The Challege of Balancing Liberal Ideals and Pragmatic Means

 

 Hal Brands, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, has written a thought provoking essay, titled The Age of Amorality:  Can America Save the Liberal Order through Illiberal Means?  He leads off the essay with a cogent question from Reinhold Neibuhr, written in 1946, “how much evil we must do in order to do good?”  This, I think, is a very succinct statement of the human situation.  Brand makes the point that the preservation of the liberal order and the liberal values for which the United States stands will sometimes involve “illiberal means.”  We end up supporting countries, for example,  that are far from perfect to achieve the balance of power we need.

 

Brand posits several principles with which I generally agree: 

 

1.      Morality is a compass, not a straitjacket.  In the name of moral integrity, political sustainability and strategic self-interest, America’s statecraft should point toward a world consistent with its values.  But the United States cannot paralyze itself by trying to fully embody those values in every tactical decision. Above all,  it must practice as well as possible the values it advocates. Lived example speaks far louder than words and pronouncements. A "sinning preacher" carries no weight.

2.      The United States should remember that taking the broad view is as vital as taking the long view.  Support for democracy and human rights is not an all-or-nothing proposition. In this context, I believe the case for cooperation versus the alternative of cutting relationships  with India is correct despite its not exhibiting appropriate tolerance of Muslims under the increasingly Hindu-nationalistic Modi government. 

3.      We need to recognize that "marginal improvements" matter.  We won’t convince leaders in the UAE or Turkey or China  to commit political suicide by abandoning their domestic models lock stock and barrel more or less overnight but our leverage reinforced by our example at home can help mitigate illiberal actions by, for example, seeking the release of political prisoners or by making elections a bit fairer.

4.      We need to be patient and recognize we can’t achieve major change all at once.   Often, we must allow history to take its course.  That is what we did in confronting the Soviet Union; that is what we should do today in confronting the issues of China.  Co-existence with China is essential, not just to avoid catastrophe, but to take advantage of the benefit that synergistic relationships with China can provide.

 

I am of course describing a balancing act requiring acute judgment. It evolves to a company level as well.  Take Procter & Gamble as an example. In Saudi Arabia, where P&G had an important business founded in the 1950s, women were not permitted to work in the same room as men as late as the 1980. So what did P&G do? How could we abide by the law and still respect and take advantage of women who wanted to work? We had women in one office and men in another and had them communicate and collaborate by phone. It was far from ideal but it was manageable. We stayed in Saudi Arabia, continuing to foster gender equality. We believed and hoped that in time the law would change. Today, that law has changed and men and women share common work spaces.  

 Similarly, Procter & Gamble has faced a very difficult decision whether to continue to operate a core business in Russia.  To date, we have decided we should, despite Russia's having a regime whose values and actions we absolutely disagree with.  But weighing the options, we have decided that provided our employees remain safe, closing all of our operations--resulting in the significant loss of assets, harm to thousands of employees and deprivation of quality brands to consumers-- would result in more harm than whatever good it might produce. This decision will probably remain under continuing review. 

There is a challenge here. A difficult one. There are "slippery slopes" in balancing the trade off of values and pragmatic actions required to stay alive.  Staying with P&G as an example, if we found the only way we could stay in business would be to pay bribes to the government, I do not believe we could stay in business. If we were obliged to discriminate against some employees in a way that denied their safety, I do not believe we could stay in business. If for some reason, we were not able to make products that were safe for consumers to use, we could not stay in business. There are red lines which cannot be crossed. Defining them demands judgement of the highest integrity and continuing review to be sure that to the best of our ability we are doing the right thing. 

What the Partition of India and Pakistan of Almost 80 Years Ago May Teach About Healing the Wounds of Israel and Pakistan

  

I finished reading the bloodcurdling, mesmerizing, The Great Partition:  The Making of India and Pakistan by Yasmin Khan.   I find  many dimensions of this agonizing story which suggest lessons for today, especially for the chasm and carnage coming in the  relationship between Israel and Palestine. 

 

In retrospect, I accept the argument of Khan, that the partition of India and Pakistan and what, 25 years later, would become Bangladesh was not foreordained.  In the beginning, Pakistan “wasn’t even seen as a defined geographical unit, but as a way of expressing freedom for the Muslim population of India.”

 

The incompetence and irresponsibility with which Britain ditched India,  taking no responsibility for the transition, were monstrous.  They just “walked away from the problem,” leaving unformed governments and seething tensions to find their way to what became violence and extreme nationalism growing from differences in religious belief.

