A Cruel and Suicidal Decision--A Humanitarian Disaster

 

I am reading a book written decades ago which expresses how I feel this morning about Putin's catastrophically wrong and cruel decision to invade Ukraine--a decision which is already costing an untold loss of life and which I believe  history will record as totally against the interests of  the nations  and people of Ukraine, Russia and the entire world. Never in the last seventy years has the action of one man and his administration created such a humanitarian disaster.

 

The book:  The Face of War by Martha Gellhorn.  

Gellhorn was a fearless war correspondent who covered wars from the Spanish Civil War in 1937 through the wars in Central America in the mid-80s.  She was a leading journalistic voice of her generation.  Her candid reporting reflected her deep empathy for people no matter their political ideology and the openness and vulnerability of her conscience. 

 

In the Introduction to her book written in 1986, she writes:

 

“Only governments prepare, declare and prosecute wars.  There is no record of hordes of citizens on their own mobbing the seat of government to clamor for war.  They must be infected with hate and fear before they catch war fever.  They have to be taught that they are endangered by an enemy, and that the vital interests of their state are threatened.  The vital interests of the state, which are always about power, have nothing to do with the vital interests of the citizens, which are private and simple and are always about a better life for themselves and their children.  You do not (or I would say should not) kill for such interests, you work for them.”

 “An aggressor government sells its people a project of war as a defensive measure:  they are being threatened, encircled, pushed around; enemies are poised to attack them.  It is sadly easy to make people believe any lies; people are pitifully gullible, subject to instant flag-waving and misguided patriotism.  And once a war is started, the government is in total control:  the people must obey the orders of their government even if their early induced enthusiasm has waned.  They also see that however needlessly the war started, it would be better not to lose it.”

 

This explains the pursuit of the Vietnam War, well past the point where President Johnson and most of the leaders in the government felt it could be won.  Tens of thousands of lives were sacrificed on the altar of not losing, which, of course, in the end it was.

It also describes the horrible human tragedy happening in Ukraine before our eyes as I write this.  

Never would I have believed we would again see the kind of horror we did 30 years ago in the bombing of Sarajevo and almost 80 years in the Nazi's obliteration of Poland.

What is Patriotism--What Does It Depend on?

 Yale Professor Steven B. Smith’s book, Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes, was heavy going in the beginning for me.  An abundance, perhaps too many, references to ancient and renowned philosophers and political thinkers.  However, page by page, chapter by chapter and particularly with the last one, I became more impressed.  In the end, I am filled with admiration for this book as Smith convincingly pinpointed the differences between Patriotism, which embraces the best values in America without claiming perfection or denying the worth of other countries; Nationalism, which too often excludes or disrespects others; and Cosmopolitanism, which can become too utopian and unrealistic.  

I have also gleaned how the feeling of patriotism which Professor Smith describes can attach in special circumstances not only to our nation but also to an institution or company where one spends their career, in my case,  Procter & Gamble.

Smith, not entirely correctly in my opinion, argues that America was the first, and perhaps still is the only, nation founded on a creed.   We are a creedal people, he asserts.  We keep referring back to our Founding Fathers, to our Constitution and to our Bill of Rights to a degree the citizens of no other country do--even if we argue intensely as to what is the right interpretation of the Constitution. (I write "not entirely correctly" because while our frequent reference to our Constitution is unique, the leadership and peoples of other nations will say and to varying degrees believe they are pursuing a "creed" based vision).

 

There are perspectives which Steven Smith’s book illuminated for me that I believe are very important:

 

One is “the ethos of society.”  Professor Smith writes that Patriotism requires "not only an understanding and appreciation of a set of abstract ideas, but also their embodiment in a particular history and tradition."  He writes, ,  “The ethos of a society embodies those traits of character that are normative for the community.”  They embrace the “kinds of persons and personality traits (who) are deemed desirable (and) or kinds of actions and policies that are worthy of respect.” 

 

There won’t be universal agreement on what those policies and actions were in our nation’s history. However, I believe there will be broad agreement, for example, that Abraham Lincoln’s principles and determined and courageous leadership were what we needed; that Martin Luther King lived a correct and  admirable commitment to non-violent protest to advance the right of minorities; that men and women sacrificing their lives in World War II to preserve the democracy of this country --these all were were irreplaceable, admirable deeds.  There would also be broad agreement on things that have been carried out by our Nation that are not admirable:  lynching, Jim Crow, the appropriation of Native American lands, the internment of the Japanese in WW II. 

