Archive for September 2009

Pell-Mell

September 26, 2009

A couple of years ago the Atlantic Monthly asked a number of prominent writers and thinkers “who have  had cause to consider the American idea to describe its future and the greatest challenges to it.”

I thought I ought to give Tom Wolfe’s response as published in the Atlantic of November, 2007, special attention by reprinting it in my Blog.

“Pell-Mell,” according to Wolfe, that’s America. He will make the meaning of this clear in what follows below.

I have a question for us:  Aren’t The Mexicans now coming here “pell-mell,” as the Irish and the Germans and the Cubans, and unnumbered others did before them, and we’re trying to stop them!!!??? Isn’t that crazy?

Are we somehow better than they, with more rights and privileges, because we got here before they did? It’s as if the land-owners who grabbed their lands pell-mell some 150 years ago now are refusing the rights of others to hold these lands in their turn.

The American Idea,
Pell-Mell

by Tom Wolfe

Since you asked … the American idea was born at approximately 5 p.m. on Friday, December 2, 1803, the moment Thomas Jefferson sprang the so-called pell-mell on the new British ambassador, Anthony Merry, at dinner in the White House. Oh, this was no inadvertent faux pas. This was faux pas aforethought. Jefferson obviously loved the prospect of dumbfounding the great Brit and leaving him speechless, furious, seething, so burned up that smoke would start coming out of his ears. And all that the pell-mell did.

Jefferson had already tenderized the ambassador three days earlier. Merry was the first foreign diplomat to take up residence in Washington. Accompanied by Secretary of State James Madison, he shows up at the White House wearing a hat with a swooping plume, a ceremonial sword, gold braid, shoes with gleaming buckles—in short, the whole aristocratic European ambassadorial getup—for his formal introduction to the president of the United States. He is immediately baffled. Jefferson doesn’t come to greet him in the grand reception hall. Instead, Merry and Madison have to go looking for him … Bango! All at once they bump into the American head of state in some tiny tunnel-like entryway to his study. What with three men and a sword in it all at once, the space is so congested that Merry has to back himself and his sword out of it just to have room to shake hands. When he shakes hands, he’s stunned, appalled: The president of the United States is a very Hogarth of utter slovenliness from his head … to his torso, clad in a casual workaday outfit thrown together with a complete indifference to appearances and a negligence so perfectly gross, it has to have been actually studied … down to his feet, which are stuffed, or mostly stuffed, into a pair of down-at-the-heels slippers, literally slippers and literally worn down at the heels in a way that is sheer Gin Lane. “Utter slovenliness,” “negligence actually studied,” “indifference to appearances,” and “down at the heels” were Merry’s own words in the first of what would become a regular jeremiad of complaints and supplications to Lord Hawkesbury, the foreign secretary, all but coming right out and begging him to break off relations with the United States to protest such pointed insults toward His Majesty’s representative. Merry was ready to bail out … and his wife, a notably not-shy woman née Elizabeth Death (yes), even more so.

The introductory insult was on November 29. Merry and his wife were invited to dinner at the White House on the fateful day, December 2. Merry accepted … warily … under the impression that he and his wife would be the guests of honor and that this would be Jefferson’s opportunity to make up for his lapse in protocol. The Merrys arrived at 4:30. Along with the other guests, they were assembled for a reception in a drawing room across the hall from the dining room. The Merrys were left flabbergasted and aghast when Jefferson ignored Mrs. Merry and gave his arm to Dolley Madison, who often served as White House hostess for the widowed president. James Madison gave his arm to an already furious Mrs. Merry. The dining room seems to have had a single large, round table. Jefferson took a seat and gave Dolley Madison the ladies’ seat of honor on his right. James Madison didn’t give Elizabeth Death Merry the seat on the president’s other side, however. That went to the Spanish ambassador’s wife. The already insulted Mrs. Merry, guest of honor presumptive, took it like a kick in the shin when Madison showed her to an obviously back- of-the-pack seat.

