I was reading some thoughts from Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist scholar who is also a conservative commentator (say that three times fast!). I.e., he’s a guy who knows a lot about the history of ancient Rome and the Greeks of old. Obviously he has some things to say regarding whether America is in danger of going the same route, i.e. decline and fall after a few centuries of power, achievement and vast geo-political dominance. Mr. Hanson is pretty cautious about it; he’s not saying that America has turned rotten and deserves to get flushed down the tubes. But he is saying that if we’re not careful about maintaining our world power, our individual virtue, our patriotism, and other assorted conservative values, we could. Hanson is not a big fan of President Obama, but he’s not rabidly condemning him either; he seems to be giving Obama a chance, given Obama’s various moves away from doctrine liberalism towards centrist realism.
Anyway, I noticed a passage in one of Hanson’s book reviews that inadvertently summed up the situation in America today. Here it is:
Despite occasional revisionism, the story of Rome’s fall was pretty much universal . . . After some five centuries of imperial domination from the Sahara to the Rhine, and from the British Isles to Mesopotamia, the Western empire collapsed in the late fifth century . . . An exhausted global empire was so plagued by financial corruption, a bankrupt elite, and rural depopulation that few citizens joined the army. Fewer still knew what fifth-century Rome stood for, much less whether it was any longer worth defending.
In this review, Mr. Hanson was NOT trying to argue that America has caught the same infection that Rome had by the fourth century CE; he was actually arguing against two other writers who feel that it has. But look at the modern parallels: “exhausted global empire”, “plagued by financial corruption”, “bankrupt elite”, “rural depopulation”, “few citizens join the army”. Does a majority of our citizens know what twenty-first century America stands for? I guess that most people would say “democracy” and “political freedom”. But then again, the most recent GOP vice presidential candidate couldn’t think of those words when questioned by a newsman regarding the last President’s “doctrine”. (Yes, I’m referring to Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin; and recall that when Gibson finally got tired of Palin’s lame attempt to respond to that question, his own answer ALSO failed to include democracy and freedom!).
Yea, I think that Mr. Hanson hit a nail on the head there, even if he wasn’t aiming for it. But as Hanson and many other historians contend, history is made not by anonymous forces but by people and ideas. Can Barack Obama come up with the right ideas to steer our nation’s evolving history back towards goodness and strength? Can he turn it back into something that every citizen can believe in? That’s the trillion dollar question.
PS, I also checked out a nine-part lecture on You Tube by Prof. J. Rufus Fears, another conservative academian who has pondered the parallels between the Roman Empire and the U.S.A. today. Fears seems to be saying that we’ve gone pretty far down the same one-way road to oblivion that Rome took, but it’s not too late yet for us to veer away from it. Fears says that we face a matrix of threats similar to what the Roman Republic faced in the first century BCE, including a debt crisis choking off the economy causing a severe recession; a crippling clash of partisan political forces; and a series of threats from powerful foes and rivals from foreign lands.
As with the late Roman Republic, some of our worst threats come from the Middle East. HOWEVER, the biggest threat to Rome’s future turned out to have hailed from north-central Europe, i.e. from the Germanic tribes. And here’s the jawdropper from Dr. Fears: we too face severe future threats from that region, but need to go another 200 miles to the east: i.e., Russia. Yes, Dr. Fears feels that the end of the Cold War and Communism in the early 1990’s was NOT the end of our Russian problem. He thinks that conditions in today’s Russia are ripe for the re-development of a powerful, barbaric and militaristic dictatorship bent on dominating as much of the world as it can; he feels that Vladimir Putin is already setting the stage for that. He goes so far as to say that Russia could become fertile ground for a new Hitler-like figure! Yikes.
Ironically, Fears believes that the U.S. and Western Europe had a chance in the early 1990s to have prevented this. He implies that had we put lots of capital and redevelopment aid into Russia back then, something like we did afterWW2 with the Marshall Plan in Germany, we could have set the stage for democratic institutions to have finally taken root in Russia (as they did in post-war Germany). But we didn’t, and now we’re watching Russia fall back into it’s old nasty habits. With enough dictatorial mobilization and plentiful access to oil and natural gas, Russia could well re-create the specious prosperity that Germany experienced during the Great Depression, back in the mid and late 1930s.
