No, Non, Nyet, Ni Jamais

The worst cases of unwillingness to say "no," when doing otherwise is simply postponement of a fight, occur in our political institutions. Chamberlain's waving the infamous Munich agreement ("Peace in Our Time") is a prime example. Millions of Czechs, then Poles, then French and then tens of millions of Russians paid for that equivocation.

The 1938 Munich Agreement led directly to the also infamous Berlin-Moscow axis. The Non-Aggression Pact Ribbentrop offered to Stalin was promptly signed. In that case, the historical record seems to show the agreement was an act of cynicism by all concerned. Stalin took that "agreement" as advance notice of war to come, so started the process of moving Soviet industry and defenses to the Urals. Stalin's foresight turned out to be the winning strategy, after 26 million Russians died for it.

The difference between Chamberlain and Stalin in the dire circumstances of those times was this: Chamberlain did nothing to prepare for war whereas Stalin immediately started the defense. Both signed up with Hitler, but Chamberlain was unable to say "no." Stalin deceitfully said "yes."
 

A few days ago, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) offered a compromise to the Republican leader, Sen Frist, intended to avoid conservatives using the "nuclear option" (ending the Senate filibuster). Democrats would agree to appointments to the Courts of some objectionable Bandit nominees in exchange for retention of the filibuster. I believe that is a mistaken offer, similar to Chamberlain's dealings at Munich, because it ends nothing. The wolves will be fed, but the voracious critters will soon be back for more. This sort of inability to say "no" is weakness, because no plan for defense or offense arises from it.
 

I suspect many victims are progressively pushed deeper and deeper into their slavery by a simple unwillingness to confront, to say "no." That weakness only makes the aggressor stronger, and usually leads to the next humiliation. There's something about human nature that is unsatisifed with weaklings, people who cave in. We have an urge to keep on kicking dogs that are down. If we give into that urge, it grows stronger, because we want to be winners, superior, lords of all. That means treatment of the persecuted gets worse and worse. Oddly enough, there is usually little satisfaction in killing abused victims; only disgust. Of course, what I am pointing out is very common knowledge, which is why everyone uses the Munich example so often.
 

Somehow, knowing the example and the nature of aggressors doesn't help potential victims. They just give in anyway, even with knowledge of the tortures to come. It's just easier not to resist right now. It's really only a little thing, and maybe it will go away. But, it doesn't go away and, in this shrunken modern world, there's no running away. In the past, caving in would have been excusable or explainable as a lack of bravado or courage, or perhaps lack of a warrior's training. Even in recent times, we admire John McCain's courage and determination in resisting his torturers, precisely because we believe almost everyone else would have been jello poured into a mold. But, in our world, knowing what we do, it is almost inexcusable not to resist, so we have to blame the victims for the degree of their abuse, even if it is not their fault that they are the victims.
 

People get themselves into all sorts of trouble for not saying "NO." They might feel embarrassed or afraid not to contribute to the local Police or Sherriff's fund for whatever, so they contribute. Of course, they didn't really want to do that and they didn't have any money to give away, but it was for a good cause. The consequence of that good deed is they get on the Suckers List. That means receiving endless phone calls, junk mail, e-mail spam and knocks on the door, all asking for money, because charitable causes and agencies sell their Sucker Lists to get more money. The generous Good Samaritan is actually a sweet-smelling carcass to a pack of hyenas. (Asking to contribute anonymously does no good, unless put a bag over your head and donate unmarked bills and spare change.)
 

Another trap is greeting cards. In fact, greeting cards and gift-giving show exactly how people are ensnared by refusal to stand up for themselves. It all starts innocently enough, usually in childhood, when one gives or receives an introductory offering. Of course, this has to be acknowledged, if not repaid. So, in exchange for the birthday present, out goes the Thank You card. It would be impolite not to send the ThankYou note, and it's a little thing, so you do that. That gets you on the recipient's list for the next greeting card or gift, because the other person cannot fail to recognize your ardor. With this listing, it would be not just impolite, but mildly offensive, not to acknowledge your existence and worth, so the other person has to send another card or gift of the same or greater value than the previous one or your last. It is this consideration of "value" that sets off the chain reaction. Over the years, the gift-giving and card-acknowledgement list grows and grows, until it becomes incredibly burdensome for many people. The more "giving" or generous a person is, the faster the exchange list grows. It also grows because people are afraid to drop the custom, as it might insuilt or offend someone. (It is possible to cull the list, by carefully considering how to reduce unwanted recipients' status gradually, but few people are so calculating.)
 

