AMERICAN AMELIORATION AND THE PITFALLS OF HEGEMONIC FOLLY: AN 18TH CENTURY REPUBLIC FACES THE MODERN WORLD
#1: The Great Conundrum and a New Purpose
The American Revolution (1776-1783) was and remains one of the most important and far reaching events in world history. It may be incalculable to estimate how this event changed the history of the world in terms of fostering democracy and encouraging other nations or peoples to overthrow ancient, oppressive regimes. The first president of the United States, George Washington was most fond of the word, “amelioration” or “melioration” as he often used the term. However; what Washington meant or what America has come to mean is an open, debatable question. Generally; to ameliorate means to make better, to improve or to uplift. The question then becomes by whose standards and to what purpose is this noble sounding goal to be accomplished?
In the view of many America has turned away from the idealistic, Enlightenment fueled idealism of her Founding Fathers and has become an over-stretched, hegemonic empire of sorts. The unexpected costs in blood and treasure of maintaining the first position among the nations of the Earth is proving to be an enormous burden. The massive deficit spending required to keep the American enterprise afloat is now leading to excessive partisanship and a fraying of the social fabric. Across the country and in almost all of the American states social programs are being cut or will be cut in an effort to bring the titanic budget under some measure of control.
In the opinion of other observers, the United States has no other choice or duty but to continue to strive on many fronts. To do otherwise is to invite various disasters economically, politically and militarily. Therefore; in this sense America must go on in an attempt to lead the world no matter what the cost. The core of this divisive thought goes all the way back to the stresses faced by and the political beliefs of the Founders.
This situation leads to another question. Is an 18th Century republic in terms of its construct or form flexible enough to deal with myriad problems, challenges and fruitful possibilities of the post-modern 21st Century? This sort of dilemma is not new to history. All leading nations or empires have come to this point at some time. It is the harshest of conundrums perhaps best described by the old phrase, “We have the wolf by the ears. We cannot hang on and we cannot let go.”
In 1984 the beloved historian Barbara Tuchman published a well received book, “The March of Folly: from Troy to Vietnam”. Tuchman’s prime definition of folly (or perversity) was defined as; “….pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency or state involved.” So, her historical discussion involves counter-productive policies or series of decisions made by powerful people that harm the welfare of the state they govern. These great follies, according to Tuchman must be noted or criticized in their own time. While she briefly noted the obvious point that there are many examples of folly in human history the book focused on four examples.
#A: The Trojan War is of course part myth mixed with some archeological findings that indicate something massive (or a series of events) did in fact occur. Tuchman wonders how could the Trojans after holding off the Greek siege for nine to ten years ignore warnings both divine and mortal not to accept the dubious gift of the Trojan Horse. As the story goes; the Trojans did not think the matter out and the formerly invulnerable city was sacked by the Greeks.
#B: Tuchman’s second example has to do with the actions of the Renaissance Popes. As we know they tended to be wholly corrupt, very sensual, fond of war and most importantly constantly coming up with ways to fund their lavish lifestyles. They also spent huge sums on architectural and artistic projects. This led to the sale of indulgences which were basically a means to raise money by paying a priest to pray for one’s admittance into Heaven. All of this arrogant behavior outraged many leading to what was essentially both a revolution and spiritual schism launched by the Protestants.
#C: This example dealt with the ignorance and short-sighted policies of the British government which led to the American Revolution. Early on in this crisis the American colonists were more concerned about taxation or money than independent liberty from Great Britain. However; a series of incompetent English ministries and King George III refused to recognize the basic loyalty of the Americans and kept antagonizing them with various taxes and repressive measures. The Americans finally revolted, the English found themselves fighting a war in a vast area 3,000 miles away with the added complexity of supplying their forces by sea during the era of sailing ships. The net result was that the British lost their most important colony (at least until they took India) which soon became the United States, the dominant power in North America and the world.
#D: Finally; Tuchman wrote about the American involvement in Vietnam. This is an incredibly complex story including the history of ancient Annam, the fact that northern and southern Vietnamese tend to squabble with each other (unless threatened by an outside power), poorly thought out clauses in the Treaty of Versailles regarding colonial peoples (Vietnam was a French colony then called Indo-China), the results of the Second World War, the rise of Communism and the attitudes of various American presidents towards Vietnam.