 

The primary leaders--Jinnah, Nehru and Ghandi did not foresee anything like the horror that flowed from the partition: the loss of over a million of lives, the uprooting and transfer of tens of millions of people from the north to south (Hindus) and from the south to the north (muslims).   Ghandi's policy of non-violence had already been punctured by violence and antagonism and fear between members of  the Congress party and the Muslim League even before the Partition. Pakistan was being seen and presented not only as a question of territory but as a "total and sweeping threat which risked the whole of Mother India". 

 

People who had lived together, worked together, in relative peace became enemies.  People who had "lived cheek to jowl for so long fell upon each other in 1947 and its aftermath with a ferocity that has few parallels in history", writes one historian.  It reminds me of what happened in the Balkans in the 1990s. 

I read this history with a constant eye on its possible relevance to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its resolution.   What can be learned to inform how to resolve that conflict?  What are the barriers that are going to have to be overcome?  Several shout out at me:

 

1.     It’s vital that the rights of citizenship (equal and premised on dignity for all) be clearly defined for both the majority populations and the minority populations including where Jews and Muslims live together. 

The boundaries of the two states, while nominally already established, need to be confirmed and firmly written into an enforceable covenant.

Travel between the nations needs to be transparent and not bogged down in discrimination or undue bureaucracy. 

 

The Indian-Pakistan history underscores the particular challenge posed by enclaves of the kind that I understand exist on the borders of Bangladesh and that exist now for Hindus in the Western Bank and Muslims in Jerusalem.  (I’m assuming from this experience that it would be impractical and wrong to try to transfer these populations that have already established their homes.) 

 

 Vital that relationships be established between Israel and Palestine that optimize trade, cultural transfers and transportation. Establishing linkages like this between India and Pakistan have taken decades and from what I read are just beginning. Hopefully, we can learn from this experience. 

This will take a great deal of time to build the trust on which such relationships must be based. The fissures are great and will be greater than ever following the humanitarian disaster that has impacted the people of both nations. But I believe the journey needs to begin with the endpoint in mind. And there are several inspiring examples of cooperation between Palestinians and Israelis led by organizations supported by Mehra and David Rimer that give firm credence to the possibility of progress. 

3. But what about the present situation, now and tomorrow? Reading the history of the Partition makes one deeply aware of the lasting deep personal  impact--physical and psychological--of the millions of displaced people. There are as many as 1.5 million people in Gaza who have had to flee their homes;  perhaps half of these have been destroyed. (And tens of thousands of Israelis have been displaced too though there homes have not been similarly destroyed). How will these families be helped to move back, how will they be treated medically, how will homes and schools and hospitals be rebuilt? Who will pay for this? What can we learn from post WW II in the decimated cities of Europe? What we do know is that it took years. 

4.     Accomplishing this and more will obviously depend above all on strong leadership in Israel and Palestine committed to the goal of peaceful coexistence and mutual collaboration to make the most of the relationship between Palestine and Israel.  

that leadership  painfully does not now exist. 

It will require the acceptance of a new narrative---namely that peace and a stable, fruitful life for the people of this region will ONLY be possible if Palestine and Israel accept the NEED to live together with mutual respect. 

 All of this I believe will need to be supported in its purpose and financially be an organized consortium (Commission) of leaders from leading Arab countries, the West, the U.S., China, etc. This has to be approached much as the recovery of Europe was after WWII. It is a matter all of the world has a stake in. 

I ask myself  Is there anything to be learned  on HOW to organize to do this from the history of fusing Northern Ireland and Ireland, or the Switzerland or perhaps the creation of Tanzania? Or anything else?

In conclusion, I wonder if lessons growing from the pain and loss of human capacity suffered by the people of India and Pakistan resulting from the Partition can  be leveraged to improve the prospects of defining and implementing a positive, peaceful future for the long suffering peoples of Israel and Palestine.

 

"Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes"--Personal Reflections

 Yale Professor Steven B. Smith’s book, Reclaiming Patriotism in an Age of Extremes, was heavy going in the beginning. There was for me an over- abundance of references to ancient philosophers and political thinkers.  However, page by page, chapter by chapter, I became more and more impressed.  In the end, I am filled with admiration for this book as Smith convincingly defines the essence of "Patriotism", which embraces the best values in America without claiming perfection or denying the worth of Cosmopolitanism, which can become too utopian and unrealistic.

 

I was also reminded how the feeling of patriotism which Professor Smith describes can attach not only to our nation but also to an institution or company where one spends much of their life and career, like Yale and 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 the frequency of our referring to our Constitution is probably unique, the leadership and the citizens of other nations say, and to varying degrees believe, they are pursuing a “creed-“ based vision.)