The only way to preserve and build on our creed and our Purpose-- the only way to make the ethos of the place real, is by: 1) Results-- demonstrating the ability to take actions needed to progress to achieving the Purpose; 2) Transparency--describing the bases for our actions explicitly in terms of the values they embody and 3) Sharing learning and history--telling memorable stories of how the Purpose has been fulfilled in ways we admire or in ways that fail to measure up to fulfilling our Purpose. achieve at our best. That's how one continues to learn, thereby sustaining the Purpose and continuing to improve in achieving it.

 

Every institution, whether it be our Nation, a company like P&G, a university like Yale or a cultural center like the  National Underground Railroad Freedom Center which I have been part of for 25 years, needs to be clear on its Creed or its Purpose.  It needs to understand the ethos it has and which it seeks to build and what are the actions and values and the storytelling that will make that not just a bunch of abstract thoughts but descriptive of an entity to which one wants to commit his or her very best effort and a good part of their lives.  This is what produces Loyalty and Patriotism. 

Loyalty and a spirit of Patriotism have to be earned by what the institution is setting out to do, by how  well and consistently it is doing it, by living its values in practice, and by how successful it is it is in continuing to do better, despite inevitable setbacks, tomorrow than it is today.

Professor Smith provides a good service to the reader in defining the nature of the "Patriotism" we should seek. What he does not address--nor do I believe it was his intent--is to what degree our Nation today is earning the loyalty and the Patriotism he so well describes or, even more to the point, what can be done to strengthen it.

 I worry greatly that the foundations of Patriotism have been dangerously weakened. Citizens trust in the government has plummeted. Pew reports that the percentage of Americans saying they trust the federal government's decisions most of the time plummeted from 73 percent in 1958 to just 19 percent in 2019. Trust in other major institutions, including religion and schools  (only the military has been immune), has also declined precipitously. 

Respect for "truth" and the commitment to a common, shared  cause so necessary to support Patriotism have been been shattered by a lack of value based leadership, particularly revealed though not started by Trump. Now, following the first year of the Biden Administration, beset with the overhanging pall of Covid, the impact of climate change and the competitive threat of China and  and other geo-political challenges, we are shaken by concerns about  sheer governmental  competence, i.e. is our government being led by capable people able to get done what they have promised and are expected and need to do?

I don't have a confident answer to what can be done to "Reclaim Patriotism", returning to the title of Professor Smith's book--other than to say it depends  on leadership. There's nothing new about that. We  have always depended on strong leadership at times of crisis. Leaders able and brave enough to face reality, frame a uniting vision, marshal a clear and compelling strategy and take actions which,  even if imperfectly, lead to substantive progress toward that vision.  

I also know that I (and all of us) have a personal responsibility--a responsibility to work to the best of our abilities to make the life and the lives of people we touch better because we are where we are. 

 

 

Words to Sign On To--Viktor Frankl--The Need for "Decent People"

Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning" is the single most inspiring book I have ever read. Published 55 years ago it continues to speak for me to the challenging period in which we live today. 

Frankl concludes his book by urging us to rather than talk about "Saints" to just talk about "decent people". He acknowledges that they may be a minority; if so, it is our challenge is to join them. "For the world is in a bad state", Frankl asserts, "but everything will become worse unless each of us does our best". 

Those simple words are ones to sign on to: Doing our best, for ourselves and for others on the path of life. Being kind. Seeking truth. Yes, "being decent". 

Minutes after posting this blog, a good friend of mine wrote saying in essence that "being decent" doesn't seem like a very high bar; so what gets in the way of achieving it.

 My response: 

1. Not really deciding it is important. Not COMMITTING ourselves to it personally. Not being conscious and evaluating how we are doing.

2. Self interest; self-absorption, always and inevitably present. 

3. Acting too quickly, without enough thought on the impact on others of what say and do or DON'T say or do. 

4.  Failing to appreciate the benefit which being "decent" can have on another person. 

5. Unintended bias.

He wasn't through with his queries. So what he asked might motivate a person the be "decent" beyond just  "doing what is right"?

My response: 

1. Feeling more worthy as a person.

2. Sleeping better at night. 

3. Seeing your children growing up acting the way you hope they will.

4. Learning, happily, that some people will play your decency back to you.