The essential American mistake was to intervene (or take over the burden from the French who were badly weakened by WW II) on the side of an elite Catholic minority in a largely Buddhist country. Ho Chi Minh and other Communists were actually open at one point to cooperating with the Americans. Yet; there was much diplomatic bungling, blindness to the realities on the ground and a partition of Vietnam all driven by Cold War fears. The United States found itself badly entangled in another countries’ civil war with an 8,000 mile supply line to manage. No matter how many troops were thrown in, no matter how advanced the technology, no matter how many tons of bombs were dropped, no matter what kind of diplomatic threats and cajoling were tried the US was simply unable to stop the uprising in the South or defeat the North. Beyond the millions of unnecessary deaths perhaps was the betrayal (Tuchman’s usage) of American idealism and the fracturing of the American polity.
#E: Although there are numerous examples of folly in History as Tuchman and probably ever historian have noted; I would argue that the United States is currently engaged in writing the fifth chapter of Tuchman’s book (she passed away in 1989). The complexity of the situation is mind boggling in its nature. The country is currently waging two and one-half wars in the Middle East (Afghanistan and Iraq & Libya) while doing little as other Arab states such as Syria crush their people. It is a well known and much debated controversy as to how much of America’s stance is a genuine desire to foster democracy as opposed to a struggle over the vast supplies of petroleum in the area. These conflicts are not going particularly well for the US and its increasingly disinterested allies. Now we see a wave of (hopefully) secular revolutions sweeping the Arab world while America warily looks on while simultaneously supporting an air-war campaign in Libya. There is much debate as of this writing as to who will actually controls these operations as there is uncertainty as to which way any of these uprisings may go. One may recall the anecdote regarding Henry Kissinger’s question to Zhou Enlai regarding the French Revolution and the answer, “It is too early to say.” There are valid questions as to whether or not a 235 year old republic can do much to change cultures that are four to six thousand years old or even if it should attempt to. Two other possible conflicts are on the horizon with Iran and with North Korea.
The US is now in a three year long recession (few in the US dare use the word, “depression”) that shows little likelihood of ending soon. Due to massive budget deficits the US borrows heavily from China a country that has its own agenda which is often not in any manner in harmony with that of America. Liberals and progressives think it unwise to lower taxes in order to continue to fund social programs thus salvaging something of the balkanized safety net. Conservatives devoutly believe that taxes should be cut in order to create jobs. The United States generates very little real wealth in terms of manufactured goods because much of our industry has been shipped abroad. It is becoming a service industry state….a process that has been accelerating since the 1970’s. Personally; I think it is a good thing when the ambitious, lucky and talented become rich. I worry about the rest of the people. Because American politics has become so divisive there is almost no cooperation between the two main political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Barack Obama, the current American president is a well-meaning moderate. The problem I discern (along with many others) is that he seems to have a quixotic belief that great political matters can be resolved or compromised in some reasonable, bi-partisan fashion. Given the present attitude of many in the Republican Party this goal is almost impossible. A good metaphor which my have been suggested before is; “we are watching a tennis game on the Titanic”, meaning while the political parties argue many important matters, issues and situations are getting worse. The likely collision or crash will only increase the sufferings of the people while distracting America from higher purposes.
*With all of this being said or written it is appropriate to address my purpose. I believe that there are structural flaws in the American system and the Constitution. When these, “flaws” are considered along with the basic cultural attitudes of Americans we find a nation that lacks in the suppleness, flexibility or even general interest in adapting to deal with the world as it is. So, we see a mixture of founding idealism and a nation that has done a great deal of good in the world. However; we also perceive a struggling giant whose troubles can pull the rest of humanity in less than productive directions. The, “New Purpose” I speak and write about is most admittedly difficult to achieve because the form or government of the US was designed to change slowly and due to the present financial difficulties. Therefore; my plan is to briefly address some important eras in American History and then at the end of this article to suggest some solutions. This will be done in section #9.
#2: (The Revolution and the Founders) The United State is not a democracy; it is a Federal republic meaning that we elect representatives to do the work of governing and that our democracy is thus, not direct. There are many reasons for this primarily due to the circumstances of the American Revolution (1776-1783) and attitudes of the Founders. It is true that the Revolution released or synthesized much of the European Enlightenment giving it a liberal direction as compared to monarchial nation states. This is best exemplified by the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence in which Thomas Jefferson beautifully borrowed from John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau and other philosophers. The concept that human beings are, “created equal” (in terms of political rights at least) and that freedom comes from a Deistic state of Nature rather than the writ of kings is indeed profound and revolutionary. This revolution in human affairs continues to this day whenever peoples rise against oppressive regimes anywhere.
