History is unfair.
Why? Because bedevilingly it repeats itself but not in the same way under the same seeming circumstances. It forces historical actors, all of us, to confront problems that look similar to past instances, but that are actually entirely different, while also forcing us to confront seemingly novel situations that are actually quite similar to past events. It makes fools of us this way.
The student of history is called to act on the basis of what is right in front of one's nose. Simple in theory, terribly difficult in reality. The reason for this of course is that history exists in a context of past actions. Human beings are not "clean slates" able to process a situation only on the basis of the information presented by that situation. No, humans process a given situation through the lens of past accumulated experiences, which have often been distilled down into crusted over ideologies and "pictures of the world", which once imbedded in the mind are maddeningly difficult to alter. But the challenge remains, we must see things as they are.
Perhaps a famous historical example of this principle will help to clarify my point.
Munich Germany, 1938. Neville Chamberlain is about to make one of history's most famous mistakes, he is about to sign an agreement with Nazi Germany to achieve "peace in our time" allowing Nazi Germany to annex Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, where many ethnic Germans lived, while preserving a state of peace between Great Britain and Germany. Chamberlain's mistake was that he did not see the situation for what it was. He did not see Hitler's intentions, he did not see that by not pushing back against Hitler's mad ambitions, he was inviting more aggression. Chamberlain wanted peace. He wanted peace because he had learned the lesson of the First World War, that War in Europe would involve myriad entanglements and great bloodshed and would achieve little for it. He knew that if he pushed back against Hitler now, he would be starting a great conflict. He was wrong, this situation was different, it required a different response. Hitler wanted to start a great war, that was his objective, and he had clearly stated as much. There was no appeasing him. War, Great War, was the only choice.
The beginnings of World War I and World War II are similar, but the situations and the correct responses to each were tragically different. Winston Churchill made the wrong choice in World War I. Churchill was a hawk, who aggressively pushed for Great Britain's entry into the Great War. But I would argue that Great Britain should never have moved so aggressively to insert themselves in that War. Had they made it clear from the outset that they were opposed to a conflict, the whole situation might have been different. Certainly hundreds of thousands of young British men would have lived a lot longer. But Churchill was right in 1938. He saw Hitler for what he was. He was not afraid because of the mistakes he had made during World War I. This is the unfairness of history. It is best not to be wrong when it counts, but it especially bad to be wrong when it counts twice, and especially good to be right when it counts even if you were wrong the first time.
One thought now on how this applies in our time.
President Obama gave a press conference today, and among a number of topics, the president discussed climate change, and how he might address it (or not address it) in his second term. While the president quite clearly articulated the changes being wrought by climate change, he was dismissive of the political opportunities for doing anything about climate change in the near term. He is probably correct in his assessment, but I hope he is prepared to do more than he described today. Like Hitler in 1938, the forces changing the climate of our planet will not be appeased. It doesn't really matter what the political climate is now. In 1938 Great Britain was not much prepared for war either, and Chamberlain understood that. But we don't ask out leaders to always do what we want them to do, we ask them to do what is right for us. History has quite unfairly been unkind to Chamberlain for just this reason. He did what his people wanted but not what was right.
There are a number of things the president can do that would help fight climate change that he need not ask Congress to help him do. For example, he could use the regulatory powers of the Federal Government, especially the EPA, to help drive down fossil fuel emissions. He has done this up to a point, but there is more that he can do. These actions may not be popular, especially given the current economic environment, but climate change is a mortal threat, and we do not have the luxury of being wrong on this issue for very much longer. History will deliver its unfair verdict to President Obama one way or the other. I hope he makes the right choices for us all.
No comments:
Post a Comment