Trivial Propositions and the Big Picture

Here are four propositions about the global situation to test your reason and stimulate your glands: (1) The United States deserves to crumble and fall; (2) The world would be better off if the U.S. repudiated all overseas commitments in favor of "splendid isolation"; (3) President Bush invaded Iraq to steal the oil; (4) The American elite is greedy and without conscience.

The first statement pretends to know what an entire nation "deserves." It assumes that the United States is in the wrong and the world would be better off without American military power. It does not consider the practical implications of America's fall. How many would suffer and die in such a revolution? How much would civilization lose in material wealth and liberty? In a true accounting (if such were possible), would the fall of America be good or bad for humanity? Does the evil accomplished by the U.S. outweigh the good that the U.S. has done (for example, in working to defeat Nazi Germany and Communism)? After the fall of the U.S., would a more benign nation take its place as world leader?

The second statement asserts that American power has had an overall negative effect. The facts by which to judge this statement are: first, that the world has enjoyed unprecedented material prosperity and scientific progress under the so-called "Pax Americana"; second, mankind has avoided the horrors of a Third World War under American leadership. Of course, the peace and prosperity of 1945 to 2005 may be a flash in the pan. Nonetheless, this admittedly superficial assessment appears to suggest that America's role has been positive - unless we assert that poverty and world war are, in fact, preferable to the alternatives. (See below). Another consideration deserves to be factored into our assessment: that is, we don't really know what would have become of human civilization without America's successful military intervention in Asia and Europe. One would assume the triumph of Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.

The third question, assailing President Bush's motives in Iraq, is thematic for the opponents of U.S. policy worldwide. It is obvious that President Bush has offered a number of different reasons for invading Iraq. We've heard a great deal about stopping Saddam's WMD programs, democratizing Iraq and acquiring a position from which to curb Syria and Iran. Can we actually say, in all honesty, that these motives are merely a pretext for grabbing Iraq's oil fields? Those who pretend to know the president's motives may, indeed, possess a kind of Extra Sensory Perception (ESP). Lacking a clairvoyant faculty I ask the following: Has the oil pumped from Iraq generated income for America or for Iraq? Is Iraq being fleeced in this operation, or the American taxpayer?

The fourth proposition is a generalization about the greed of the American elite. There may be a grain of truth in such generalizations, but how would this grain truth be verified? Greed is an imprecise concept, ripe with subjectivity. As for characterizing the American elite, I believe that this group consists of good and bad individuals. The question of rampant greed cannot be generalized from a few egregious cases. Some corporate executives in some companies have lined their pockets at others' expense. How rampant is corporate corruption? I suspect that the honesty of the average man, like the honesty of the average corporate manager, has declined in recent decades.

Now I'd like to ask a final question that puts these four propositions into context. Is the old-as-dirt greed of a few wealthy magnates the fountainhead of evil in the modern world? Does America seek the destruction of whole nations, the forcible conversion of whole peoples by the sword, the cruel imposition of tyranny, or the impoverishment of foreign nations by theft and pillage?

It is more likely that the threat to global prosperity and peace comes from traditional dictatorships and terror-supporting states. At the same time, a well-meaning fool in the White House might do more harm than a malevolent dictator in the Kremlin. Or the two might combine forces to produce a truly first-rate catastrophe. (And this may be what we are now witnessing.)

As a student of history I begin to suspect that uninterrupted peace and prosperity, generation after generation, leave men vulnerable to a specific set of evils. The human intellect weakens during times of prolonged peace and prosperity. A kind of stupidity begins to take hold and prevail over culture, over the ruling elite and the population in general. Human nature craves hardship as a corrective. We've all heard how "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." But power can also make us stupid because we no longer need to rely on subtler methods. Could it also be true that "peace makes stupid"?

Looking back at the sixty years that have elapsed since the end of World War II, I see the presidential administrations lined up one after another. Would an objective observer say that American political culture is evolving? How do Truman and Eisenhower stack up to Clinton and Bush? And what about the American people? Does a generation brought up on books and radio compare to a generation addicted to television and video games? Progress may be measured by the accumulation of things or the development of new technologies. But it can also be measured in moral and intellectual terms.

Let us suppose that America wins the war on terror and shopping malls prevail across the planet. Imagine the entire human race as an under-worked, under-challenged mass of fat, stupid, perpetually entertained slobs. No war, no threats, nothing serious to contend with. Simply imagine a giant party from the Arctic to the Antarctic. Would that be better or worse than the fall of America? Of course, the scenario I propose is ridiculous. There is an equilibrium in human affairs. There is a natural tendency toward balance in every human equation. The excesses of today cannot continue unchecked to the point of universal obesity. That is why economic corrections are natural and healthy. That is why war - as a political corrective - is unavoidable.

And therein lies a kind of paradox. Our trivial propositions lead to judgments about good and bad. But we find that good results can lead to bad, and bad results can lead to good. Our confusion is apparent. The way is unclear. Global analysis implodes upon itself. The analyst's head bursts and the column ends abruptly.

About the Author

jrnyquist [at] aol [dot] com ()