I'm skeptical about this. At first blush I laughed out loud. Maybe some of you can convince me otherwise.

A brand new government entity that will "...systematically root out the underlying causes of violence by creating new and innovative programs...?" This department will function on 2 levels; domestically and internationally. What would you say the underlying causes of international-scale violence are? I'd say greed, paranoia, desire for power, desire for control, insanity. Every war I can think of in the last couple hundred years stems from one or more of these. I think greed is the most important one ... greed for land, oil, trade routes, oil, sea ports, oil, whatever. How exactly is a Department of Peace going to change a basic human failing? What sort of non-violent conflict resolution magic could possibly have prevented Hitler from romping through Europe?

This quote from the article Chris cited was my favorite: "A Department of Peace would train peacekeepers to deal with the aftermath should war be necessary, creating teams on the ground to help rebuild an emotional and psychological foundation to create a stable system in the war torn region. No military technology can provide for a stable emotional climate." When I read that I got a ridiculous picture in my head. Imagine minivans full of grief conselors trailing an armored column through a shattered neighborhood. One stops in front of a pile of ashes that was once a house where a man silently sits. He's obviously in need of some emotional stability because the Americans just dropped a cluster bomb on his family while he was out shopping. Perhaps the Peace Department has something else in mind ...

On a domestic level it might be less unlikely I suppose, as it "...would be responsible for developing policies which address issues such as domestic violence, child abuse, mistreatment of the elderly, school and gang violence and other issues of cultural violence." However, a bit like the ATF, it seems redundant. We already have policies which address those things. I can summarize the policies thus: If you do those things you go to jail. This policy seems to be at least moderately successful as our jails are filled with the people who do bad things and the crime rate goes down. I can point to programs that already seek to reduce incidents of domestic violence (lots of women's shelters out there) and the others. What new ideas would a brand new federal program have?

If you argue that this Department of Peace would unify those efforts and make them more even more effective, I'd node sagely and say "Oh you mean in the same way the department of homeland security has unified defense efforts and made the US safer? Do you have any duct tape left?"

I don't think that it's possible to legislate morality into people any more than it's possible to bomb democracy into people. No government program is going to succeed in making the populace at large less cruel, selfish, or greedy.

Human weakness allows war to occur, but human weakness exists in every country, and has existed forever. So why are some parts of the world peaceful while others are torn with war? The causes are complex, but among the chief causes of war are the breakdown of alternative means of conflict resolution. War seems very glorious and noble to many (who don't have to wade waist-deep in it), but most people would rather not do it. I think that the Israelis and the Palestinians would rather insult each other verbally and complain about one another's presence than continue a suicidal war. But for them right now the only alternative to suicidal war (which offers a twisted kind of dignity) is perpetual insecurity or perpetual slavery. It is remarkable the willingness to compromise of those two parties, in the few instances where they actually sat down at the negotiating table, compared to the level of stupidity of their leaders when talks were suspended and the dispute was settled on the streets. Perhaps a U.S. Department of Peace could cause negotiation to occur a bit more, and scene on the streets a bit less.

I'll just respond with a quote I think says it all.

H.G. Wells "The first man to raise a fist is the man who's run out of ideas."

If interesting socialists like Dennis Kucinich realised that more government can only lead to more problems (no matter how well-intentioned or skillful the bureaucrats and politicians), I guess they wouldn't be socialists any more, they'd be happy anarchists.

Actually diplomacy, peace-making and peace keeping efforts should not be characterized as government, since they are directed at people and countries who accept these forms of aid voluntarily. No one is forced to accept peacekeepers, diplomats, or third party arbiters--they have to be accepted by all parties involved. Strictly speaking international relations is a realm of anarchy, not of government. So at least inasmuch as the department of peace is directed toward problems abroad, the department of peace would not entail more government.

Mike says and I quote. "We already have policies which address those things. I can summarize the policies thus: If you do those things you go to jail. This policy seems to be at least moderately successful as our jails are filled with the people who do bad things and the crime rate goes down. I can point to programs that already seek to reduce incidents of domestic violence (lots of women's shelters out there) and the others"

I don't think these policies are very effective just take a look at the article below from the Balitmore Sun we have the LARGEST PRISON POPLULATION IN THE WORLD. And one of the higest crime rates in the world. I don't think it's working Mike.

I find it interesting that people like to bandy about terms like "Human Nature," or "basic human failing" with only a vague idea of what they are supposed to mean. Do we mean that somehow greed and violence are genetically hardwired into our species? I personally think the whole nature v nurture debate is huge waste of time. Every behavioral trait that humans have is caused by a dynamic web of biological and environmental factors. If we want to change human behavior, we have to discover what those causes are, decide which are ethical to change, and follow that up by changing them. The sort of determinism I detect in Mike's comment just doesn't exist. Its not as if people are in essence greedy and there is no way to change that.