However; the Revolution had a strong conservative element. The American colonists were quite angry that they were being taxed by Great Britain while holding no seats in Parliament. England could not understand why the Americans objected to this relatively light tax burden especially considering the high costs of the French and Indian or Seven Years War. Therefore; the Revolution had an economic motive and was largely led by the upper classes of American colonial society. It is certainly true that the combination of liberty and capitalism turned out to be a success. America took off like a rocket with occasional major financial and political bumps in the road.
Politics in America changed forever during the period of the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars (1789-1815). At first many Americans welcomed a second revolutionary republic. Yet, as time passed awareness of the horrors of revolutionary Terror and the slightly benign dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte fractured the American polity. In real terms the split was evident as early as the administration of the first President, George Washington. The two party system formed in response to the French Revolution, other world events, domestic squabbles between the states and basically diametrically opposed views of what America represented or should become.
Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury led the Federalists, a party that believed in a strong central government, a powerful executive, an industrialized economy, abolition of slavery and a foreign policy that tilted towards England. The leader of the Democratic/Republicans was Thomas Jefferson a shy, sly, brilliant man who had served in many posts including Ambassador to France, Secretary of State , Vice-President under John Adams and as President for two terms. The republicans preached small government or state’s rights over the Federal center, a pro-French policy, the retention of slavery in the South (with some hypocritical embarrassment), freedom for the people while hoping that the United States would become an agrarian nation. At first Hamilton appeared to be unstoppable as he successfully led the effort for the Federal government to assume the revolutionary debts of the states, the creation of the fight for the Constitution (with checks on the power of the states and people) and almost singlehandedly designed the American financial system (stock markets, links between the wealthy and the government and a centralized system of garnering revenues). He stabilized the early republic. However; Hamilton’s fiery, outspoken personality gained him many enemies and eventually the Republicans came to power with Jefferson as President in the contested Election of 1800. Hamilton did much to destroy his own party, the Federalists by attacking President John Adams. He was killed in an 1804 duel by Vice-President Aaron Burr. Hamilton had tormented the coy, talented, non-ideological Burr with various slanders for over 15 years. Jefferson became President in 1800 and proceeded to follow his republican philosophy with some notable exceptions in the area of civil liberties. The point is that the deed was done. The United States is now a two party system. While the names of the parties have switched and their ideas or goals have changed over time rather confusingly; the basic structure is in place for better or for worse.
#3: (The Indian Wars and Mexico –the West and expansion). The wars against the indigenous peoples North American really began during the early Colonial period. To vastly over-simply here the English colonists showed very little interest in inter-mingling with the Indians or understanding of their cultures. The Spanish while often quite brutal and the French were generally better at this. What is important here over the various battles, incidents and policy shifts is how these struggles impacted the American character. As noted, the Anglo-Americans began pushing the Native-Americans westwards and never really stopped until the massacre at Wounded Knee in 1890. Of course the Indians resisted and did win some victories such as Little Big Horn in 1876 when the Sioux wiped out Col. George A. Custer’s command. It was difficult to simultaneously defeat the various tribes and settle or conquer the West. The hardships suffered by the Americans during this era led directly to a myth or common perception that are tough, self reliant, pragmatic and that individuals must, “pull themselves up by there own bootstraps: (an impossible task if one is to try it). The danger in these attitudes (beyond that there is no more frontier beyond space exploration which is expensive and the electronic world of information) is that Americans moved away from a communal sense. That is to say that one prevalent cultural attitude is that those who struggle in life or become poor do so because they lack character.
Between 1846 and 1848 the United States went to war with Mexico on the flimsiest of pretexts. On the surface the argument was over the river border between Texas (which had revolted against Mexico in 1834 and after a period as an independent republic joined the US in 1845) and Mexico. The rivers were the Nueces which Mexico claimed as the line and the Rio Grande which the Americans wanted as the border. The real reasons were twofold. First; the US was in an expansionist mood and coveted the Southwest. Secondly; there was a great deal of pressure to gain new agricultural lands for slavery. Mexico had abolished slavery in 1829. Matters were not helped as the various political classes in Mexico refused to cooperate while corrupt, inefficient governments rose and fell with great regularity.
Mexico was quickly over-run by a small and effective US Army aided by the mobile US Navy appearing at will on both coasts. For a brief time the Mexicans retook Southern California but the struggle was an unequal one. The contest featured many American officers who would become famous (on both sides) during the Civil War. Suffice it to say that Mexico lost California, New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada and parts of Utah. Around the time of the peace treaty signing gold was discovered in California. The United States was greatly enlarged, enriched and confirmed the popular opinion of the day that due to, “Manifest Destiny” America was fated to rule the bulk of the North American continent. As for the Mexicans and now Mexican-Americans they were left with unpleasant memories and many of them became another under-class in the US, an immigration and political problem that plagues American politics consistently.