 Professor Smith writes correctly 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.”  “The ethos of a society embodies those traits of character that are normative for the community,” he writes.  They embrace the “kinds of persons and personality traits (who) are deemed desirable (andf) or kinds of actions and policies that are worthy of respect.”

 

Of course, there isn’t universal agreement on what are the policies and actions which are "worthy of respect" in our nation’s history.  However, I believe there will be broad agreement, for example, that Abraham Lincoln’s principles and his determined and courageous leadership were what the nation needed at the time he was President; that Martin Luther King pursued a correct and admirable commitment to non-violent protest in order to advance the rights of minorities; that men and women sacrificing their lives in World War II to preserve the democracy of this country—these 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 in violation of treaties and the internment of the Japanese in WW II.

 

My observation: the only way to preserve and build on our creed, our Purpose—and 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 our Purpose; 2) Transparency—describing the bases for our actions explicitly in terms of the values they embody and 3) Sharing learning and history—by 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.  That’s how we can continue 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, 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.

 

In other words, 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 in continuing to do better tomorrow than it is today, despite inevitable setbacks.

 

Professor Smith provides an excellent service by 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.

 

The foundation 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 (onl the military has been immune), has also declined precipitously.

 

Respect for “truth” and the commitment to a common, shared cause which are so necessary to support Patriotism have been shattered by a lack of value-based leadership, particularly embodied by Donald 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 other geo-political challenges, we are shaken by concerns about the sheer competence of our government, i.e., is it being led by people able to get done what they have promised and are expected and need to do? Too often the answer is "no". 

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 stratgegy and take actions which, even if imperfectly, lead to substantive progress toward that vision.

 

I also know that I (indeed all of us) have a personal 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.

Reflections from a Master Historian--C. Vann Woodward

 

I completed my reading of C. Vann Woodward’s marvelous book, Thinking Back:  The Perils of Writing History.  I’ve long been an admirer of Woodward.  He stands alongside David Potter, David Blight and David Brion Davis in my regard.  It’s an elegant book, a retrospective view of Woodward’s experiences as a historian.  He considers his own books and the critical dialogue they engendered and how the history of the South was viewed and written about during the early years of the century and how those views have changed over the decades.  He describes his university years at Emory and Chapel Hill, at Columbia and then, Yale.  He arrived on campus two years after I graduated.  How I would have loved to take courses from him.

 

There were many nuggets of wisdom in the book.  I’ll cite just a few:

 

Woodward tackles the controversy of history’s having a “purpose.”  He writes, “If the implied alternative be writing history without a purpose or an unacknowledged or unconscious purpose, then the indictment (that I write with a purpose) will have to stand.”  As one historian noted:  “Unless there is some emotional tie, some elective affinity linking the student to his subject, the results will be pedantic and perfunctory.”  And this, “The man who does not feel issues deeply cannot write great history about them.”

 I like what Carl Degler, one of my favorite historians, once wrote:  “All questions of continuity are relative.  All history is a combination of varying degrees of continuity and change.”  That has certainly been true of the history of Russia and China as I’ve experienced it over the last 30 years.  

 

 I identify closely with this from Woodward:  “If foresight had been enriched by hindsight (thinking of how he wrote history), I admit that I might have done it differently—and I am sure, more correctly.  But I am more disturbed to admit that if hindsight had preceded foresight, I might not have done it at all.  And that would have been to miss an experience, an adventure, that I perversely continue to cherish.”

 

I think about the Freedom Center.  If I had the foresight to see the financial challenges we have had, I’m sure we would not have built the building we did.  And, yet, looking back, it’s probably good that we did.

 

Or, if I had had the foresight to see what would happen in Russia, I probably would not have brought the degree of enthusiastic commitment to it which I did, persuaded as I was then that Russia was on the path to some form of democratization.  But seeing it the way I did, however incompletely and incorrectly it has turned out, underpinned our actions to become the clear-cut leader.  I am glad I had that perception.

 

In capturing a motivation that had animated my writing, I cite these words from Woodward:  “No matter how parochial its bounds, the historian is tempted to feel that his findings have meaning and value for a larger public than his fellow specialists and that he should share his arcane insights more widely.  It is a critical moment, a temptation best resisted, until wisdom ripens.”

 

Wise or not, these were my instincts as I’ve written the books which I have written.

