Why Kill Her?

            From what is known from news reports, Miriam Carey tied to ram a White House barricade and then fled police in a high-speed chase to the Unite States Capitol where they cornered her and shot her to death.

            Why?

            Carey had no weapon. She hit a Secret Service agent with her car at the White House, and then rammed a police car when she put her black Infiniti into reverse. A Capitol police officer was injured, but reports are unclear as to whether Carey was directly responsible for the injury.

            So why kill her? Was there no other way of stopping her from whatever she was trying to do?

According to one video clip, the police had managed to stop her car in front of the Capitol and surround it with guns drawn before she sped off. Couldn’t they have disabled the car by shooting out the tires? There must be other ways to stop a speeding vehicle.

Many questions remain about Carey. Why did the 34-year-old dental hygienist travel 275 miles from her Connecticut home with her 1-year-old daughter, who was not hurt during the incident, and ram a White House barrier?

News reports claim she had mental health issues related to postpartum depression, but again, why was it necessary to kill her?

As one expert on police use of force, Geoffrey Alpert of the University of South Carolina, told the Associated Press, “I think the question we have to ask is, ‘What threat did she cause? What threat was she to the officers, to the public, to the politicians?’”

From news reports and videos, it didn’t seem like a great threat, but without more facts it’s just second guessing. An investigation is planned, but that doesn’t guarantee we will get satisfactory answers. We hope we do.

The concern is this: Has our fear of terrorism become so great that we are seeing terrorists everywhere we look? Have we now decided to shoot first and ask questions later? Miriam Carey’s death seems so significant to these issues.                                                   

Atlas Shrunk

            The government shutdown brings to mind “Atlas Shrugged,” Ayn Rand’s mammoth 1957 novel about one man, John Galt, shutting down “the motor of the world” because government taxes and regulates too much, depriving men of realizing their full potential as individuals.

            “This is an epic tale about a man who said he would stop the motor of the world – and did,” is one of the blurbs on the “Atlas Shrugged” website. “A thrilling mystery about what might happen if the world’s producers disappeared,” is another, and a third: “A story that shows how ideas have the power to shape the world we live in.” 

            Anyone who has read the novel knows it’s long, 1,168pages, and about many things including romance and sex. Its plot and theme, though, are essentially vehicles to espouse, at least in my perspective, an ideology rather than philosophy. It’s called “objectivism.” This ideology essential states that individuals should be selfish and should never compromise – on anything.

            Rand described objectivism in 1962: “Man – every man – is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

            Sort of sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, there are many, some of whom are in government, who believe this. Some politicians believe some issues are so sacrosanct that compromise is impossible. But there’s compromise, and then there’s selling your soul for ambition and avarice.

As is commonly understood, compromise is where parties, none of whom is entirely right or wrong on an issue or in a dispute, give up something they believe in and accept something they don’t (sacrificing?). They do this in order to move forward on finding a common ground that would benefit the whole rather than the individual.

Good things have come from compromise, like the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights – each filled with ideas from a lot of people who didn’t always agree but that have nonetheless shaped the world.

 

 

            In “Atlas Shrugged,” Rand’s hero, Galt, succeeds in bringing the world to a halt in order to broadcast, using his technologically advanced radio, the philosophy of objectivism. He is cheered by supporters who believe the world will see the wisdom, adopt the philosophy, and life will be good. People will go about doing what they want without interference or critical appraisal from anyone, particularly the government.

            That sounds well and good for fiction, but it doesn’t seem to be a realistic way to go about things like raising a family let alone running a government. But then, who am I to say? In the words of Graham Green’s foible-prone Holly Martins, the protagonist in “The Third Man,” I’m just a hack writer.

            America is the Atlas of the world, but when the nation’s democratically elected leaders allow the nation’s engine to stop because they can’t compromise, America then no longer looks like the Greek mythological figure that holds up the celestial sphere. It looks like a puny being unable to realize the folly in failing to compromise and the hard truth that everyone is replaceable – even John Galt.