Two views of Iraq, but only one law written in our heart

This Tuesday, Donald Rumsfeld made a speech about the situation in Iraq in Salt Lake City. The text of the speech can be found here. Prior to the speech, Salt Lake City's mayor, Rocky Anderson, stated that he would protest the speech, and also invited anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan to the protest. While Salt Lake City is largely democratic, it exists within a sea of red state activism. The outcry from the GOP base in Utah was loud and constant. One aspect of criticism leveled at the mayor was he should not play a partisan role; rather, he should represent all of the people, and be mindful that a majority in his state favors the President and his policies. In a radio news segment I heard a gentleman whom I believe was Anderson disagree with this sentiment, and state that a culture of obedience has been steadily growing in this country and should be combatted.

What struck me about this comment was how it rang next to the comments of Mr. Rumsfeld. The essence of Mr. Rumsfeld's speech was that the current situation is remniscent of the 1930s, and we must be vigilant not to appease our enemies. We must trust our elected officials, who have our best interests in mind and will protect us in this dangerous world. Only strength will prevail. The good citizen will trust, and let the government stay the course, as "the strategy has not changed" (consistency equals strength). Rumsfeld insists that "in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong... can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere," doubt must be replaced with certainty.

Mayor Anderson, in calling out a culture of submission to authority also evoked the 1930s, but from a vastly different perspective. Rather than seeing today's America as Britain or the US prior to the Second World War, he sees our nation more akin to Germany, willing to give away freedom for (perceived) security.

On the other hand, the mayor also calls for a culture of obedience, but again of a wholly different nature. He states that "[w]e are gathered here today to insist there are much higher authorities than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld to whom we must listen for moral guidance." (The full text of Mayor Anderson's speech is available here.) In short, he calls to the individual citizen to look to his conscience so as to access the natural law that is written on our hearts. He closes with the following: "Let us each embrace our moral authority, let us each embrace our humanity, let us each embrace our responsibility – and insist in every way within our means: No more human and civil rights violations; no more hatred and inhumane treatment toward hard-working immigrants and their families; no more killing and maiming. No more Iraq war."

Mr. Rumsfeld closed with the following: "The question is not whether we can win; it's whether we have the will to persevere to win. I'm convinced that Americans do have that determination and that we have learned the lessons of history, of the folly of trying to turn a blind eye to danger. These are lessons you know well, lessons that your heroism has helped to teach to generations of Americans." I suspect that he has reached different conclusions from the "lessons of history" than Mayor Anderson.

Both Anderson and Rumsfeld spoke of America and Iraq. Both elicited the European experience in the 1930s. Both referenced our inner moral landscape. And both faced each other across an unbridgeable gap, each on the cliff of his own moral certitude. Whose view best aligns with the natural law?