So, if our economy doesn’t snap back within a year but instead sends our nation into a five to ten year malaise, then the USA is gonna be in serious hot water if the Middle East flares-up again (like when Iran goes nuclear), and at the same time a re-militarized Russia starts taking back what the old Soviet Union lost. Yep, it could be much like what the Roman Republic faced about 50 years before Jesus. How did the people of Rome react? Eventually, they gave in to political dictatorship; Julius Caesar set the stage for ending populist rule, and Augustus later sealed the deal. Is this happening today here in the USA? Dr. Fears said that we don’t have an equivalent to Julius Caesar right now; and that’s mainly because Caesar was so brilliant. George W. Bush certainly tried to become a Caesar, but he didn’t nearly have the brainpower. In the end he couldn’t do all that much damage to American democracy as we know it (thanks to screams of bloody murder from the liberal factions).
However, Dr. Fears notwithstanding, we now have a man in power with Caesar-like brilliance. (Recall that Caesar started out as a “Populare”, roughly comparable with today’s “Democrats”.) Obama got into power partly by repudiating the empire-building tendencies of his predecessor. Nevertheless, if things don’t go well during his tenure and our nation faces the real prospect of serious decline in living standards for almost every citizen, then I could imagine a scenario where President Obama tacitly convinces the citizens to forfeit much of their political freedom, so as to maintain personal, economic and national freedom. (Will the liberals then scream at Obama as they did at Bush? I don’t recall many screams when Obama tossed campaign financing reform aside. Love is blind.) As Professor Fears points out, this choice has been made by many other peoples over a wide variety of circumstances throughout the course of history. It would be a mistake to think “it couldn’t happen here” — given the extremely dangerous economic and international situation that America now faces.
Jim,
Yes, I agree with you that countries have their periods of growth and decline. But I simply cannot get myself as “worked up” about it as you seem to be. (And perhaps here I am reading into your comments what you do not intend.)
As sad as it may be, we all have our periods of being young and vigorous when we revel in the peak of our life time. I think the same holds for countries. Yet, something positive is definitely to be said for the time when people–and countries–mature.
I find myself dismayed (in a sense) at the current generation of baby boomers who are so desperately consumed with “staying young.” It seems to me that there is a serious fear of the natural growth of maturity that comes with experience and age. (Evidence of this attitude is that the “new forty” is now “fifty.” Soon the “new fifty” will be “sixty.” Oh, please!) And I say the same goes for countries.
It may be that America is emerging into a new period of development–after all, 1976 was our 200th anniversary and that was 30+ years ago. Perhaps the country is in for a period of maturity–and I say that would be a GOOD thing.
While I will definitely read what conservatives have to say, I cannot say that I can take them too seriously. Has it not been conservatism that got us into the “fix” we are currently in as a nation?
Frankly, I am not all that enthused about “maintaining our world power”. Rather, I thought Obama’s message to the Muslim world (I paraphrase here) that the extended hand America would offer to the Muslim World would be an open hand and that he hoped the hand offered by them would not be a closed fist but also an open hand. Wow! How refreshing! I say: Let’s try some of that for a while and see what happens. We’ve tried the other “dominance” approach. Hasn’t worked too well.
And as to the ONLY thing America “stands for” being democracy and political freedom: At the risk of sounding unpatriotic, I’m going to disagree with you–partially. Yes, America does stand for those things. But because America holds these two ideals for itself, does not mean they should be imposed on absolutely every other country.
Russia holds a different approach–and is equally wrong when it attempts to impose its ideals on other countries. HOWEVER, I do think that Russia is setting the stage for acquiring back the countries that surround it with its invasion of Georgia. I also think that Putin is setting the stage for becoming another dictator. Yet, that will be something essentially the people of Russia must deal with. Sure, the world will also have to deal with Russia however it turns out to be in the future. But not in the same manner as the people within Russia will have to deal with Putin as a dictator.