Meantime, her husband’s dignity was taking an even worse beating. He was part of an undifferentiated haunch-to-paunch herd of the titled, the untitled, the eminences, and the not-muches entering the doorway. They had no choice but to take their seats pell- mell … any seat—first come, first served. Literally pell-mell referred to a confused, disorderly crowd in a headlong rush, and that was exactly what it felt like to His Majesty’s Ambassador Merry. An outrageous insult was now in progress, but he had only two choices: take a seat or make a scene. So he headed for a chair next to the Spanish ambassador’s wife. But before he could get to it, some crude savage who bore the title “Congressman” lunged past him and took it for himself.

Foreign dignitaries, even the Spanish ambassador, were flashing loaded glances at each other—these Americanssavages!—and muttering behind the backs of their hands. Merry and his wife vowed never to dine at the White House again—and never did. They did accept an invitation from Secretary of State Madison, who had been the good guy in Jefferson’s good-guy/bad-guy team—only to get pell-melled all over again chez Madison. For a time, at least, they refused all invitations from Jefferson’s Cabinet members, too. In due course they officially protested their treatment. But Jefferson had such an aristocratic bearing and presence, was from such a prominent family—in America they didn’t come any better than the Randolphs of Virginia—was so filthy land-rich, so learned—he spoke Latin as well as French and could read classical Greek as easily as Plato and Aristotle ever did—was so sophisticated and urbane, in fact so cosmopolitan—he had been ambassador to France at the court of Louis XVI—no one could very well write him off as one of … “these Americans.”

In addition to being seven or eight other species of the genus Genius, Jefferson proved to be a psychological genius at least a century before all the -ology adjectives entered the English language. He realized that you could write every conceivable radical new freedom into a constitution—freedom of the press and freedom from the heavy hand of an official state religion were very radical notions 218 years ago—and install a democracy with foolproof guarantees, and that still wouldn’t be enough to save Americans from the plight of the masses of Europe. After a thousand years or more of rule by kings who were believed to possess divine rights and by hereditary aristocrats believed to possess demigodly rights at least, ordinary citizens in Europe had been irreparably damaged psychologically and would never recover from it. They had lived their lives as if the fix were in, as if there would forever be a certain class of people above them who were predestined to dominate government, industry, all influential forms of intellectual life, and, needless to say, society.

Even today, in the 21st century, an era of political democracies throughout the West, the great mass of ordinary citizens in Europe remain resigned to their ordinariness because they still feel the presence of “that certain class,” that indefinable but nevertheless eternal status stratum forever destined to be their superiors. In England, France, Italy, Germany, rare are the parents who urge their children to live out their dreams and rise as far above their station as they possibly can. As a result, such dreams, if any, don’t last long. Only in America do visitors to other people’s homes routinely ask their hosts’ children, “What do you want to be when you grow up?” In every other country on Earth the question would seem fatuous, since it implies that the child might have a world of choices.

Fortunately for America, as Jefferson saw it, British aristocracy had never taken root here in the colonies. Most British toffs didn’t have the faintest urge to depart their country estates and London clubs, their coaches-and-four, their tailors, valets, butlers, ballrooms, peruke-makers, and neck-cloth launderers for a wilderness full of painted bow-and-arrow-bearing aborigines … and no desirable women, unless one were a rather twisted toff who had a thing for granola girls with honest calves and forearms and hands thick as a blacksmith’s from hoeing the corn and black-eyed peas. From the very beginning of his political career, Jefferson was determined to make sure no aristocracy, European- or American-born, would ever be established here. Aristocracy literally means rule by the best, but he knew the proper word was plutocracy, rule by the rich, in this case big landowners who maintained their lordly, demigodly, hereditary rank only by passing their estates down generation after generation—intact—courtesy of the law of entail and the right of primogeniture. As soon as the Revolution was won, Jefferson launched a successful campaign to abolish both. Too bad he couldn’t have lived another hundred years to see just how efficient his strategy was. In America, rare is the plutocrat whose family wields power and influence beyond the second generation. One need only think of the Vanderbilts, Goulds, Astors, Carnegies, and Mellons. Where are they now? On the letterheads of charitable solicitations, at best. They don’t even rise to the eminence of gossip-column boldface any longer. The rare ones have been the Bushes, who have wielded power—a lot of it—into the third generation, and the Rockefellers, who have made it into the fourth … by a thread, the thread being Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. But the odds are 2-to-5—you’ll have to bet $5 to win $2—that within 10 years the last, best hope of even these exceptional families’ next generations will be to start climbing the white cliffs of the disease-charity letterheads.