#4: Civil War and Gilded Age (rise of industrial complex). The British military historian John Keegan feels that The French and Indian Wars, The American Revolution, The Mexican-American War, The Civil War and The Indians Wars were all part of a titanic struggle for control of the North American continent. This is true but it is only part of the story. The Constitution (with its, “3/5 of all other persons” clause), The Northwest Ordinance, the Compromises of 1820 and 1850 were all essentially procrastinations to postpone the inevitable reckoning over slavery. This war was a massive disaster as approximately 2% (over 600,000) were killed out of a total population of 30,000,000. It remains the most fascinating of American wars and the most divisive. The main issue was slavery although preservation of the Union vs. State’s Rights were most certainly aspects of the struggle. The fascination comes from the many interesting and eccentric characters; the generals, the politicians, the African-American leaders, the women on the home front and of course, the soldiers themselves. Adding to this is that the Civil War was one of the most spectacular in terms of famous battles, brilliant strategies and unbelievable amounts of blood shed with the deepest devotion by both sides.
The true tragedy of the Civil War is that it did not end certain debates in America nor did it solve the problem of racism in this country. The recalcitrant Rebels did have a prescient point; the Federal (Hamiltonian) government did indeed get bigger and in some ways more invasive as it organized in order to defeat the Confederacy. Abraham Lincoln was a great man, a gentle and sad person who made the terrible decision to bring a,” hard” war to the South in order to make resistance impossible, one of the first modern examples of total war. Lincoln planned to offer the South policies that would lead to a, “soft” peace. His assassination was a disaster that hurt all sections of America. For all of his virtues Lincoln was focused on winning the war and ending slavery. The unintended consequence was the rise of the Republican Party under mediocre presidents that was strongly linked to the military and big business and wielding a great deal of political clout. Thus; the fears of Thomas Jefferson were realized.
Some Southern leaders did come to the realization that it would be impossible to create a new nation based on the flawed, morally bankrupt theory of human bondage. However; in part due to the harsh terms dealt the South during Reconstruction (1865-1876) white racism raised its ugly head and was not effectively dealt with (at least legally) until 100 years later during the Civil Rights era. The Civil War for all its nobility remains an open wound in the collective consciousness of Americans. Some in the South ennoble the war with a, “Lost Cause: mentality. African-Americans and other minority groups have bitter, collective memories as once enslaved or often repressed peoples in a theoretically free country. It will be very interesting to monitor the conversation in the United States as the various 150th anniversaries of the war and Reconstruction approach (2011-2026). Finally; the permanent schism in American politics is still with us. Although the parties have essentially changed positions with the Republicans being the conservatives and the Democrats being the liberals the South continues to be a fairly solid block of conservative voters thus skewing the results of Presidential Elections to this day.
#5: The First World War. The origins of The First World War were extremely complex although in hindsight there were many diplomatic squabbles, international incidents and lesser wars that gave ample warning of the stupendous horrors to ensue. Most of Europe was ruled by inter-linked noble houses (with Great Britain, Germany and Russia as the major European players) with the exception of a dysfunctional French Republic. A complex web of treaties both open and secret collapsed and one of the most unnecessary and bloody of all wars began. I say unnecessary as there was no clear cut evil to overcome. Yes, most of the regimes involved were inbred and arrogant yet the true evil lay in the mass slaughter. The fighting was mostly static due to improvements in technology, defensive tactics and almost wiped out an entire generation of young men. By the time that the US entered the war Germany was near collapse but still held on to small portions of France and the Low Countries.
President Woodrow Wilson was an odd, quixotic combination of conservative Democrat who held progressive ideals. He went to Versailles with the dream of ending war. However; he did not bother to consult or invite the Republicans in the US Senate nor did he expect that the leaders of England and France would not share his views. Most importantly; Wilson wanted, “self determination of peoples.” This stance meant that all countries were to give up their colonies in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere. The victors refused to do so while gobbling up Germany’s colonies. Wilson also dreamt of creating a, “League of Nations”, an organization intended to preserve the peace under the concept of, “collective security.” The Versailles Conference and Treaty raises the interesting speculation of how or why things done in one period of history lead to more problems and great, tragic disasters later. Essentially; Wilson was forced to compromise regarding overseas colonies or peoples ruled from Europe in order to gain acceptance of the League. When he took the Treaty of Versailles back to the Senate that body refused to ratify it. America was left in the embarrassing position of having proposed the League but not being a member. Wilson died a broken man. It is most unfortunate that the overly exuberant Theodore Roosevelt was physically weakened and out of power in the US. He may have been able to cut a better deal for all concerned.
