Who Are the True Heirs of 1948?
I've written many columns over the last three or four years arguing that the Democrats need to recapture the legacy of 1948, referring not just to the airlift but the Marshall Plan and the general atmosphere of building a more humane world after the war. I've never argued that the American men who created that world did everything right by our standards today, because they did not, by a long, long shot. But they were attuned to their times and often chose a sound middle course between capitulation and confrontation, the kind of choice exemplified by the airlift itself. It's not an analogy, specious or otherwise, but an assertion to say that the Democratic Party today needs that kind of creativity and rigor in its approach to foreign policy.
Nothing - nothing - has made me angrier in recent years that the neocon assertion that today's neocons are the true heirs of the (mostly) Democratic foreign-policy makers of 1948. In April 2003, Bill Kristol wrote that proponents of the Iraq war were the real heirs of George Kennan, while opponents represented "the Dominque de Villepin left" (this, while Kennan was still alive, and against the war!). It wasn't only necons of course; some liberals bought into this mendacity too. Joe Lieberman still hauls it out. He is either a disgraceful liar or, if he actually believes that Truman and most of the men around would have backed a war like the Iraq adventure in the aftermath of an event like September 11, an extremely stupid man.
But the political reality is, disgraced as the Iraq war now is, opponents of the war - the Democratic nominee, to name a prominent one - still don't own their own narrative of "toughness," to use an overrated word, or of a pragmatic and principled way to engage the world that is rooted in America's liberal internationalist past, a past in which 1948 was so pivotal. That link still needs to be made, and that narrative still needs to be created. I do think Obama can do it. People who are interested should go re-read (or read) his August 2007 foreign policy speech, the one that got mocked at the time for his pledge to "invade" Afghanistan, as his critics embellished it. Beyond the sentence where he said that, I found the speech full of concrete realizations of that legacy narrative. I wonder what Andrei thought, and what he thinks about how Obama, if he's elected, can swipe that legacy from the oily hands of Holy Joe.
You know, for fairly young men, you guys sure are a bunch nostalgic fogeys. "Recapture the legacy of 1948"? "The legacy narrative"? Do you want this to be the "What would Truman do" election? Fewer than 15% of Americans are old enough to have even so much as toddler's memory of Harry Truman.
Why not just capture the spirit of 2008? It's shaping up to be a pretty good spirit.
June 5, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said!
Tomasky has, as he says, written many columns over the past few years supporting the Princeton Project's dreams of imperial grandeur -- grandeur of an "humanitarian" cast, of course. And us denizens of TPMCafe wrote comment after comment shooting the idea down.
All we can say, now, is "He's ba-ack."
June 5, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand your point. It is as if you are saying that since I do not remember slavery I shouldn't be bothered looking at US history before 1865. Since I never saw a "for whites only" sign in person I guess I have absolutely nothing to learn from the civil rights movement. And, of course, since I wasn't around for World War II I guess there is no reason to try and glean lessons from Hitler's rise to power or to look at how the systematic implementation of laws regarding the Jews helped create a situation were the holocaust became possible.
Since Kennedy didn't serve and wasn't alive for World War I maybe he shouldn't have bothered reading Barbara Tuchman's great book about the missteps and miscalculations that allowed the 'great powers' to stumble into World War I. That book and it's "lessons" were very much on Kennedy's mind as he confronted the reality of Soviet nuclear missiles in Cuba. But, in your view, there seems to be nothing to learn from the Cuban Missile Crisis either.
June 5, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that it is no longer 1948. The United States is no longer the unchallenged economic power. Europe is no longer exhausted and devastated. China, India, and Brazil are no longer 3rd world. The rest of the world knows this.
June 5, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can thank our lucky stars Barnes & Noble had one last copy of The Guns of August in stock when JFK strolled in the door. Otherwise? Nuclear Winter!
June 5, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
We might learn something from "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
June 5, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce, I did reply to your comment but mistakenly posted it below at the bottom of the thread.
June 5, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could you put some meat on that 1948 legacy in as -- What does it mean today? For example, what is the middle ground between capitulation and confrontation in Iraq today. I think we should withdraw our forces from there as fast as logistically possible. We will not be leaving victoriously. So does that mean we would have capitulated? Surely something Truman would not have done, I suppose. What do you suggest?
June 5, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Berlin in 1948 and Iraq in 2008 are really quite different, but different in ways that enlighten. The Berlin action was meant to stop Soviet Expansion. It had importance in the coming nuclear arms race and finding a balance. It took place before the advent of tactical nukes, but the implication was Truman would first use regular troops but drop the big one if needed. The Soviets had no bomb in 1948. And Truman had plenty of room to make a stand without worrying about any nuclear attack on America. I don't think the airlift was courageous in a military sense. It was creative and perpetuated the image of America, home of the good Yanks.