And as far as GWB trying to become a “Caesar”–I’d modify that somewhat and say we must thank our lucky stars that Cheney is gone. He was the one who was the power behind the “throne” and who could have easily become a threat such as you mention.
As to your question of whether Obama can “come up with the right ideas to steer our nation’s evolving history back towards goodness and strength”: I’d say he’s already made a start–see my comment from Wednesday, Jan. 28. Give him a chance, I say.
And I do think that you are taking a much too big a jump in your last paragraph! You go from saying Obama is a man of brilliance to his “convincing the citizens to forfeit their political freedom.” There is a very looooooonnnnnngggg continuum between Obama’s being a man of brilliance to his becoming a dictator.
I do think there was a lot of joy in a good part of the citizenry when Obama was elected. I personally spent inauguration day with a Black person who could not hide his happiness that someone of his own was actually president. Let those people rejoice; they have definitely earned it. His joy spilled over into me, I have to say.
My final comment is that before “we” start enumerating and worryin
Comment by MCS — January 31, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Jim,
Yes, I agree with you that countries have their periods of growth and decline. But I simply cannot get myself as “worked up” about it as you seem to be. (And perhaps here I am reading into your comments what you do not intend.)
As sad as it may be, we all have our periods of being young and vigorous when we revel in the peak of our life time. I think the same holds for countries. Yet, something positive is definitely to be said for the time when people–and countries–mature.
I find myself dismayed (in a sense) at the current generation of baby boomers who are so desperately consumed with “staying young.” It seems to me that there is a serious fear of the natural growth of maturity that comes with experience and age. (Evidence of this attitude is that the “new forty” is now “fifty.” Soon the “new fifty” will be “sixty.” Oh, please!) And I say the same goes for countries.
It may be that America is emerging into a new period of development–after all, 1976 was our 200th anniversary and that was 30+ years ago. Perhaps the country is in for a period of maturity–and I say that would be a GOOD thing.
While I will definitely read what conservatives have to say, I cannot say that I can take them too seriously. Has it not been conservatism that got us into the “fix” we are currently in as a nation?
Frankly, I am not all that enthused about “maintaining our world power”. Rather, I thought Obama’s message to the Muslim world (I paraphrase here) that the extended hand America would offer to the Muslim World would be an open hand and that he hoped the hand offered by them would not be a closed fist but also an open hand. Wow! How refreshing! I say: Let’s try some of that for a while and see what happens. We’ve tried the other “dominance” approach. Hasn’t worked too well.
And as to the ONLY thing America “stands for” being democracy and political freedom: At the risk of sounding unpatriotic, I’m going to disagree with you–partially. Yes, America does stand for those things. But because America holds these two ideals for itself, does not mean they should be imposed on absolutely every other country.
Russia holds a different approach–and is equally wrong when it attempts to impose its ideals on other countries. HOWEVER, I do think that Russia is setting the stage for acquiring back the countries that surround it with its invasion of Georgia. I also think that Putin is setting the stage for becoming another dictator. Yet, that will be something essentially the people of Russia must deal with. Sure, the world will also have to deal with Russia however it turns out to be in the future. But not in the same manner as the people within Russia will have to deal with Putin as a dictator.
And as far as GWB trying to become a “Caesar”–I’d modify that somewhat and say we must thank our lucky stars that Cheney is gone. He was the one who was the power behind the “throne” and who could have easily become a threat such as you mention.
As to your question of whether Obama can “come up with the right ideas to steer our nation’s evolving history back towards goodness and strength”: I’d say he’s already made a start–see my comment from Wednesday, Jan. 28. Give him a chance, I say.
And I do think that you are taking a much too big a jump in your last paragraph! You go from saying Obama is a man of brilliance to his “convincing the citizens to forfeit their political freedom.” There is a very looooooonnnnnngggg continuum between Obama’s being a man of brilliance to his becoming a dictator.
