then it will be every person for themselves as martial law grips the country and one man must save America using only his wits, a gun, and some dental floss.  I don’t think so MacGuyver.  Remember that military we have?  I think that they can handle it.  If you honestly think there is a probability that they cannot, don’t you think that in that situation the feds would just start handing out weapons to everyone?  If we had a draft for a proxy war in Vietnam, can you imagine what would happen if the US was actually on the brink of falling to a foreign state?  I think it would be a credible assumption to say that the military would get us involved if they thought they had to.

Talking Point #3: “I have a gun for self-defense from criminals.”

This is a slightly more compelling argument, but only because the last two involved the US military attacking its citizens and alien invasions.  Every study ever done has shown that the only person you’re likely to shoot is a member of your family.  Carrying a Derringer in your purse isn’t going to help you get out of a sticky situation anyway.  Unless you have a serious Annie Oakley complex, drawing on someone in the street doesn’t seem like a safer option.  The conservatives reply, “That’s why we train at shooting ranges.”  I have a better idea, become a police officer.  From what I’ve seen, it’s not that hard to get in.

Talking Point #4: “YEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAW!!!! Hunt me up some animals.”

This final point is what I believe all of this to really be about.  People like guns because you can use them to shoot a twelve-point buck with a forty odd scope at two hundred yards.  This right to hunt animals, however, clearly falls into that category of “not fucking important at all unless you’re an egomaniac” category.  Could it be fun?  Sure.  Are there positive benefits to hunting?  Sure.  Do these pros outweigh any of the cons?  Absolutely not.  There is simply no need to have guns available to the general population for hunting.  As for “keeping populations in check”, volunteer for the Forestry Service.

Final Talking Point:  This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

This is the most “history-defunct” Amendment to the Constitution.  I say “history-defunct” because the Second Amendment is the perfect example of something that used to be important, then lost its necessity and became a burden.  Two hundred years ago, when the Britons were all up in our shit – i.e. the War of 1812 – the Second Amendment looked pretty damn compelling.  One hundred and fifty years ago, when white Southerners tried to secede to maintain slavery – the Second Amendment made sense (wait, aren’t most pro-gun advocates white Southerners?).  Since then, however, a few things have happened.  Like planes.  And nuclear deterrence.  Not to mention that the unified nature of the US government has made state militias irrelevant anyway.  The Founding Fathers wanted America to survive in the face of violence.  Guns allow you to do that.  That is, however, what the military and police are for.