Jefferson created a radically new frame of mind. In a thousand different ways he obliterated the symbols and deferential manners that comprise aristocracy’s cardiovascular system. Led by Jefferson, America became a country in which every sign of aristocratic pretensions was systematically uprooted and destroyed. The round table where the Merrys suffered their intolerable humiliation? It has been recorded that Jefferson insisted on round tables for dining because they had no head and no foot, removing any trace of the aristocratic European custom of silently ranking dinner guests by how close to the head of the table they sat. “That certain class” does not exist here psychologically.

Jefferson’s pell-mell gave America a mind-set that has never varied. In 1862, 36 years after Jefferson’s death, the government began the process of settling our vast, largely uninhabited western territories. Under the terms of the Homestead Act, they gave it away by inviting people, anybody, to head out into the open country and claim any plot they liked—Gloriously pell-mell! First come, first served! Each plot was 160 acres, and it was yours, free! By the time of the first Oklahoma Land Rush, in 1889, it had become a literal pell-mell—a confused, disorderly, headlong rush. People lined up on the border of the territory and rushed out into all that free real estate at the sound of a starter gun. Europeans regarded this as more lunacy on the part of … these Americans … squandering a stupendous national asset in this childish way on a random mob of nobodies. They could not conceive of the possibility that this might prove to be, in fact, a remarkably stable way of settling the West, of turning settlers into homeowners with a huge stake in making the land productive … or that it might result, as the British historian Paul Johnson contends, in “the immense benefits of having a free market in land—something which had never before occurred at any time, anywhere in the world.” So long as you had made certain required improvements, after five years you could sell all or part of your 160 acres to other people, any other people. It’s hard to be absolutely sure, but where else in the world could ordinary citizens go out and just like that—how much you want for it?—buy themselves a piece of land?

The Jefferson frame of mind, product of one of the most profound political insights of modern history, has had its challenges in the two centuries since the night Jefferson first sprang the pell-mell upon the old European aristocratic order. But today the conviction that America’s limitless freedom and opportunities are for everyone is stronger than ever. Think of just one example from the late 20th century: Only in America could immigrants of many colors from a foreign country with a foreign language and an alien culture—in this case, Cubans—take political control pell-mell via the voting booth of a great metropolis—Miami—in barely more than one generation.

America remains, as it has been from the very beginning, the freest, most open country in the world, encouraging one and all to compete pell-mell for any great goal that exists and to try every sort of innovation, no matter how far-fetched it may seem, in order to achieve it. It is largely this open invitation to ambition that accounts for America’s military and economic supremacy and absolute dominance in science, medicine, technology, and every other intellectual pursuit that can be measured objectively. And it is absolute.

Yet from our college faculties and “public intellectuals” come the grimmest of warnings. The government has assumed Big Brother powers on the pretext of protecting us from Terror, and the dark night of fascism is descending upon America. As Orwell might have put it, only an idiot or an intellectual could actually believe that.

Let a thousand flowers bloom

September 25, 2009

In my lifetime, meaning the 77 years that I have lived, what has changed the most, and what the least? Clearly what has changed the most are the new skills that I have needed to acquire, from one year to the next, if not from one day to another, in order to fully benefit from the constant stream of technological marvels that man’s scientific and inventive genius has placed at my and everyone’s disposal, the world wide web or internet being the latest and perhaps greatest of these.

What has changed the least is everything else, including religion, human relations, relations between countries, between citizens of one country, relations between husband and wife, brother and sister, and in regard to the future and therefore perhaps most important of all, how we educate the young. For in our thinking about, and in particular our practice of education, we have made little or no progress since the time of the Greeks. Indeed, one might say that for the most part we are simply failing to educate our young people.

That is if education is more than acquiring specialized knowledge and particular skills. For in regard to these we are probably doing well enough. Enough young people, probably only a minority since college graduates make up just a quarter of our country’s adult population, are graduating from our schools with the knowledge and skills necessary to keep the economy and the country running well enough.