The bottom of the greeting card and charity donor problem, as well as keeping up with the Joneses, is inability to say "NO." This usually reflects a personal weakness, a fear of offending others or a need for recognition by others. The problem can be solved by just not doing it. But few people "drop out" once they're hooked, because of the complications of stopping the exchanges. Once other people have got used to the cards, gifts, etc, it takes a lot of explaining about your ending the practice. The other people are likely to believe they have been (emotionally) rejected, and so they will reject you. Thus, unless you are willing to accept a rejection notice, or to take a risk in a relationship, the established practices go on, and on, and on. The Holiday Gift List gets longer and longer, and the price tag rises ever higher.
 

One should notice that this is a basic way our society works. Whole industries and economic structures are based on fear and guilt, and the inability of consumers and workers to say "NO." People are NOT self-determined, but socially determined. It isn't just greeting cards and mailing lists. People have been molded into making most of their purchases by intensive marketing, and that transforms their personal and working relationships. Why is it that Korean cars are not best sellers, considering their prices and features? Because, as new players in the auto market, they are deprecated. Most of us were convinced the Japanese and Germans made superior cars long before we bought a Toyota, BMW or Mercedes. Most of us think Italian cars are styled "better," because Ferrarri and Alfa Romeo fired our imagination, and despite the little blue Mazdas that caught our attention for a while. People buy the latest VW "beetle" based on an early romance with a very different car having the same name. All of the foregoing stereotypes about cars are common knowledge, and drive auto sales. It is the unusual car buyer who actually buys Consumer Reports and other tests and comparisons to find out where value lies for the money. Owning a car is an emotional, not a rational, experience.
 

One of the latest TV ads for British Petroleum asks a woman whether she wants a clean environment. She immediately makes the association that a clean environment means NO CAR: "That's like asking someone to give up chocolate." She giggles and ends up saying, "I love my car!"
 

In her recent interviews, contrived to put herself back before the public, Jane Fonda alleged her problems as a young woman were the result of admiring her consorts too much. She was the enthusiastic female captive-follower in a man's world. For example, she lived in a place her father called a "shack" while under the influence of ex-husband Tom Hayden. She gave away almost all of her income to "causes," all because Tom insisted they should live modestly like "the people." That is certainly not her preference today, or since her divorce from Tom Hayden, as she is a very rich lady and lives accordingly. (Most recent ex-hubbie Ted Turner is a multi-billionaire.) Living modestly, like giving up chocolate, is a temporary diet.
 

So, saying "NO" is deeply resented and rejected. People are not just sold on their goodies, but addicted. This does give some credence to the neo-classical economic premise, that people are insatiable.
 

One of the banner slogans used by progressives and environmentalists is "production for use." The idea is that we should not be wasteful or indolent. We should only make modest demands on nature ansd society, which should correspond to our real needs. A retired couple really does not need a 3000 sq ft home. A lone driver doesn't need a 250 hp car to go to the grocery store. A Hummer is overkill when used to taxi around a child or two. (Hummers are a statement about the sort of society their owners imagine is "out there.") In a society that produces for use, there is less mass production and more personal (niche) production. Such a society has a lower impact on the environment because there is a lower demand for things, hence less resource use. The emphasis of societies that produce for use is emotional, personal and social satisfaction, co-operation not competition. Such a society requires strong individuals who make their own choices, and know how to say "NO" when "NO" is advisable. (This does not mean such a society is utopian, because self-determined people tend to be hard-headed, even arrogant, which makes them argumentative, anti-social and resistant to organized social efforts.)
 

While I think a society organized around "production for use" could be better for people than our present hyper-competitive capitalism, that society won't come about as long as people are unable to say "NO." In fact, when impressionable people are socialized, society ends up being divided between the sheep and wolves. Even a co-operative, socialist society would be no better for most people than what exists now. So, it is the people themselves that always determine what sort of society we have. It makes a difference whether we build our houses on sand, clay or rock.
 

The starting point for any society proposing to be more co-operative, more peaceful and "more human" has to be strong individuals. Such people are capable of deciding things for themselves, which means they know how and when to say "NO" (as well as "YES"). Perhaps that's because "NO" is the origin of individuality, the inevitable separation of me from you.
 

(I note that this proposition is a fundamentally "Western," not "Eastern," "Primitivist," or "Romantic" way of looking at things.)