“Even a happy life cannot be without a measure of darkness, and the word happy would lose its meaning if it were not balanced by sadness. It is far better to take things as they come along with patience and equanimity.” Carl Jung
“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.” Albert Einstein
I’ve been working on practicing non-reactive equanimity. Recently, I’ve been getting lots of opportunities to put that practice to the test. There is so much I want to react to with unbridled rage. Perhaps I need to heed the advice of Jung and Einstein.
As I process what’s happening on the world stage and in my local arena, I’m struck by how quickly and forcefully so many people voice their opinions on the “right” answers for whatever problem happens to pop up in the media. It seems like most people feel that the “solution” is readily apparent – if only people would listen to them and take their advice. Clearly, there’s no shortage of opinions about the events taking place in the world; what seems to be missing are the right questions.
In a recent interview with Stephen Batchelor, Ezra Klein explores the issue with THIS. I have enjoyed several of Batchelor’s books in the past, e.g. Buddhism with Beliefs, Confessions of a Buddhist Atheist, and Secular Buddhism. In his new book, Buddha, Socrates, and Us: Ethical Living in Uncertain Times, Batchelor explores fully the idea of non-reactive equanimity and substantiates the idea with a deep review of its historical antecedents in Greece and India in the fifth century BCE. As it turns out, Buddha (Gotama) and Socrates lived in that same time frame, never encountered each other in person, but came to many of the same conclusions about living ethically in the face of uncertainty. I particularly liked this quote in the book: “Instead of arrogance, there is humility; instead of “opinionatedness,” wonder; instead of certainty, uncertainty.” I highly recommend the Ezra Klein interview and any of Batchelor’s books. Ahh, humility, wonder, and uncertainty. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see more of those characteristics in our life?
My older daughter, a religious studies major in college, is now pursuing a master’s in divinity. Over the years, she and I have discussed the problems of arrogance, certainty, and the tendency to cling rigidly and righteously to opinions – religious, political, and otherwise – on which it is impossible to have a definitive answer. The truth is that, for many questions, we simply don’t know. Indeed, it is impossible to know.
Regarding the current headline-dominating events, we hear an endless stream of righteous opinions presented with arrogant certainty. Hey, guilty as charged. I’m sure if you were to read the 432 posts on this blog over the past ten years, you would find many examples of righteous opinions presented with arrogant certainty. In this post, however, I want to stick with the questions that are on my mind that I’m trying to explore with non-reactive equanimity. Let’s start with our current situation. It seems to me the question we might want to be asking before we engage in any military or meddling intervention is, “How have previous US interventions worked out for the world, and why do we think this one will work out any better?”
History documents that the U.S. has been involved in various interventions and actions that contributed to regime changes in several countries throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, though the nature and extent of the involvement varies. Here’s a brief overview:
1950’s:
- Iran (1953): The CIA orchestrated a coup (Operation Ajax) that overthrew the Prime Minister and reinstated the Shah, which led to significant political repercussions in Iran. Those repercussion are being felt in full force today.
- Guatemala (1954): The CIA orchestrated a coup against President Jacobo Árbenz, who had implemented land reforms that threatened U.S. interests. That coup, plus subsequent interventions, resulted in genocide against the Mayan people, widespread human rights abuses, massive displacement, and deep-seated instability, creating lasting societal trauma, entrenched corruption, weak state structures, and significant migration waves that continue to impact the country today.
1960’s:
- Dominican Republic (1961): The U.S. supported the assassination of dictator Rafael Trujillo and later intervened in the country to prevent a perceived leftist takeover.
- Vietnam (1963) The U.S. provided support to overview President Diem and then to the South Vietnamese government against the communist North, including military intervention escalating into a large-scale war that aimed to prevent the spread of communism. After a total of more than 2 million deaths, Vietnam is now a communist country and balances its alignments with the US, China, Russia, and others.
- Brazil (1964): The U.S. supported the military coup that overthrew President João Goulart, leading to years of military dictatorship.
1970’s:
- Chile (1973): The U.S. supported a coup d’état that overthrew democratically elected President Salvador Allende, leading to the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet.
- Argentina (1976): The U.S. provided covert support to the military junta that overthrew Isabel Perón, leading to a “Dirty War” against political dissidents.