But our schools have never been even close to becoming what they were intended to be, incubators of well read, sensitive, and thoughtful young people who would go on to become good citizens and life long learners themselves, insuring in their turn not just the survival but the flourishing of their land and people.

Virtue, in other words, has found little or no place in our children’s school curricula. Furthermore virtue is no more to be found among our school graduates than among those who have dropped out along the way.

So in my lifetime a good candidate for what has changed the least is education. This is ironic in that what has changed the most is all that we have learned, although not in schools and mostly from scientists, about ourselves and about the world. Ironic because whereas education ought to have reflected the huge changes in our knowledge of the world it has continued in its set ways as if nothing had changed.

We still have the room full of kids, of the same age and equally ignorant, being talked at by the teacher hardly less ignorant than her students given the impossibility of her knowing more than a tiny, tiny fraction of what there is out there to know about whatever her subject may be. This is the way things were when I was in public elementary school myself in the 1930s, and it’s the way things are for my grandchildren today.

Reforms are meant to change things. Given the endless series of reforms that our public schools have been subject to during my lifetime the schools ought to be different today, and much better than they were. But they are no different and probably much worse, although there’s some justification for the latter, for their having failed to live up to Horace Mann’s promise.

For the schools today are pretending to prepare everyone for college, an impossible if admirable task. This accounts most of all for the all too familiar atmosphere of failure present in the schools in our large cities, those schools that are attended for the most part by an impoverished and usually minority youth population.

When I was a child only a small minority of the youth population was expected to go on to college and those who did, remaining in school through high school, were consequently a much more academically select group than those who are kept often unwillingly in school today.

One school reform, often mentioned and talked about, also throughout my lifetime, might have brought real changes. But as in so many respects our society seems unable to make changes to the way it has done things in the past. This is the way it was when I was a kid. This is the way it should be now. And most of all the people in charge of things are well paid and secure and want to go on being in charge, do nothing that might put what they have at risk.

Government organizations and structures, no longer dependent on the vote or the will of the people for their existence, the U.S. Postoffice, for example, the Defense Department, the Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the many others, are all in need of basic reforms, but so far have resisted change.

The one school reform, still talked about, and still capable, perhaps even in my lifetime, of replacing a failed system of schooling with a system of education where children learn, is one that removes the central administrative bureaucracy from the running of our schools and turns all decision making authority over to the parents and children.

This just one necessary reform is that parents and children choose their schools, and doing so decide what they want from their schools. Then, as soon as they do this, schools reflecting their likings and interests will begin to appear. In other words schooling needs only to be returned to the market place (where it was at one time) in order to again be consequential in the lives of children.

As soon as the sending of packages was no longer the sole right and responsibility of the U.S. Postal Service many more packages were sent, more cheaply and more quickly. Similarly the education of our children ought not to be the sole right and responsibility of teachers and administrators and school boards. If that were to happen, if our one reform were to take place, children, through their own efforts, might begin to learn.

The money for doing this is already available. Through our taxes we are already providing all children with a “free” education at least up to and through high school. Whatever we are paying now for our children’s schooling, say $9,000, would be made available to the parents to be used for the school of their choice. If it’s their money to spend they’ll start to take much greater interest in the product they are buying.

To improve the schools ought to be no different from the way we improve our cars and computers. You do what the people want, you don’t give them what you think they should have.

When parents are customers they will flock to those schools that do best for their children, and the good schools will improve, and the bad schools, unlike at present, will disappear. The schools will begin to reflect, as they haven’t up until now in my lifetime and as they should, the interests and abilities of the students.

At the present time these interests and abilities are pretty much left out of the considerations of the teachers and administrators as they prepare for the new school year, the result being that they lose probably a majority of their students from day one.

As a result of this reform the schools will become more diverse than ever before. There will be music and art schools, sports academies, many more vocational schools than there are now, language schools, and many others that we can’t even imagine. The traditional college preparatory program will still be available, but this program will become, as it should be, just one among many.