 

It’s striking to read what characterized the attitude of Americans in the 1950s:  “Unified, confident, and powerful, Americans prided themselves on their military prowess, their economic productivity, their diplomatic triumphs, and their vindication of their high ideals.  In this mood, America presented herself to the world as a model for how democracy, power, opulence and virtue could be combined under one flag.”

 

We no longer carry such an unvarnished view of our exceptionalism or the inevitability of our winning.  The Vietnam War, Watergate, Afghanistan, Iraq, the polarization of the body politic, have put a dark cloud over any naïve view of life.  Yet, we cannot allow this to darken the appreciation and pursuit of those values which characterize us at our best.

 

Woodward rejected this notion that we had “unparalleled power and unprecedented wealth” which led to “unbridled self-righteousness and the illusion of national innocence.”

 

That risk no longer prevails.

 

Reinhold Niebuhr, my favorite philosopher, balances it right.  He understands that America’s ironic plight rests in the midst of seeming innocence.

 

In the 1960s and ‘70s, as a result of Vietnam and Watergate, Woodward writes, “It did seem as if history was at last about to catch up with Americans, and it was doubtful that they could much longer find refuge in their peculiar legends and myths.  A malaise seemed to sap national self-righteousness, self-confidence, and complacency.”

 

But as history was quickly to show, that did not last.  The 1980s witnessed another shift in the national mood under President Reagan that assured Americans that they were making a miraculous recovery.  Not only were all American wars righteous, but they all ended in victory.  Yet, that attitude turned again with Iraq and Afghanistan and Donald Trump.

 

As always, we see reversion and retreat.  We’re seeing it now in the pushback against what is described as identity politics and a waning in some quarters in the commitment to DE&I training.

 

We have to keep the few most important values in front of us and not retreat:  Everyone counts, love trumps hate, continuous improvement is possible, but not inevitable.  We’ll always have to contest pushback and recognize the force of continuity in embedded cultures.

"There's Nothing New Under the Sun"...But There Can Be and Must Be

"There's nothing new under the sun:. It's a familiar bromide. 

It captures enormous truth, of course. I am reminded of this again this week as I see how the  words of ex-President Trump, angrily and contemptuously denouncing immigrants as "venomous poison",  mirror almost word for word assertions by George Wallace and the leader of the Second Klu Klux Klan decades ago. This reminds me-there have always been leaders and there will always be leaders who are willing to fuel and live off the inveterate human tendency of people to see ourselves as victims...to elevate their view of their self worth by comparing themselves to a declared undeserving "other". 

Yet, with determined and principled leadership it does not have to be this way. In fact, we cannot allow it to be this way. To be sure, we do have to understand the source of people's grievances. We need to understand what corrective action can and should be taken to address them. But we need to stand up for the best in human nature..the recognition we are all on this journey of life together and should recognize each other, indeed recognize all people as deserving our respect for their dignity and right to freedom. 

People did eventually stand up to reject the hateful rhetoric and views of George Wallace and the Klan. But not before they had gained broad public support. Wallace received almost 10 million votes and won five southern states in the 1968 Presidential election. The Second Klan claimed membership by numerous mayors of cities and state governors. But ultimately, their divisive rhetoric and unsubstantiated accusations and claims brought them down.

Sadly, we have not yet had  unified Republican and other political voices (including from men and women who know better) rejecting the hateful rhetoric and views of Trump as they ultimately did those of Wallace and the Klan and Senator Joe McCarthy. The day will come when I feel certain historians, social commentators and the public at large will look back almost with a sense of wonder at how circumstances arose which allowed the emergence of a man of  such feckless character and mean spirit as Donald Trump to capture the heart and mind of the Republican party. I hope we will learn from this experience. 

Stepping back, I am affirmed how much of the best in civilization has "been new under the sun". A reading from Exodus in my church today referred to "slaves" as a normal expected segment in society. In fact. as late as the beginning of the 18th Century slavery was legal in every country throughout the Americas. Median span of life has nearly doubled over this same period. At the turn of the 20th century, women did not have the right to vote in most western nations, including the US. As late as the 1970's and even beyond LGBQT members in this country were ostracized and had to live under cover. 

Yes, progress is possible--though there will always be push back which if we fail to confront will result in retreat. And yes, I have also come to recognize there are irreducible human instincts, instincts I share:  of fear and the elevation and preservation of our egos; a coveting for power and control which demand that we seek, always., to embrace and live through our actions and treatment of others the "better angels of our nature". That will never happen on "automatic pilot". It will take constant effort and commitment. At least that is what I have found 

"Freedom's Dominion:A Saga of White Resistance to Federal Power" by Jefferson Cowie

 

My Review

John Pepper

31 reviews5 followers

February 13, 2024

I can't overstate my admiration for this outstanding history. It illuminates the tension, indeed the fight for the true meaning of "freedom" between the poles of ensuring and supporting the freedom of every person and the freedom claimed and that asserted by individuals to essentially do what they choose even as and if it deprives the rights of others. As Cowie writes, "By. recognizing discrimination, white supremacy, economic power, and the capacity for violence as dimensions of what 'freedom' has always meant, we gain a fresh perspective on central problems of American ideology and practice. A core dimension of freedom is an expression of power".

