Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

US Capitol and South America. Nicolas Maduro’s capture is not the end of an era. It marks the opening act of a turbulent transition

AI generated

Nicolas Maduro’s Capture: Sovereignty Only Matters When It’s Convenient

The U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro will be remembered as one of the most dramatic American interventions in Latin America in a generation. But the real story isn’t the raid itself. It’s what the raid reveals about the political imagination of the hemisphere—how quickly governments abandon the language of sovereignty when it becomes inconvenient, and how easily Washington slips back into the posture of regional enforcer.

The operation was months in the making, driven by a mix of narcotrafficking allegations, geopolitical anxiety, and the belief that Maduro’s security perimeter had finally cracked. The Justice Department’s $50 million bounty—an extraordinary price tag for a sitting head of state—signaled that the U.S. no longer viewed Maduro as a political problem to be negotiated with, but as a criminal target to be hunted.

Keep ReadingShow less
Red elephants and blue donkeys

The ACA subsidy deadline reveals how Republican paralysis and loyalty-driven leadership are hollowing out Congress’s ability to govern.

Carol Yepes

Governing by Breakdown: The Cost of Congressional Paralysis

Picture a bridge with a clearly posted warning: without a routine maintenance fix, it will close. Engineers agree on the repair, but the construction crew in charge refuses to act. The problem is not that the fix is controversial or complex, but that making the repair might be seen as endorsing the bridge itself.

So, traffic keeps moving, the deadline approaches, and those responsible promise to revisit the issue “next year,” even as the risk of failure grows. The danger is that the bridge fails anyway, leaving everyone who depends on it to bear the cost of inaction.

Keep ReadingShow less
White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money and the American flag
Half of Americans want participatory budgeting at the local level. What's standing in the way?
SimpleImages/Getty Images

For the People, By the People — Or By the Wealthy?

When did America replace “for the people, by the people” with “for the wealthy, by the wealthy”? Wealthy donors are increasingly shaping our policies, institutions, and even the balance of power, while the American people are left as spectators, watching democracy erode before their eyes. The question is not why billionaires need wealth — they already have it. The question is why they insist on owning and controlling government — and the people.

Back in 1968, my Government teacher never spoke of powerful think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, now funded by billionaires determined to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Yet here in 2025, these forces openly work to control the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court through Project 2025. The corruption is visible everywhere. Quid pro quo and pay for play are not abstractions — they are evident in the gifts showered on Supreme Court justices.

Keep ReadingShow less