Germany was forced to pay massive reparations that left the democratic, short lived Weimar Republic bankrupt and unstable. This led to the rise of radicals such as Adolf Hitler. Czarist Russia fell due to revolution and was replaced by the Soviet Union (Communist) ruled by V. Lenin and later the brutal dictator Josef Stalin. Many peoples around the world, especially in the Arab states carved out of the Ottoman Empire (Germany’s ally) and in Asia such as Vietnam were gravely angered and feeling betrayed. It would be the lot or choice of the US to deal with many of these situations at very great cost to all involved in the future. America retreated into isolationism while the pattern of big business and the stock market running amok was largely ignored (again) by a series of weak and mostly Republican administrations.
#6: Depression, World War 2 and primacy. There is a reason that economics has been called everything from, “the dismal science” to “irrational”. This is because no matter how good mathematical or computer models are it is most difficult to predict human behavior when it is combined with outside factors. In the case of the Great Depression which began in October of 1929 there are some commonly accepted explanations. The problems faced by Germany have been alluded to and Germany finally defaulted on her debts. Various nations such as Great Britain went on and off the gold standard. There was a terrible drought in the American Mid-West that destroyed crops and ruined the livelihood of many farmers. On Wall Street things were basically out of control. Trusts and holding companies bought up companies and corporations then turned around and issued stocks based on this new level of ownership rather than the original worth of the entities they swallowed up. People bought stocks in holding companies or trusts (which had no real value) with down payments around 10% of the estimated or assumed value. Nothing was produced, risks were high but for a time enormous profits (on paper) were created. When the market crashed millions of people were ruined and the world went into an economic slump. There were exceptions by the early 1930’s such as Nazi Germany which was busy re-arming. President Herbert Hoover tried to stem the tide with modest measures such as cooperation with big business, small loans and volunteerism but nothing worked because the population had lost faith in the system.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932 he launched, “The New Deal”. Some of the Roosevelt administration’s efforts were similar to Hoover’s while other more radical ideas moved the country to the political left. Without going into detail here regarding the veritable, “alphabet soup” of new agencies and programs I note that the real difference was that the American people began believing again and responded to Roosevelt’s reassuring rhetoric. Roosevelt enjoyed some victories and suffered political defeats yet the real point is that in some sectors the economy began to sputter into life. This proved to be a good thing considering what was to come next.
The Second World War actually began in 1931when Imperial Japan invaded China and Fascist Italy attacked Ethiopia. Meanwhile an energized and angry Germany used aggressive diplomacy and threats (to put it mildly) to swallow the Rhineland, Memel, Austria and Czechoslovakia. The Western powers seemed helpless to act as England sought to avoid another massive bloodletting through appeasement policies, France was in a state of perpetual political turmoil, the League of Nations could condemn but was not effective and America was absorbed with her own problems. The fairly new Soviet Union under Stalin was distrusted by all.
Things came to a head when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. France and Great Britain guaranteed Polish autonomy and the European phase of the war was under way. It is an open question whether or not Germany would have risked all without the dubious assurances of the Molotov Pact with the USSR. France and all of Western Europe fell by 1940 with the exception of Spain (a balky ally of Germany) and neutral Portugal. Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of England and for a time that nation stood alone. Roosevelt did help the English but most of the assistance came with the caveat that Britain must pay for the aid as Roosevelt had his own domestic political problems to consider. The United States entered the war when Japan attacked the naval base at Pearl Harbor (and useful military American British and Dutch targets all over Asia) on December 7 & 8, 1941. By that time the Germans had rather foolishly invaded Russia after failing to subdue England. Beyond the details of the blood soaked campaigns, the horrors as tens of millions of people died we should consider the results. Italy was knocked out of the War fairly early. Germany surrendered in May of 1945 and Japan in August of that year.
A great moral question was raised. How could civilized nations engage in such out of control, barbaric behavior? The Germans, Japanese and Russians discovered innovative, extraordinarily horrible methods to murder millions. No one was innocent as the Allies (mostly the US and the UK) resorted to round-the-clock bombing of Axis cities with high explosives and incendiaries ending with the use of nuclear weapons by America against Japan. The moral question was and is still pondered. War as a means of settling human disputes remains with us.
