Chances are, you've
never heard of Jeanette Rankin. It was immediately after the
surprise attack on Pearl Harbor that she became, for a moment,
famous. Or maybe the word is, infamous.
Congress was in session to consider a declaration of
war. For most Americans, this was little more than a formality.
Before the attack, there had been a lively peace movement in this
country -- people determined, at all costs, to keep the U.S. out of
the conflagration in Europe. Afterward, the hue and cry everywhere
was for war.
So it was something of a surprise when Rankin, a Republican
representative from Montana, cast the lone vote in opposition. Her
dissent so outraged onlookers that an angry mob chased the committed
pacifist through the corridors of the Capitol, finally cornering her
in a phone booth. Only police intervention allowed her to safely
escape.
I've always liked Jeanette Rankin. Always appreciated the lonely
courage of her stand.
Something like that stand is beginning to emerge in the wake of
Sept. 11. As the country cries out for war, peace rallies have
broken out on college campuses nationwide. There have been
ecclesiastical statements urging against military action. Social
activists like Harry Belafonte and Rosa Parks are questioning the
wisdom of retaliation. And a letter making the rounds on the
Internet urges America to ''bomb'' Afghanistan with butter, rice and
other staples the starving poor of that wretched country find in
short supply.
Some in the peace movement simply oppose an indiscriminate
military campaign that cannot help but target innocent civilians
along with the thugs who have hijacked their country -- an argument
with which I have no quarrel. But others crusade against any
military response, period. For them, as for Jeanette Rankin, I
suppose, no provocation ever justifies the use of force.
I couldn't disagree with that assertion more. Yet I'm pleased to
hear it nonetheless. And no, there's not a punch line lurking in
that contradiction.
These are troubling times. We've just seen more than 6,000 human
lives obliterated, one iconic building grievously damaged and two
others destroyed. The people want retribution. We are as united in
that as we have ever been in anything.
There's righteousness in that demand. There's also a certain
danger. When emotions are this raw, it's easy for a crowd to become
a mob, for them to slip across from justified outrage to unthinking
fury. It's easy -- too easy -- to lose any sense of perspective, any
claim on the moral high ground, any restraining shred of human
reasoning. Not surprisingly, you can already see signs of it
happening. Some have said we ought to turn Afghanistan into the
proverbial parking lot. Some have said we ought to use nuclear
weapons. Some have used their pain and anger as excuses to visit
violence upon fellow Americans who are -- or simply ''look'' --
Arab.
Terrible things can happen when passion is unhindered by reason.
So the counterweight the peace movement provides is a valuable one.
But at the same time, the argument that violence is never justified
is spurious at best.
Martin Luther King was probably the greatest pacifist in American
history, a man who was stoned and beaten, yet never raised a hand to
retaliate. Yet even he acknowledged that there were times violence
was necessary. If called to service in the Second World War, he said
in a 1967 sermon, ''I believe that I would have temporarily
sacrificed my pacifism because Hitler was such an evil force in
history.''
Most Americans are not pacifists, but we are lovers of peace.
You'd never know it from our popular entertainment, but we abhor
war. Yet the ugly truth is that sometimes, war cannot be avoided.
Sometimes, history demands that aggrieved people draw an uncrossable
line.
This is one of those times. Otherwise, what comes next? We've
already been hit with stolen planes. Is the next hit chemical?
Biological? Nuclear? How many lives will that cost? How many
families and towns wiped away?
The nascent peace movement will be the necessary conscience of
the mob in days to come, and that's a good thing.
But most of us understand -- as King did, and as British Prime
Minister Neville Chamberlain famously learned -- that sometimes, the
cost of peace is too high. Sometimes, peace costs more than war.
I like Jeanette Rankin. But she was wrong.
Leonard Pitts Jr.'s column runs every Thursday and Saturday. Call
him toll-free at 888-251-4407.leonard
pitts@mindspring.com