Listening to the interests and abilities of the students, and allowing the parents the power to choose, this will permit and encourage “a thousand flowers to bloom.”

Thomas Frank: The Left Should reclaim ‘Freedom’

September 16, 2009

Now this from the Wall Street Journal’s Thomas Frank. Another reasonable voice, this one on the Right.

There are few things in politics more annoying than the right’s utter conviction that it owns the patent on the word “freedom” that when its leaders stand up for the rights of banks to be unregulated or capital gains to be untaxed, that it is actually and obviously standing up for human liberty, the noblest cause of them all.

Didn’t she know that he had said this 50 years earlier? She should have.

September 12, 2009

In a lead piece posted on her liberal outlet, the Huffington Post of September 3, Arianna Huffington had this to say about public education:

Health care is rightly dominating the national debate, but with children all across the country heading back to school, education, currently seated in the back row of the national classroom, is raising its hand and asking to be called on….

It’s time to acknowledge that over 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education we are witnessing a de facto resegregation of our schools, with blacks and Hispanics more separate from white students than at any time since the civil rights movement….

It’s time we start looking at education reform in bold and different ways, to stop protecting little parcels of partisan turf and start thinking outside the box. To consider the possibilities. To look past our own political backyards at what might lie on the other side of the mountain.

What I see on the other side of the mountain is a single-payer education system.

In a single-payer health care plan, the federal government provides coverage for all U.S. citizens and legal residents. Patients don’t go to a government doctor — they just have the government pay the bill.

And that’s how it would work with education. In a single-payer education plan, the federal government, in conjunction with the states, would provide an education allotment for every parent of a K-12 child. Parents would then be free to enroll their child in the school of their choice….

It’s simple, sensible and, above all, just. And maybe instead of calling for an exorcist any time the words “competition,” “choice” or “freedom” are used in connection to education, we can start singing hosannas for an idea that preserves what is truly public in public education — the government, i.e. the public, paying for it — while allowing creativity, innovation and parental empowerment to flourish….

And when it comes to saving out children, there is not a moment to waste.

Bravo, Arianna. We’re with you. But didn’t you know that Milton Friedman had made the same proposal over 50 years ago? Here is what Friedman, in his book the Role of Government in Education, had to say:

“Government, preferably local governmental units, would give each child, through his parents, a specified sum to be used solely in paying for his general education; the parents would be free to spend this sum at a school of their own choice, provided it met certain minimum standards laid down by the appropriate governmental unit. Such schools would be conducted under a variety of auspices: by private enterprises operated for profit, nonprofit institutions established by private endowment, religious bodies, and some even by governmental units.”

Victor Hugo’s, “Elle avait pris ce pli…”

September 12, 2009

Our third grandchild, and first granddaughter, Soleil Valdes, was born on September 3rd. I fully hope and expect that within a very few years she also will be stepping lightly into the large open office space that Josée and I call our grande salle, and where we both work, and that her arrival will infect us with her happiness and laughter, and in the process thoroughly distract us from our work of reading and writing, but leaving us much the better for her visit, “nos deux têtes bien moins lasses.”

Elle avait pris ce pli dans son âge enfantin
De venir dans ma chambre un peu chaque matin;
Je l’attendais ainsi qu’un rayon qu’on espère;
Elle entrait, et disait: Bonjour, mon petit père ;
Prenait ma plume, ouvrait mes livres, s’asseyait
Sur mon lit, dérangeait mes papiers, et riait,
Puis soudain s’en allait comme un oiseau qui passe.
Alors, je reprenais, la tête un peu moins lasse,
Mon oeuvre interrompue, et, tout en écrivant,
Parmi mes manuscrits je rencontrais souvent
Quelque arabesque folle et qu’elle avait tracée,
Et mainte page blanche entre ses mains froissée
Où, je ne sais comment, venaient mes plus doux vers.
Elle aimait Dieu, les fleurs, les astres, les prés verts,
Et c’était un esprit avant d’être une femme.
Son regard reflétait la clarté de son âme.
Elle me consultait sur tout à tous moments.
Oh! que de soirs d’hiver radieux et charmants
Passés à raisonner langue, histoire et grammaire,
Mes quatre enfants groupés sur mes genoux, leur mère
Tout près, quelques amis causant au coin du feu !
J’appelais cette vie être content de peu !
Et dire qu’elle est morte! Hélas! que Dieu m’assiste !
Je n’étais jamais gai quand je la sentais triste ;
J’étais morne au milieu du bal le plus joyeux
Si j’avais, en partant, vu quelque ombre en ses yeux.