In terms of results it is clear that the United States was the victor. Before it was defeated Germany devastated France then Russia and to a lesser extent, England. Before Imperial Japan went down she inflicted terrific damage on China and disrupted the Pacific colonial possessions of Western Europe. Of course, Germany and Japan were basically wrecked. Although America suffered in terms of war dead, the country was basically untouched and thriving by the end of the conflict. Now, America was the dominant power (with some innocence in spite of aggressive actions in past wars) and inherited the attendant responsibilities. Soon the United States found that in spite of not wanting territory, in spite of re-building both former allies and enemies that the burden of being the leading economic, political and military power was most problematic. This has been the case for example from the Roman to British Empires. What America really wanted was a stable world so that US hegemony would be economic rather than military. This was not to prove possible and the situation was exacerbated by the sense of or belief in, “American Exceptionalism”, the feeling that even prior to the Revolution, America was a very special place and that Americans could do anything. While the US did do a great deal including landing on the Moon the limitations imposed by History would quickly appear.
#7: Korea and the Cold War. (Limited war and unlimited military budgets). In June of 1951 North Korea attacked South Korea. This was essentially the Korean civil war because after liberation from decades of brutal Japanese occupation in 1945 the unfortunate Koreans became pawns in the new struggle, the Cold War. At the time America was in a state of anti-Communist frenzy (with some reason) as Stalin had grabbed Eastern Europe, Communist Chinese revolutionaries took control of that nation and Russia along with China somewhat later began to develop nuclear weapons. Few paid attention to liberal diplomat George F. Kennan’s prediction that the USSR was bound to eventually fail due to the death of Stalin and the fact that it was an inefficient monolith. In the aftermath of WW 2 few noticed, or could agree on what to do about Korea. North Korea became a Communist state under the influence of the PRC and USSR while South Korea became a military dictatorship within the sphere of US interests.
Another terrible war ensued with South Korea, the Americans, the UN (mostly British Commonwealth nations) versus the Chinese, North Korea and Red Air Force all rampaging up and down that unfortunate peninsula and wreaking havoc on its ancient, deeply cultured peoples. After much public arguing with General Douglas MacArthur about strategy, President Harry Truman made a decision that was to affect History in profound ways. Annoyed by MacArthur’s massive ego and tactical mistakes (although MacArthur had been quite good except for the loss of the Philippines during WW2 and a fine governor of Japan) Truman fired the general and decided on the concept of, “limited war”. This meant that Korea was to remain divided at the 38th Parallel rather than risk a larger, nuclear war. Truman was correct here and may have saved the world from a third world conflict. However; and as usual things or History took another course. The US found itself funding enormous defense budgets in the hundreds of billions and now low trillions of dollars. The ongoing militarization of America (since Hamilton, since the Civil War and WW 2) was beginning to prove unsustainable in terms of sheer cost and definitely causing economic, political and social problems. Rightly or wrongly, the bill is now due.
#8: Vietnam and doubts. As is Korea, Vietnam or ancient Annam is an old and proud culture. Historically; the only thing that seems to unify the Vietnamese is the intervention of another power. Vietnam had been a French colony for a very long time and France was loath to let go in spite of being badly weakened during the Second World War. Largely due to this attitude of the French, Vietnamese nationalism veered left towards Communism especially in the North while the South was ruled by a Catholic minority in a Buddhist land. The Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh and his able general, Giap defeated the French in 1954. A conference at Geneva did not solve the problem and Vietnam was divided at the 17th Parallel. Various US administrations were drawn in beginning with that of Eisenhower. There is some evidence that John F. Kennedy was considering getting out of Vietnam if he won the Election of 1964. Sadly, this did not come to pass and President Lyndon Johnson massively expanded the war effort. At the peak of the US escalation there were 585,000 US troops in the country. In spite of massive bombing campaigns the North would not bend and the insurgency in the South continued. President Richard Nixon increased the levels of bombing (adding Cambodia to the target list which led to more butchery as the Khmer Rouge took over that de-stabilized country) while Secretary of State Henry Kissinger tried to negotiate a way out.
