My Dad's Column
I've resisted (with moderate success)pimping my father's weekly column here on Gunbroker, but this one seems particularly timely.
It's a bit of a read, but the literate among us will probably forgive that.
http://www.journal-advocate.com/articles/2008/02/01/opinion/opinion_columns/column1.txt
Had an intriguing discussion today with an erudite friend who is in the process of reading Arnold J. Toynbee's "A Study of History." Toynbee was one of the most read historian-philosophers of the 20th century. The specifics of our conversation aren't germane to this column, but it got me to thinking about how we might be better off if people paid more attention to history.
I dug back into my old college books and did some more reading about Toynbee. He studied history purely in the context of the cultures as they evolved, not necessarily within the context of the political changes as nations rose and fell, as did his contemporary, Oswald Spengler.
Spengler believed that governments rose and fell by natural attrition, as surely as the seasons. Toynbee generally disagreed with Spengler, stating that, "Civilizations die by suicide, not by murder." He seems, in a way, to agree with Spengler in part, but places the blame not on inevitability, but upon human nature's failures. Now, I haven't read a lot of Toynbee, but I've read a lot about him, and it seems that this assessment is about right, and I agree.
I've been watching the political debates, and I see a government under fire, not by foreign armies, foreign economics or militant insurgents, but by honest, honorable people who want to change it. These people seem to be long on oratory but short on specifics. They all foresee doom, and they all promise change. Some will change our national direction in one way, some in another, but they don't say exactly how that change will be brought about. Our legislators are trying to look good, and to make the candidate of their party look good, by speeding an economic assistance bill through the usually sluggish process.
This election has already been more contentious than any since 1932. The Hoover administration had been blamed for economic stress, in part because the legislature failed to act with anything to alleviate it. But when change in leadership came, all sorts of social programs whizzed through. That time, Roosevelt was heralded as the hero of the moment, and was given credit for the change. Now that change is beginning to be accomplished, everybody wants to jump in and claim credit for it, and this election will determine who that is.
We're not in nearly the shape we were in 1932, but what if we were? If the stock market, with all its fool proofing, were to collapse, and unemployment be 40 percent instead of 5 percent, would we be able to recover? Sure, we would, because we have the 1932 example. We've learned from experience. Both political parties are eager for change from the past years' experiences, and that change is coming, regardless of who is elected. It's only a question of which direction we want to steer this leaking boat.
Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say in 1778: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
Perhaps this influenced Spengler with its absoluteness. But I don't believe either one was right. I'd rather believe Toynbee. We have been on the brink of political and cultural suicide several times in our existence, immediately following the Revolution, at the time of the Civil War, and in 1930. But we're still here. Our leaders have read history. Maybe even those historians. Have we progressed through Alexander's theory? Was Spengler right? Or will we commit suicide, per Toynbee? I think none of the above.
It's a bit of a read, but the literate among us will probably forgive that.
http://www.journal-advocate.com/articles/2008/02/01/opinion/opinion_columns/column1.txt
Had an intriguing discussion today with an erudite friend who is in the process of reading Arnold J. Toynbee's "A Study of History." Toynbee was one of the most read historian-philosophers of the 20th century. The specifics of our conversation aren't germane to this column, but it got me to thinking about how we might be better off if people paid more attention to history.
I dug back into my old college books and did some more reading about Toynbee. He studied history purely in the context of the cultures as they evolved, not necessarily within the context of the political changes as nations rose and fell, as did his contemporary, Oswald Spengler.
Spengler believed that governments rose and fell by natural attrition, as surely as the seasons. Toynbee generally disagreed with Spengler, stating that, "Civilizations die by suicide, not by murder." He seems, in a way, to agree with Spengler in part, but places the blame not on inevitability, but upon human nature's failures. Now, I haven't read a lot of Toynbee, but I've read a lot about him, and it seems that this assessment is about right, and I agree.
I've been watching the political debates, and I see a government under fire, not by foreign armies, foreign economics or militant insurgents, but by honest, honorable people who want to change it. These people seem to be long on oratory but short on specifics. They all foresee doom, and they all promise change. Some will change our national direction in one way, some in another, but they don't say exactly how that change will be brought about. Our legislators are trying to look good, and to make the candidate of their party look good, by speeding an economic assistance bill through the usually sluggish process.
This election has already been more contentious than any since 1932. The Hoover administration had been blamed for economic stress, in part because the legislature failed to act with anything to alleviate it. But when change in leadership came, all sorts of social programs whizzed through. That time, Roosevelt was heralded as the hero of the moment, and was given credit for the change. Now that change is beginning to be accomplished, everybody wants to jump in and claim credit for it, and this election will determine who that is.
We're not in nearly the shape we were in 1932, but what if we were? If the stock market, with all its fool proofing, were to collapse, and unemployment be 40 percent instead of 5 percent, would we be able to recover? Sure, we would, because we have the 1932 example. We've learned from experience. Both political parties are eager for change from the past years' experiences, and that change is coming, regardless of who is elected. It's only a question of which direction we want to steer this leaking boat.
Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinborough, had this to say in 1778: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage."
Perhaps this influenced Spengler with its absoluteness. But I don't believe either one was right. I'd rather believe Toynbee. We have been on the brink of political and cultural suicide several times in our existence, immediately following the Revolution, at the time of the Civil War, and in 1930. But we're still here. Our leaders have read history. Maybe even those historians. Have we progressed through Alexander's theory? Was Spengler right? Or will we commit suicide, per Toynbee? I think none of the above.
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
0 comments