The future of the American republic was frequently sustained by the timely appearance of notable leaders, who faced difficult issues that threatened the security and stability of the nation. Great presidents rose to the challenges that menaced the country, serving the people with desperately needed abilities. After their tenure, scholars and populist historians interpreted the significant events that led to wars, foreign interventions, or domestic crises, from the perspective of intellectual detachment, academic security and too often, indifference to the passions, doubts and confusions that shaped decision-making. Coincidental to the rise of globalism, with its traumatic impact on the American economy, may be the decline in the quality of our leadership, which is most tested in periods of extreme turmoil.
From pre-colonial times through World War II, the wars of America involved most of the citizenry, whether in combat, concern for loved ones, production of equipment and supplies, fund raising, civil defense, or countless other contributions to the war effort. Those who lost loved ones were pitied and respected, even by opponents of the war. And each war had its dissenters. Those who resisted the summons to arms out of high principle and protested the use of force from moral certitude, strengthened the fiber of the nation, since democracy requires the questioning of purpose, as long as it does not inhibit the need for necessary action for the survival of the nation.
Starting with Herodotus, recorded history reveals the perilous state of existence for nations and peoples, whose fate has invariably been decided by war. The clash of civilizations was inevitably resolved in battle. Empires were rarely dismantled peacefully and were traditionally dismembered by violence. The expansion of any nation was characterized by encroachment on another nation. Helpless peoples became slaves, or victims of exploitation. Pacifism was a condition of weakness, rather than moral virtue.
Everything changed in America after World War II. We righteously defeated totalitarianism and were ready to receive the fruits of victory; education, prosperity, the good life only previously envisioned by philosophers. But the world had contracted, due to a vast global confrontation that left fortress America vulnerably exposed to unprecedented threats. A terrible new enemy emerged, communism, potentially even more dangerous and menacing than fascism, with an ideology that had attracted many liberal westerners in the 1930’s, who were dissatisfied with the shortcomings of democracy.
The United Nations, formed with the same high ideals as the League of Nations, became the public forum for two opposing blocs, as well as third world, supposedly unaligned, nations. Although World War III seemed inevitable, large stocks of nuclear weapons assured mutual destruction and tenuous accommodations were reached with the adversary. The greatest accomplishment of the twentieth century was the absence of a nuclear exchange between America and the Soviet Union. Wars of necessity became limited and the triumph of American arms was a relic of the past. People’s wars of liberation, despite mostly being communist inspired, appealed to liberal intellectuals, who perceived a righteous cause and shut their eyes to mass liquidations and Gulags. At the same time, when America committed abuses, we were automatically judged guilty and condemned, because the world in general, and our citizens in particular, insisted we should behave better than others.
For various reasons spanning the gamut from egotism to ignorance, the liberal media, northeast intelligentsia and Hollywood leftists concluded that America was an aggressive oppressor, manipulated by an exploitative oligarchy for the benefit of a privileged few. Our policies were depicted as the major destructive force on the world stage. Whether these vociferous groups were correct in their sweeping judgments, or paranoid victims of delusion, is immaterial. Americans who accuse America of evil, do so from the bulwark provided by the security of democracy, a fundamental American institution. They demand a level of morality far more rigorous than applied to other nations, and refuse to recognize the need for real politik in a ferocious world. This arbitrary double standard may have birthed a great confusion in our youth.
However simplistic it may have been perceived by hyper-critical intellectuals, young Americans once aspired to the principles of a nation that were characterized by patriotism, loyalty and service. The Korean War, never explicated in a meaningful way to the public, left most of the country unaffected by the death of our men far away, except for those families who lost loved ones. There was no higher call to duty, no noble cause, no clear goals, only the defense of half an Asian people far away, from the other half of their countrymen, arbitrarily divided by cold war circumstances that made it normal to cut countries in half, to appease conflicting blocs. The intervention of communist China in Korea barely disturbed a nation already detaching itself from concern with the well-being of its military.
The Korean War ended in a stalemate, just about where it began, after the loss of thousands of American lives, with no clear result and for the first time in our wars, no victory. As the tensions of the cold war increased in the late 1950’s, the dread of nuclear conflict permeated the American psyche. This created a schizoid personality in many young people, who were threatened by possible annihilation that they knew they were powerless to prevent, while at the same time they were encouraged to lead “normal” lives. Despite our nation’s material prosperity, inconceivable in ages past, there was an unease underlying our way of life, a constant of the atomic age, that made us more stressed than previous generations.
The children who came of age in the ‘sixties’ were more dramatically divided into haves and have-nots than ever before. The haves, although amply provided with higher education and economic security, were not encouraged to develop traditional values by their parents, who were too absorbed in the pursuit of hitherto unattainable luxuries. Many young men from the blue collar class joined the military out of patriotism, opportunities for education, or even economic advancement. Regardless of their motivation, they served their country. Have-nots from the poverty communities were mostly drafted or joined to escape the harsh streets. Too many of the children of privilege evaded the draft, because they no longer esteemed our military and disdained military service.
The civil rights movement of the early sixties particularly stirred our college youth with a clear cut call to action in the struggle for equality. Moral virtue could hardly be disputed when it was opposed by hatred and discrimination. Then the Movement wound down and was replaced by the war in Vietnam as the national challenge. The youngsters who had felt empowered in a righteous cause, then thoughtlessly applied the same simple principles of right and wrong to a highly complex political and military conflict that was an integral facet of the Cold War.
In an irresponsible process of neglect, or deliberate mis-instruction, the best educated generation of young people in our history were left virtually ignorant of our appalling dependence on oil, the vast scope of the Cold War, the consequences of displaying weakness on the world stage and the historic fragility of the existence of democracy. Many young people felt that war was evil, and under the influence of sincere pacifists, fervent poets, hysteric entertainers, and raucous attention getters, they decided that America was evil, because of our assault on a distant peasant nation that imposed no threat to our well-being.