I do think there was a lot of joy in a good part of the citizenry when Obama was elected. I personally spent inauguration day with a Black person who could not hide his happiness that someone of his own was actually president. Let those people rejoice; they have definitely earned it. His joy spilled over into me, I have to say.
My final comment is that before “we” start enumerating and worrying about the changes Obama may make, before we start decrying possible effects of possible plans he may implement, I say give the man a chance. People did not approach Reagan with that attitude (though I must admit I held my head in my hands when he was elected); they gave him a chance. The same can be said of many other elected officials. See what they end up doing. Perhaps in the end a dissatisfied electorate and Congress will take the same route a dissatisfied Assembly in Illinois took (which the electorate for the most part endorsed) with their recent, now former, governor–impeach him and remove him from office.
But before we start decrying what MIGHT happen under Obama, I say give the man a chance; base a critique on what he HAS done–not on what he MIGHT do.
MCS
Comment by MCS — January 31, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Jim,
Yes, I agree with you that countries have their periods of growth and decline. But I simply cannot get myself as “worked up” about it as you seem to be. (And perhaps here I am reading into your comments what you do not intend.)
As sad as it may be, we all have our periods of being young and vigorous when we revel in the peak of our life time. I think the same holds for countries. Yet, something positive is definitely to be said for the time when people–and countries–mature.
I find myself dismayed (in a sense) at the current generation of baby boomers who are so desperately consumed with “staying young.” It seems to me that there is a serious fear of the natural growth of maturity that comes with experience and age. (Evidence of this attitude is that the “new forty” is now “fifty.” Soon the “new fifty” will be “sixty.” Oh, please!) And I say the same goes for countries.
It may be that America is emerging into a new period of development–after all, 1976 was our 200th anniversary and that was 30+ years ago. Perhaps the country is in for a period of maturity–and I say that would be a GOOD thing.
While I will definitely read what conservatives have to say, I cannot say that I can take them too seriously. Has it not been conservatism that got us into the “fix” we are currently in as a nation?
Frankly, I am not all that enthused about “maintaining our world power”. Rather, I thought Obama’s message to the Muslim world (I paraphrase here) that the extended hand America would offer to the Muslim World would be an open hand and that he hoped the hand offered by them would not be a closed fist but also an open hand. Wow! How refreshing! I say: Let’s try some of that for a while and see what happens. We’ve tried the other “dominance” approach. Hasn’t worked too well.
And as to the ONLY thing America “stands for” being democracy and political freedom: At the risk of sounding unpatriotic, I’m going to disagree with you–partially. Yes, America does stand for those things. But because America holds these two ideals for itself, does not mean they should be imposed on absolutely every other country.
Russia holds a different approach–and is equally wrong when it attempts to impose its ideals on other countries. HOWEVER, I do think that Russia is setting the stage for acquiring back the countries that surround it with its invasion of Georgia. I also think that Putin is setting the stage for becoming another dictator. Yet, that will be something essentially the people of Russia must deal with. Sure, the world will also have to deal with Russia however it turns out to be in the future. But not in the same manner as the people within Russia will have to deal with Putin as a dictator.
And as far as GWB trying to become a “Caesar”–I’d modify that somewhat and say we must thank our lucky stars that Cheney is gone. He was the one who was the power behind the “throne” and who could have easily become a threat such as you mention.
As to your question of whether Obama can “come up with the right ideas to steer our nation’s evolving history back towards goodness and strength”: I’d say he’s already made a start–see my comment from Wednesday, Jan. 28. Give him a chance, I say.
And I do think that you are taking a much too big a jump in your last paragraph! You go from saying Obama is a man of brilliance to his “convincing the citizens to forfeit their political freedom.” There is a very looooooonnnnnngggg continuum between Obama’s being a man of brilliance to his becoming a dictator.
I do think there was a lot of joy in a good part of the citizenry when Obama was elected. I personally spent inauguration day with a Black person who could not hide his happiness that someone of his own was actually president. Let those people rejoice; they have definitely earned it. His joy spilled over into me, I have to say.
My final comment is that before “we” start enumerating and worryin
Comment by MCS — January 31, 2009 @ 12:39 pm