This war shattered the comity in American politics and culture. The counter-culture rose with new music, fashions, art and drugs then proceeded to oppose the war. This was roughly the same period of the feminist movement and the Civil Rights movement. Horrified conservatives began to look askance at what they believed to be weak-willed, self absorbed liberals while the left in America pointed at the fruitless nature of the war and the many inequities in American society. Matters were worsened when Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1968 (there were many other very unfortunate assassinations during this period, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and later John Lennon and culturally important, the eventually fatal wounding of Andy Warhol). This led to the defeat of Johnson’s moderate Democratic Vice-President, Hubert H. Humphrey by Republican Richard M. Nixon in the Election of 1968. Nixon; as noted above, proceeded to blast North Vietnam from the air in order to cover a withdrawal, invaded Cambodia and engaged in an unnecessary, paranoid scandal, Watergate. Both Nixon and South Vietnam fell. Millions died and billions were spent to no avail although Vietnam and the US get along well now largely due to concerns about the continuing rise of China. Beyond all this, Americans were embittered, divided and beginning to doubt themselves or if the great, original ameliorative ideal of The Founders was possible.
#9: Conflicts in the Middle East and the competition for resources. America seemed to go right along in fairly good order throughout the 1970’s, 1980’s and into the 1990’s. The Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight between 1989/90. The economy and budget surplus were good during the administration of Bill Clinton. The US and NATO did much to stop the bloody civil war(s) in the former Yugoslavia. Still, there were warning signs as much of the world festered in poverty and corruption as in Africa. Other nations or groups of nations were rising in terms of economic might and competing with the US. Through its own complacency and mismanagement the US auto industry found itself lagging far beyond that of Japan and then South Korea. The EU was rising (especially a very democratic, re-unified Germany) along with Brazil, China and India. China caused the most alarm because that nation had chosen to become capitalist while retaining one party (Communist) government. All of this may have or could be manageable in some benign fashion except for three main factors.
A: The US was and is the largest consuming nation on Earth. Roughly about 6% of the world population is using over 25% of the available resources on the planet. This makes America both the greatest polluter of the deteriorating, changing (climate) environment in History (although China will most likely soon claim that honor) and the greatest debtor nation ever seen. Most of this money used to fuel American consumption is borrowed from China, a nation that clearly follows its own self interest. This situation weakens the US in terms of dealing with China in terms of almost any international issue one can think of.
B: America is addicted to oil. Petroleum products fuel our cars (at the cost of investing in high speed rail for one example), is the basis for the production of plastics, fertilizers and many other useful things. Unfortunately, the burning of petrochemicals is now recognized as the major cause of climate change. In my view, the United States is now too deeply enmeshed in deficit spending to be consistently serious about the research and cost of seeking alternative fuel supplies. America holds very little of the world oil supply; most of the easily accessible oil is to be found in the very problematic Middle East. When President Jimmy Carter warned about excessive use of energy in 1977 most Americans scoffed.
C: The Arab nations (due to betrayals by Great Britain and France) and Persian Iran (due to US backed coups) hold some very old grudges against the West some of which I have alluded to in this piece. The dominant religion in the area, Islam has become radicalized in the hearts and minds of many Arabs. While there is some hope of and vital necessity in reaching out to the moderate middle classes in the Middle East this goal has not born much fruit so far. After the insanely effective terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington DC on September 11, 2001 the United States has gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. President George W. Bush was most aggressive in these endeavors. Neither Al Queda nor the Taliban has been defeated and both continue this new form of, “asymmetrical” war through proxies and Islamic political parties. War is expensive and this nation pursues it by borrowing, while refusing to raise taxes on the wealthy, neglecting to educate its people well and ignoring the plight of the poor. While no rational person including this writer can excuse or justify the zealous madness of 9/11 and other attacks against the US, American interests and allies it is clearly becoming time to think things out again. So, I finally wend my way to some possible, potential solutions while noting that to continue as we are is indeed, folly.
#10: The New Purpose. I will address domestic matters and the political construct of the United States first. There is little effective use in trying to fix international problems without some prior effort to bring our own house in order. It is true that the US Constitution is designed so that change comes slowly. Nevertheless; the attempt needs to be made for the good of all. The Electoral College needs to be eliminated. It was designed to be a check on the will of the people because at the time Americans worried that their revolution might spin out of control as did the French Revolution. Problems with this method of indirect voting have surfaced in the Elections of 1800 (Jefferson vs. Adams and then Jefferson vs. Burr), 1824 (Jackson vs. J.Q. Adams), 1876 (Hayes vs. Tilden) and 2000 (Bush vs. Gore). All of these contested elections have led to problems or disillusionment on the part of many Americans. The American people should have the right to elect their leader themselves.