So while have-nots were fighting, bleeding and dying in remote Asian jungles and rice paddies, the haves were vigorously protesting our brutalities in our cities and campuses, until it was time to go home, or resume classes, or seek whatever diversion or entertainment appealed to them. The youth in combat had no choices. When the portable tv camera brought the Vietnam War, live and in color, into the living rooms and dorms of America, it made the horrors of war even more unpalatable to inexperienced youth. At the same time, the cameras, live and in color, brought anti-war demonstrations into living rooms, dorms, G.I. barracks and foreign countries, presenting a pageant of venomous dissent that hadn’t been seen in America since the Civil War. Rabid opposition to ‘Lyndon’s War’ actually ended his presidency.
When the Vietnam War finally concluded in our ignominious defeat, many Americans gloated at our discomfiture, further alienating an already bitter military, who felt they had been forsaken by the nation, while they were fighting far away. At the same time, our universities, erstwhile providers of knowledge, seemed to be more concerned with the accumulation of real estate and amassing of assets. Instead of requiring courses in the harsh realities of the world, and more math and science to continue our technology, they offered more fine arts. They did not inform gullible students that the sword decides the fate of nations more often than the pen. It was another sign that our society was becoming too comfortable to struggle against the vicissitudes of life, except part-time. The lessons of natural tragedies; earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, disease, as well as man-made disasters; war, train crashes, auto accidents, hand gun violence, occurrences that should remind us that life is fragile, perilous, fraught with risk, were softened for too many of us by the protective cocoon of amenities.
After the fall of Saigon in 1975, America retreated into its shell for the rest of the decade, opting for diplomacy and trade, in preference to military adventure. The Reagan administration advocated a strong military and resistance to the ‘Evil Empire’ of the Soviet Union that confronted us globally. This challenge of the ‘eighties’ saw the resurgence of the struggle between the ‘hawks’ and the ‘doves’. President Reagan’s urgency for the Strategic Defense Initiative, ‘Star Wars’, provoked opposition from the same type of anti-war groups that had protested in the ‘sixties’, without their previous vigor and clarity of purpose. The scientific complexities of ‘Star Wars’ precluded the involvement of most actors and poets, who were ill-equipped to dispute the issues. Since ‘Star Wars’ was mostly research, few instances for volatile confrontation and insufficient publicity discouraged many attention-seeking radicals from active protest.
The collapse of the Soviet Union ended a competition that fortuitously never erupted in horrendous nuclear war. Proxy wars had replaced direct conflict and the culture of war in America was in disrepute. Any consideration of military options was instantly opposed by anti-war elements, regardless of circumstances. This vocal resistance was echoed by several allies in NATO, no longer dependant on the United States for protection from the big, bad Russian bear. While our economy boomed in the ‘nineties’ and enriched the world, resentment for our power and culture became condition normal, especially in the Moslem world. Somehow, despite helping the world more than any country in history, we were losing our friends and making new enemies. At the same time, the nation that was founded on continuous conflict had lost its appetite for war.
Although we forged a broad alliance in the first Gulf War and achieved the first notable military victory in two generations, the situation of America did not change significantly for the better. In fact, the rise of the Euro-Union fostered an economic rivalry between two great industrialized blocs that created growing differences between them. Conflicts of interest, suppressed during the apprehensions of the Cold War, surfaced with increasing regularity. All the doubts that had distressed America in the ‘sixties’, reemerged as our economy spiraled down and we couldn’t seem to do anything right on the world stage. Businesses were taking their capital abroad. Jobs were being outsourced, especially high paying industrial and technical positions, leaving bleaker opportunities for discontented workers in lower paying security and service jobs.
The dot.com collapse assailed an economy struggling with massive trade deficits, disappearing industries and growing apprehensions that America’s time in the sun was winding down. Public confidence in our leaders was stretched thin and media second-guessing of every event further extended the plagues of doubt and confusion. Politics had virtually become ossified in a two party system. In the 2000 election, democrats actually blamed a third party candidate for the loss of the presidency for their party. Slightly reminiscent of the decadence of ancient Rome, when ‘Blues’ and ‘Greens’ struggled for power, the two major parties frowned on alternatives, abrogating the people’s right to a candidate of their choice.
9/11 changed the emotional landscape of America, presenting us with a moral crusade against terror. Among other results, this distracted us from difficult or unsolveable problems that would not go away, but were suddenly less threatening. However distressed we might be by diminishing incomes and fewer opportunities, the menace of terror became our overwhelming priority. Domestic security was suddenly so important that it eclipsed other vital concerns for the long term future. Our scientific and technical lead over the rest of the world was rapidly evaporating. More than half of the ph.d candidates in our graduate school programs are foreigners, studying math, physics and other sciences. They will return to their countries and help advance development. Many of our ph.d candidates are in the arts, soft sciences and physical education. The disparity for the future is alarming.
We cannot suppose that our nation is at crossroads. That would presume clear choices. We may be facing the most perilous time in the history of the republic. A time of industrial, technical, scientific, perhaps even moral decline, that leaves our vulnerable citizens apprehensive, our aware citizens uneasy. Our ailing system indicates that we cannot resurrect obsolete industries and compete in the world market in manufacturing products that are produced cheaper and better abroad. It has not been determined if our advanced technical industries can sustain a nation. The gulf between haves and have-nots keeps widening to the point of creating a de facto oligarchy. It is uncertain if the wounded giant can regenerate itself. We urgently need great leadership to steer us through these ominous pitfalls. New directions and new horizons must be found, before the republic of dreams dwindles to a second world reality.