Cowie develops this timeless history while never failing to engage the reader with fluent and often inspiring prose and individual stories capturing broadly applicable themes thorough the lens one area of the country--southeastern Alabaman, Barbour County over the course of two centuries. He frames the history in the context of America's being born at "a unique confluence of two streams of global history: settler colonialism and chattel slavery". He describes our experience as being even more unique because our nation was founded "on a premise so deeply wedded to the combined ancient republican values of freedom and democratic governance".

Cowie shows how the oppression of individual rights, beginning with the Creek Indians, to African Americans has been waged at the local level and contested and thwarted only by Federal Action which has all too often proved insufficient and temporary and indeed used by its opponents as a further reason to demand a locally imposed definition of "freedom" which entitles the denial of "freedom" to others. Again, Cowie writes: "we learn that federal power has proven itself, quite consistently, by design and practice, to be inadequate to the basic claims of citizenship by the people" Cowie goes on to lament that "one of the great ironies of American history is that federal power has a far better record of breeding anti-statists than it does disciplining them.

This commitment to "anti-statism" has too often been a cover for discrimination against blacks, immigrants and other minorities. It has been turned into "anti-elites" as well by politicians from Governor George Wallace to Nixon to Trump.

It is striking to read how Wallace's platform and very words mirror those followed by Trump. It fed off "victimization" at the hands of the Federal government and intellectual elites and indulged in outlandish untruths and the aura employed by "strongmen" through all time.

As Cowie cogently writes, "Freedom has always been a contested, messy, and ill defined concept..but it is crucial to recognize that the anti-statist, white power version of it is not an aberration but a virulent part of the American idiom".

He concludes, To confront this saga of freedom is to confront the fundamentals of the American narrative. "We ought not embrace the cruelty of the past, but neither should we continue the malignant idea that this story of oppression was never the 'real' American story. The solution is to commit to a bright, sharp, militant defense of the one single, unambiguous thing that the federal government should do defend. the civil and political rights on the local level for all people--cries of freedom to the contrary be damned".

Shades From US History on What Israel Has Perpetrated on the Palestinians

 

Shades of What Israel Has Perpetrated on the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank over a Period of More than 70 Years

 

In the spring of 1832, the United States War Department gave a difficult task to the United States Marshall Robert L. Crawford to remove white settlers who had illegally encroached on land that had been given to the Creek people under the Treaty of Cusseta, which had been signed just weeks before Crawford received his orders as part of President Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830.  That act allowed the government to exchange land west of the Mississippi for native lands in the east.  The terms of the Treaty of Cusseta essentially privatized five million acres located in southeast Alabama, premised on giving individual plots of land to the Creek people.  It provided Federal protection for the Native American rights for a period of five years. The hope in Washington was that the Creeks would sell their lands during this period and move west of the Mississippi. Yet, for the indigenous population, this was not the “opportunity” to move west but the right, which the government pledged to enforce for five years, to hold their land. 

 

Again and again, the Indians and Marshall Crawford turned to the federal government, Secretary of War Cass and the President for help.  And they received some, but in the end not nearly enough to deter the white intruders who “refused to tolerate the federal government’s curtailing of what they militantly regarded as their rights and freedom.”

 

I can’t read this history without being soberly reminded that this in so many ways is exactly what we have seen as Israeli settlers have moved into land granted by the United Nations to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.  They have had fingers wagged at them from time to time by the Israel government, but not decisively, and indeed there are members of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s cabinet who openly advocate displacing Palestinians to other countries to make room for Israelis, just as U.S. leaders almost a century ago looked to displace the Native American population to the west to make room for white settlers east of the Mississippi.    And, of course, those treaties establishing defined land for Native Americans west of the Mississippi were also soon to be abrogated, making way for the expansion of white settlers.

 

This is a fair reminder of what the Palestinians are up against and what those in the world, like me, who believe they have every right to their own state need to do to force upon the Israeli government the commitment to do what is right to recognize and support what Palestinians deserve—dignity and freedom—just as Israeli citizens do.

 

---