COMMENTARY

MILT THOMAS

Two young ladies came to my door this weekend, one pushing a baby stroller. They both looked too young to be mothers, but these days I think everybody looks too young. These well-dressed, polite and attractive young ladies invited me to a church-sponsored convention about creating a world government.

Say what? Those two words alone provoke an instinctive flight or fight reflex. But they certainly grabbed my attention.

So, they handed me an invitation flyer and left without trying to sell me on why they think world government is a good idea. Then, after reading the flyer, I understood why they didn’t stick around. It claimed this public event would answer the questions “Is it possible?” “Why do we need one?” and “Who is qualified to rule?”

Now, since this convention is being held at a Christian church, I can guess their answers. But it led me to wonder how could we ever agree on a world government when we have enough trouble just governing ourselves? I’m not being disrespectful to say that if they assume the world would unite under Christian leadership, they obviously haven’t been watching or reading the news lately. Or reading history. I believe that’s been tried before. Several times. Remember the reaction when President Bush suggested a “crusade” against terrorism? Apparently he forgot his history lessons, too.

And what about the United Nations? Wasn’t it supposed to be a forum where people could agree on what they must do to ensure a fair and balanced world? It is the world’s only forum, but it is far from a model of cooperation, much less governance. It’s more like a cage full of cats.

Moving closer to home, would our great country unite under Republicans? Or Democrats? We certainly have before. But what about lately? Congress these days can’t seem to agree on issues they agree on. Can’t we disagree without being disagreeable?   Apparently not.

Locally, we seem to agree on the need to save our Indian River lagoon, but not on what actions are necessary to save it. In fact, some actions, like the Oslo Road boat ramp for instance, where the public seems to agree with scientists that it is a bad idea, is unanimously supported by the very people we elected to save the lagoon. And I don’t even need to get into the electric sale or All Abort Florida.

Uniting for the common good, whether locally, nationally or worldwide, assumes that we can agree on the definition of “common good.” And it assumes that we can be inclusive and respect the views of those who don’t agree with us. Now, there’s two problems right off the bat.