We need to think about the 2nd Amendment. The American people were allowed to bear arms because of a fear that the British would come back which they did in 1812. However; given that this culture has many violent aspects, I do not believe that The Founders could have dreamt of the power of modern assault weapons or the mass carnage now possible. There must be some way to preserve, this deeply felt, “right” while preserving public safety. Consider the recent shootings in Arizona. The act of one disturbed young man may drive our own elected Representatives away from the people out of concern for their own safety. In any case and permitting myself a bit of satire; should the prospect of revolution or counter-revolution arise (which I do not advocate) guns would most certainly become available.
Let us think about the 4th Amendment in the age of computers. There is no privacy today. Every keystroke made on-line is remembered and often tracked for commercial or security purposes on some massive server, somewhere. Yes, we do need to know what pedophiles, killers, financial scammers and terrorists are up to but do we really need to monitor everyone? This is the old argument of security versus liberty. This matter needs a rational conversation leading to an appropriate, protected measure of privacy.
Another thing we need to rethink is the 12th Amendment which forces, “tickets” for the presidency and vice-presidency. Perhaps there should be a Second Vice-President who presides over the House and acts as sort of an ombudsman for the people. This person could also act as a ceremonial head of state as US presidents are rather busy. Either this person or the Vice-President could be elected separately thus putting a slight check upon the executive within the executive. Should such a conversation come to pass it needs to be done wisely in order not to foil the will of the people or lead to a fractured executive branch.
Yet another thing we need to rethink various Supreme Court decisions that granted or allowed corporations the status and rights of persons. This situation has led to the worse corporate abuses. The current financial crisis is the perfect example. Financiers found a new source of wealth in the mortgage/housing market. Vast numbers of mortgages were bought from the original lenders. Then these mortgages were bought and sold in bundles as, “derivatives”. These derivatives were basically bets that home owners would either succeed in paying off their home loans or fail and default. So, these financial products could be used to bet either way. Again; as in the Great Depression nothing was created or built. In fact much of this, “money” was not even printed as cash, it was done by transferring enormous sums digitally thus making it a sort of inflationary, destructive form of, “faux” money. The already badly strained US economy took another hard blow and many people lost their homes. This, “shadow” market proceeded with almost no oversight or regulation until it was too late. If an individual citizen is responsible for his or her acts then corporations and their officers should be equally.
We might consider allowing for representatives at large so that the Socialist/Green left and Libertarian right have some say in Congress. This is because both the Democrats and Republicans have been around so long that they are intertwined with corporate and business interests often at great cost to our democracy. Campaign finance reform is needed because large amounts of money are needed to run for office and most of that money is held by influential corporations. I believe that in Germany the threshold is 5% of the vote for lesser parties to enter government. Such a structure would force the two main parties to cut deals or enter coalitions with the minor parties and perhaps then the will of the people might be better recognized. In essence this is a step towards a parliamentary system.
Let us bring back the draft for things including but other than the military, Peace Corps, Ameri-Corps and a teaching corps. On the surface this sounds undemocratic but it would serve some good purposes. According to, “The (1906) Moral Equivalent of War” theory of William James this would provide the opportunity for national service for the young and (these days) older people with useful skills. It is a matter of civic duty and amelioration for the common good. This would be a good way to help over-educated but unemployed citizens pay off their unreasonably large student loans. The military would gain highly educated recruits if a person chose that route and there would pacifistic alternatives for others. The greatest benefit would be that the young who serve would gain useful experience and a sense of duty combined with the discipline needed to succeed in life.
We need to understand that the United States is no longer the sole super-power. Even as the international financial system dangerously wobbles; the EU (especially Germany), Brazil, Russia, China, South Korea and India are rising. Such recognition does not imply disaster; it indicates that we need to get smarter as a nation. This means playing diplomatic chess rather than simplistic checkers. There are many other nations in the world with similar cultural values, interests and goals. The United States is not alone and can still lead. Therefore; we need to strengthen alliances, build coalitions and maintain a balance of power. Standing with like-minded nations could bring a great deal of good into the world and put a check of those nations or entities that mean to bring harm to or destruction upon any, innocent group. The same holds true for the problems of climate change, public health, population control, energy and poverty. Yes, there are endless meetings on these sorts of issues. It is time to get serious and consider the bigger picture. No matter what our personal or national concerns may be as one of many species we do share this beautiful, finite Earth. This brings me to a conclusion with a positive idea. How interesting it would be to see cooperation in the exploration of space. It would be a happy day when the news leads with a story about astronauts leaping around in pink methane snow somewhere rather than the usual droll horrors. To quote William James, “All the higher, more penetrating ideals are revolutionary.” It is possible though it will not be easy to find a new purpose, to ameliorate, face the future with confidence and renewed hope.
Keith Keller
No comments:
Post a Comment