Barack Obama’s Tanner lecture

September 12, 2009

Over 31 years ago, on July 1, 1978, Obert Clark Tanner gave what was to be the very first Tanner Lecture on Human Values at Clare Hall, Cambridge University. Now listed on the Tanner web site there are nearly 200 lectures, nearly all of which are available for download in Adobe Reader format.

These lectures were (and still are) delivered at one of ten different University locations in the United States and England by mostly Western but well-known and respected world-wide thinkers and scholars, on every imaginable subject drawn either from the humanities and/or the sciences, or both together.

Why mention this? Because the widely varying beliefs among Americans, not to mention the peoples of the world, about exactly what are the human values that are most important and should be the most protected by the nations’ governments, including our own, are too often opposed to one another, and much too often clash frighteningly with one another.

A case in point is the current debate, or rather clash, over health care. What should be our government’s responsibility in this regard? This straightforward and disarmingly simple question arouses the raw nerve stemming from underlying value differences among us.

In particular, between those who say that health care should not be the government’s responsibility and those who say that government’s primary responsibility is to help those who cannot help themselves.

But again, why the mention of the Tanner lectures? Because we have a president who approaches a social problem much as those who approach the subjects of their lectures. And like them he speaks, much as he spoke the other day to the joint session of Congress, from a solid grounding in knowledge of the subject, including its history, and moves us along with him to reasonable conclusions.

In contrast we have a Congress, those listeners at the joint session the other night, made up by and large of only partially educated men and women, made up of those who speak much more from their fears and prejudices than from a much ignored and neglected faculty of reason, having learned that demagoguery is still the most effective way of being reelected to office.

No more than their constituents are they interested in analyzing the nature of a problem and then adopting the most reasonable solution. Their dislike of their president may stem even more from their dislike of his use of reason than the color of his skin.

The members of Congress for the most part probably  didn’t even hear the President’s concluding words. For here with childlike simplicity of expression he brought the whole debate about health care down to the perennial question of the proper role of government in our lives.

This should be the talk of the nation. But instead we’re talking about Joe Wilson who could no more understand the substance of President’s words than he could follow the subject matter of a Tanner Lecture. A clash of beings as large as any in the world today. The country, for all its admirable exceptionalness.can’t seem to rid itself of the Joe Wilsons seated among its elected officials.

Here are the President’s words (without the “God Bless” which has no part in a Tanner lecture):

That large-heartedness, that concern and regard for the plight of others is not a partisan feeling. It’s not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character.

Our ability to stand in other people’s shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play. And an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress.

In 1935, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it.

In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down.

They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom.

But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited.

And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

That was true then. It remains true today.

I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road, to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that is not what this moment calls for.

That’s not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it’s hard.

… I still believe that we can act when it’s hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things and that here and now we will meet history’s test, because that’s who we are. That is our calling. That is our character.Barack

Salman Rushdie’s words at the end of his 2002 Tanner Lecture

September 11, 2009

towers 1 towers two

We are living, I believe, in a frontier time, one of the great hinge periods in human history, in which great changes are coming about at great speed. On the plus side, the end of the cold war, the revolution in communications technology, great scientific achievements such as the completion of the human genome project; in the minus column, a new kind of war against new kinds of enemies fighting with terrible new weapons. We will all be judged by how we handle ourselves in this time.

What will be the spirit of this frontier? Will we give the enemy the satisfaction of changing ourselves into something like their hate-filled, illiberal mirror image, or will we, as the guardians of the modern world, as the custodians of freedom and the occupants of the privileged lands of plenty, go on trying to increase freedom and decrease injustice? Will we become the suits of armour our fear makes us put on, or will we continue to be ourselves? The frontier both shapes our character and tests our mettle. I hope we pass the test.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.