The Current policies are not working to an acceptable degree. The article Tim posted is important. What it doesn't mention is that despite, the massive prison population in this country, Most countries in Western Europe, Canada, and Japan all have lower violent crime rates than the United States. These same countries have much lower incarceration rates. Apparently there is another way to deal with violent crime. Imprisoning everybody may be one way to reduce crime, but it seems an extremely expensive and inefficient way to address the problem.

Domestic Violence is a good specific example. This site has plenty of disturbing statistics about domestic violence. "Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey." I believe this is unacceptably high and it demonstrates that current efforts are not enough.

dende said: "Actually diplomacy, peace-making and peace keeping efforts should not be characterized as government, since they are directed at people and countries who accept these forms of aid voluntarily. No one is forced to accept peacekeepers, diplomats, or third party arbiters--they have to be accepted by all parties involved. Strictly speaking international relations is a realm of anarchy, not of government. So at least inasmuch as the department of peace is directed toward problems abroad, the department of peace would not entail more government."

Boy, this sounds nice, doesn't it. However, the kicker for an anarchist such as myself is in the very word "international". Inter Nations. This is the grease that keeps States from colliding too often. If you abandon the concept of the State, then the concept of "international" and "international relations" ceases to have any meaning.

I would draw your attention to to my recent posting where I point out how easy it is to fall into the trap of supporting something that sounds good.

Tim says we have one of the highest crime rates in the world. I dispute that. It's very difficult to find objective information on the subject, but this study seems to be relatively well done:

http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/index.htm

The USA leads the 1st world in homicides and gun violence, but we're not so bad when it comes to property crimes, sex crimes, assault, and other various felonious deeds. Most importantly, this study shows that many types of crime are significantly less prevelant than they were in the past in the USA, while they are on the rise in other parts of the (1st) world.

We have the largest prison population because of the relatively new-fangled mandatory sentencing and 3-strikes-your-out laws that take away much of a judge's power to determine your sentence. For instance, if you have drugs at the school across my street, you'll do 5 years minimum, no parole, probation, no questions asked, no matter what. It's pretty harsh I think.

If you want to reform the justice system to let more people out of jail, that's great. If you want to reform the penal system and make it more rehabilitive than punitive, that's swell too. Do you need a Department of Peace to do that? Nope, it'd be redundant; argue about reforming our existing organizations instead of adding new ones that also don't do anything right. Nothing would tickle my cynical funnybone more than putting federal prisons under the "Peace Department." That'd be as funny as that time I bought a one-way air ticket a few months back, flagging me as a sure-nuff terrorist. As they led me away to a back room, searched my underwear, and had Bill the Male Supervisor gingerly pat down my zipper with the back of his hands, I noticed 3 photos in that otherwise totally bare room: Ashcroft, Ridge, and some army guy smiling down upon my unfastened pants.

Mike: That is a amusing story, mainly because of the way you tell it. I'm sure it wasn't amusing at the time, however.

Looks like a good study Mike. The only problem I have with it is that it does not report homocides. It would be pretty difficult to ask someone if they were the victim of a homicide and get a response. :-) I don't know how that would effect the overall stats, but it is an interesting omission since we are concerned about violent crime only here. But I will concede for the moment that the study proves that the US does not have the highest violent crime rate in the industrialized world.

You wrote, "I can summarize the policies thus: If you do those things you go to jail. This policy seems to be at least moderately successful as our jails are filled with the people who do bad things and the crime rate goes down."

The point of the article Tim cited was supposed to be that imprisoning people isn't necessary the best way to reduce crime. The study you cited shows that the US is at the very least no better than these other countries in terms of crime rate, yet we incarcerate far more people.

I agree that the three strikes laws are harsh and I don't think they are very effective. I titled this article "proactive peace" for a reason. Imprisoning people is reacting after the violence has already occurred. I want to see programs that try to prevent violence before it occurs. I want to see a program that prevents these people from even coming up to bat.

Maybe creating a cabinet level department is overkill, but language is important. If a department or a sub-department was framed as being for peace, domestic and foreign, then the focus of action would be clear. It would be a proactive approach to preventing violence. I will concede that perhaps this can be done within existing structures. Perhaps we could create a special office of peace in the state department and perhaps there could be a new programs could be created to address domestic violence. Existing efforts have simply not been enough.