Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

No Common Language Of Justice And Peace

Opinion

No Common Language Of Justice And Peace

United States' flag waves along with other flags representing the international community

Oliver Helbig//Getty Images

Which is better: A world at peace but where there is injustice in every country or a world in which justice reigns in every country but which is in constant economic, political, and military conflict? What a terrible choice! Neither world has ever existed or ever will, but it is instructive to think about both possible worlds to think about the challenges facing political leaders, corporate and nonprofit leaders, political organizations, religious leaders, and citizens themselves.

The world must clearly avoid another World War, a topic receiving increasing attention in the last year or so and especially in recent months. World War III could be a nuclear disaster, although it is not a given that World War III would be a nuclear war. Still, any World War III, whether it develops out of the war between Ukraine and the West and Russia and North Korea, Israel, Hamas, Iran and the Middle East, or Taiwan and China, is potentially a devastating war that could take tens of millions of lives.


Yet even if World War III is avoided, achieving justice in individual countries is a massive, endless journey and, for many, as frightening as war itself. Indeed, while millions pursue justice, the journey remains elusive: there is no concept of justice that all countries share in practice, although some liberal internationalists, some socialists, and some right-wing authoritarians will tell you that there is such a concept in theory.

Even taking a broadly liberal democratic concept of justice -- one that promotes basic civil and political rights and some baseline of economic goods that prevents the worst forms of poverty -- it is still hard to see how it will ever be achieved in all or even most of the countries of the world.

One reason the world is always in conflict on economic and political matters is because different countries have different concepts of justice. Add to this the basic fact that countries speak different languages, and it becomes clear why international relations and diplomacy are so challenging for all countries.

In the months ahead, as the Trump administration begins its second administration, it will be important to keep the twin goals of justice and peace in front of the administration and Congress. As the United States negotiates with other countries on economic matters, we need to work toward advancing our concept of democratic values, recognizing that other countries, even other democracies, do not share our precise concept of democratic values.

There is nothing wrong with promoting our cherished values, but we must not presume that every country lives with the same concepts. This applies especially to Russia and China. In our quest for peace, we must work more collaboratively with our allies since our enemies are forming powerful bonds that will require new alliances to combat them. The China-Russia-Iran-North Korea Axis is extremely powerful, and America alone cannot take them on. We must hold together our bonds with Europe, South Korea, Japan, Israel and Australia.

And while we pursue justice and peace for the world, we must not lose sight of the fact that the battle over justice within our country is broadly similar to the battles over economic and political affairs we have with other nations. American Democrats and American Republicans, and even factions within both parties and with independents and Third Parties, do not share the same concept of justice -- or liberty or equality. Expecting a broad consensus on the world stage is even less likely.

The Freedom Caucus of the Republican Party has different ideals, values, and missions from Center-Left Democrats as well as mainstream Republicans in the same way that the United States overall has battled with the Axis Powers as well as France, Germany, and other NATO countries in West Europe. The reality is that rival factions within countries, as well as conflicts between countries, are similar in that they both talk past each other, often talking without listening to each other.

Despite the endless quests for peace and justice, whether within or between countries, citizens and leaders alike in the United States and other democracies need the kind of hope proclaimed over 50 years ago by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework," has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.


Read More

news video camera
black video camera
Photo by Matt C on Unsplash

When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism

When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.

On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”

Keep ReadingShow less
US Senate candidate Dan Osborn

Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.

Image obtained from YouTube

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.

Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote

Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.

Getty Images

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?

Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media

White House communications aide Danielle Alvarez (R) films with her phone as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media as he departs on the South Lawn of the White House on October 23, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

Trump’s Arch Plan Defies Law and Warps D.C.’s Historic Core

The Trump Arch construction controversy is the latest vanity project by Donald Trump using taxpayer money without Congressional approval, placing his ego-based physical stamp on not only American historical architecture but also the American psyche. With no good reason for constructing this arch, it’s an act of self-aggrandizement meant to make him look powerful and important. The project is unconstitutional, illegal, and patently un-American. Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian have also filed a lawsuit against it.

Like all other actors in government, executive agencies, like the National Park Service, must follow the rule of law and respect ‘separation of powers’ established by the U.S. Constitution. This means following the laws enacted by Congress, which has the power to distribute public funds and determine how they are spent, not the Executive Branch, including the President.

Keep ReadingShow less