1980’s:
- Nicaragua (1980s): The U.S. supported the Contras in their efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government, which had come to power after the Somoza dictatorship was overthrown. Now Nicaragua is experiencing a period of significant political and economic upheaval as the government of President Daniel Ortega and Co-President Rosario Murillo continues to consolidate absolute power.
1990’s
- Bosnia/Serbia (1990s): U.S. intervention in the Bosnian War came through NATO, which aimed to stop ethnic cleansing and restore peace, ultimately leading to the Dayton Accords.
- Iraq (1990s): Following the Gulf War, the U.S. enacted sanctions and no-fly zones against Iraq but did not seek regime change until the 2003 invasion, which aimed to remove Saddam Hussein. Now, Iran has significantly greater influence in Iraq than it did before the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The fall of Saddam’s regime removed Iran’s primary regional adversary and created a power vacuum that Iran was able to fill by cultivating deep political, security, and economic ties.
- Haiti (1991 and 2004): The U.S. played a role in the ousting of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide twice—first after a coup in 1991 and then in a later intervention in 2004. Haiti is now in complete ruin and ruled by gangs.
2000’s
- Afghanistan (2001): In response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the US used military force to oust the Taliban government for harboring al Queda. Ultimately, despite a 20-year presence, over 2,400 American military deaths, and $2 trillion spent, the U.S. departure resulted in the swift return of the very entity it had initially sought to remove from power, leading to the widely accepted conclusion that the Taliban achieved victory.
- Libya (2011): The U.S. participated in a NATO-led intervention during the Libyan Civil War that contributed to the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi. After Gaddafi’s overthrow in 2011, Libya descended into prolonged political fragmentation, civil conflict between rival factions (east vs. west), widespread lawlessness, proliferation of armed groups, and severe economic hardship for most citizens.
- Ukraine (2014): The U.S. supported protests and political maneuvers that led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, which was seen as a response to his decision to reject an association agreement with the EU. Russia followed up by illegally invading Crimea in 2014 and has spent the last 11 years expanding its footprint in Donbas and has been trying to overthrow Ukraine under Zelensky since 2022.
- Venezuela (2026): The U.S. has been supporting efforts to undermine or overthrow the government of Nicolás Maduro, especially during the 2019 political crisis. In the first week of 2026, the US removed Maduro as President. It is completely uncertain what the outcome of that intervention will look like.
These instances reflect a complex interplay of Cold War dynamics, economic interests, and foreign policy goals. The extent of U.S. involvement varies from direct military intervention to covert support for opposition groups. Each case has had significant implications for the affected countries and regional stability. It’s also important to note that some U.S. interventions have had positive effects, e.g. the Marshall Plan after World War II, the principled opposition to the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the brokering of peace between Egypt and Israel, the facilitation of Marcos’s departure from power in the Phillippines, the persuasion of the Africaner minority to surrender power in South Africa, etc. There have successes and the U.S. has been a force for good in many instances.
Given that history, however, it seems to me that it is fair to ask (with non-reactive equanimity) why we think this intervention will end well and how we might reach a positive outcome given how complex this situation is.
My point here is not to go into a rat hole filled with righteous opinions and arrogant declarations. I’m simply suggesting that it might be helpful to approach next steps non-reactively with a great deal of humility and uncertainty. I have a hard time believing there is any “right” answer to this highly complex problem.
But let’s use that global issue as a stimulus to ask a personal question, “how might I live my own life with less reactive rage and more effortless equanimity?” I’m not suggesting that we crawl into a hole (or our bubble) and ignore the issues. Quite the contrary. We need feet on the street in response to boots on the ground; AND those feet need to be grounded in calm resolve, freed by creative responsiveness, and powered by courageous resistance.
I’m simply wondering how different life might be if we lived with more equanimity. What new possibilities might unfold in a calm and peaceful space where we stay open to multiple options instead of landing irrevocably on an entrenched position, ideology, or belief. Jung, Einstein, Buddha and Socrates all think it might good idea. Maybe it’s worth a try.
I’m hoping we can notice the righteous rage that arises in our guts when we keep experiencing assaults on our principles and values. I’m hoping we can step back, take a breath, and let it be. I’m hoping we will do the research and welcome honest history before we engage in self-righteous, arrogant assertions of “the right answer.” I’m hoping we can begin to think, relate, plan, and act as calm collectives instead of as unhinged individuals. May it be so.
