This week, Americans remember the December 7th, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by the Empire of Japan, an event which ushered the United States into the Second World War and perhaps one of the greatest moments of altruism for the common good that any country or alliance has ever undertaken. What has happened to the American character that has made altruism and the values of common good so antithetical to freedom?
It's sometimes hard to remember in light of the United Nations' astounding victory in the Second World War, that before December 7th, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill were in a terrible pickle.
Germany and Japan were terrorizing the globe and making steady gains in controlling the planet's natural resources. France had fallen, leaving the British Empire alone to protect Europe, and the majority of the empire's resources were in the antipodes, with joint German and Italian forces making haste to cut-off the Suez Canal lifeline, by sweeping through Africa. The United States was is no mood for foreign entanglements, and Franklin Roosevelt was no dewy-eyed idealist like Woodrow Wilson; there would be no"war to end all wars" on his watch, nor any Quixotic quest to save democracy just for democracy's sake. Most American's, Roosevelt knew, felt the Europeans were (at best) getting what they deserved and he was not far behind them in their assessment.
Of course, Roosevelt for all his many faults (and he did have many, many faults) was a pragmatist. He realized that the United States, just limping as it was out of a depression, would need Europe as trading partners and likewise; appreciated them fighting their war for his benefit. But December 7th, 1941 changed all that; not just for a pragmatic and politically savvy president, but for the groundswell of the American people. Suddenly the United States was attacked, and all bets were off. Not since the American Civil War had American's geared up for such a total war so quickly and so willingly.
And here we will leave 1941 and the Second World War, since we all know how that ended. The interesting thing for me (the Good Question seeking to find a Good Answer as it were) is what happened to the American spirit of 1941? We talk about the"Spirit of '76" when we refer to the American concepts of personal liberty and freedom as espoused by our revolution of 1776, but what about the equally revolutionary American ideal of common good that was re-awakened dramatically in 1941? How has protecting our fellow man from harm somehow become an infringement of civil liberties?
This dichotomy in the American character between liberty and altruism is deeply rooted. When you think about it... (and here, I want to say, I have no interest in discussing stolen land or genocide, as it is tangential to my point) the movement and urbanization of Anglo-Saxons across a continent in less than a century, is nothing short of miraculous. On one hand, the American instinct for new horizons; the enterprising individualism that prompted people to cross an ocean and then cross a continent is one factor. But the other factor is the equally important; the idea that there has to be some coordination between the individual and the collective to make a go of it work.
Few people were more amazed by this dichotomy (and misunderstood it so consistently) than Sir Winston Churchill. In Churchill's world of Magical Thinking, all English speaking people were the beneficiaries and thus, the benefactors of liberal thought. By expanding "civilization," Anglo-Saxons were saving the world from itself. The British stiff upper lip and epic stoicism in the face of adversity for king and country, were not a pose, they were a reality of desperation, imperialism, and deep national pride.
Americans had long diverged from this concept. Whereas the British concept that democracy is a gift of the state to be cherished, the United States held the exact opposite view; that government was a gift of the people, and politicians should never for a minute forget that they are a necessary evil to be contended with. Yes, Americans will help anyone in need, on their own terms; doing so for king and country is about as effective on the American psyche as paying taxes without representation.
So here we are in 2020, when we have any number of things threatening the fabric of our society: political unrest; racial unrest; an epidemic. Why are these threats somehow dividing us rather than uniting us?
My theory is statecraft. Leaders lead and sell a product worth buying. Donald Trump tried this to some extent early in the epidemic, and it failed. Like Herbert Hoover before him, he tried to allay concerns to protect an expanding economy. Whether this was for his reelection's benefit or the country's benefit, is a question of personal taste. The fact is, for a number of reasons, he had already expended too much credibility and political capital on frivolity to hold a mandate of credibility, regardless of his actions. This is unfortunate, because when history looks back on this period, I think they will find that the Democrats demonizing the sitting president for three-years caused an awful lot of needless death and misery, because they had stripped the office (not just the president himself) of the moral authority to lead or be credible.
To give the devil his due however, Mr. Trump did not sell altruism well either. In retrospect, a pragmatic approach to this crises would have done wonders. This is sad again, because Mr. Trump was definitely on the right track. In a federation of fifty wildly diverse states, there can be no"national" response to a crises of this magnitude, that is either fair or equitable; North Dakota is not New York; Delaware is not Arizona. But Mr. Trump could have appealed to the American sense of fairness and altruism as Roosevelt and Kennedy did before him. This failure allowed something universal like the threat of world domination by insane dictators in 1941 and 1960 to become parochial; the exact opposite of what was needed.
And I don't have much faith in Mr. Biden's approach either. His parody of statesmanship; calling up everyone from Napoleon to FDR, is as flat as three-day old soda, and to be frank, sounds far less sincere than his unvarnished predecessor. American Democrats are as tone deaf to the American character as Winston Churchill was. They forever harp on what "the right thing" is, as if they somehow cornered the market on morality. Want people to act with altruism? Make it a virtue not a scold.
There in lies the secret we need to rediscover. Rather than snipe at fleas and pick at nits, we need some leader to tell all of us the truth, and to appeal to both sides of the American character; the individualist and the altruist. And not just in wearing masks and staying home; in everything!
In someways, Donald Trump attempted this (however imperfect the delivery and the messenger) and he was all but lynched for doing so. Behind the swirling smoke and spinning mirrors of deep state conspiracies lays an unquestionable grain of truth; governments thrive on chaos. If we want to bring back Americans' willingness to make sacrifices, we need to sell that message with equal doses of carrots and sticks; and explain that no one is benefiting from driving the country deeper into division, wrapped in rage, covered by indignation, and paraded on a float of self-centered hypocrisy and sanctimony.
December 7th 1941 was described as"a day that will live in infamy" and I fear 2020 (and sad to say, 2021 behind it) will be viewed as"a year that will live in infamy." Not because of Donald Trump; not because of Joe Biden; not because of Nancy Pelosi, or voter fraud, or conspiracy theories or anything remotely described in any media punditry (mainstream or not). It will be because we the American people have forgotten that government is a gift of we the people, and politicians should never for a minute forget that they are a necessary evil to be contended with. Only we the people can govern our actions and balance the dichotomy of individualism and altruism for the common good. Only we the people, can dispel the taint of infamy.
Comments