Iraq is a problem of American Expansionism. Bush and his crowd were liars and stupid. They have a created a situation with no good outcome. The best we can do is leave and take the blame for the disintegration that will follow. Just a matter of time. Same thing in Vietnam.
Get out. Let some one like Colin Powell who got us in give a plan to get us out. Let the Saudis mind their part of the world.
Let the oil prices go up. They will one way or another. It is not worth anyones life at this point to stop something the world needs anyway. High price of oil. Drive less. Elect a Obama and hope that he has a new-deal kind of thing for a collapsing economy. Plant tress. Build hospitals. Tax the rich. Every time they complain, raise the rate.
Stop watching any news outlet --like CNN --who is more interested in ratings than news. The perception of policy and the powerful emotional issues now being presented to the public as Left or Right infotainment is a great blow to democracy, Mr. Lou Dobbs and Mr. O, who needs an editor or a good ballgame.
Want to look a little bit tough? Throw some mindless smart bombs in the mountains in Afghanistan. Keep Americans thinking that there is some reason. That's not where we are in the most trouble.
Get going fast and faster with the Israeli/Iran issue. Talk and talk fast. Here is the "Berlin stand." Over here boys !
Solve Israel FIRST. That's where Bin Laden is looking.
June 6, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I think it is very valuable to study history. What I object to is these persistent calls to pattern ourselves after some historical model or paragon. I've kind of had it with the whole retro politics movement. Why not try to do some things that have never been done before or even dreamed of before, not by Truman, not by Wilson, not Kennedy, not by Lincoln?
A few years ago, I remember very similar arguments about who were the "true heirs" of Woodrow Wilson. But then Wilson - and "Wilsonianism", such as it is popularly portrayed - fell a bit out of vogue. I imagine the same will be true of Truman, and any other celebrated figures we look to as the temporary glass of political fashion.
In the end, why does it matter much who is really the most like Truman, his "true heir"? To use a personal example, I happen to favor a new global treaty arrangement dealing with the transition to a post-petroleum economy. Now suppose some historian adduces some historical facts and statements, and proves to a moral certainty that Harry Truman would never have supported such a treaty were he alive today. Should I then say, "Damn. Now I'll have to change my view!" No, I would say, "Well then Harry would have been wrong."
When people do this so much of this sort of ancestor worship and hero imitation, it strikes me that is because they have no ideas of their own, no social imaginations, and are maybe deficient in intellectual courage. And so they are constantly reaching for some role model, some established pattern, somebody to be like.
There is a different way to approach things. Face circumstances, problems, challenges and opportunities as you find them, in the present, with a problem-solving spirit of innovation. Don't ask what Truman would do. Or Kennedy, or Wilson, or Lincoln. Just ask "What should we do now, at this moment, in these circumstances?" We all have our own capacities for empirical analysis, for philosophical deliberation, and for the intelligent application of practical reason in light of our values. Sure, we can apply various facts about human nature that we have learned from the past. But we don't need to imitate some Great Man. We can figure it out on our own.
Let's break away from the cozy huddle of the campfire, and all the tribal legends and the totem pole, and light out on our own to build our own lives.
June 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it is very valuable to study history.
Agreed, but solely for the purpose of having a quiver filled with historical analogies adequate to counter, contradict, and shoot down the self-serving analogies deployed by politicians (wait a minute! national leaders) bent on giving free reign to their inner will to power.
June 5, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen, what I was thinking about is that people with a detailed knowledge of 20th century Iraqi history had a much better chance back in 2002 and 2004 of understanding the complexities and submerged conflicts in Iraqi society, and of predicting the likely consequences of an invasion. If such people were in charge, they might have avoided Bush's huge mistake.
Of course, if they instead focussed on the questions, "Who are the true heirs of Churchill?", and "What would Winston do?", they might have gone ahead with the invasion, occupation and savage butchery of Iraqis.
June 6, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno, Dan K.
I've got $5 says in thirty years Bush'll be rehabilitated and his Iraq adventure will be seen as the sole option he had to secure our way of life in 2035 -- whatever that may be. Truman Redux -- all over again, as Yogi would say.
I guess I belong to the Henry "History is Bunk" Ford school.
June 6, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
To suggest that the facts of history and also the words, and attitudes of the people who made that history or experienced it,
are in any way irrelevant today is madness. The deepest moral issues do not take place outside of history. Plato would have something to say here as would those cultists who assembled the the Old and New Testaments. What is new is a technology that makes actions in the world so critical. "New Ways" --sure, in comparison to recent administrations. New ways of dealing with the conflict that haven't been tried at some level before and recorded throughout history. Show me. I've ears for that.
June 6, 2008 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah. History never tells us anything useful, because the problems to be solved are always now.
A planner must ask what his opponent's current interests, psychology, and power are in order to estimate his opponent's response to actions to be taken. Unfortunately, history -- things that happened no less than a generation ago, else they're news not history -- doesn't provide answers to the questions which must be asked.
June 6, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
More thoughtful perhaps as "history provides answers to SOME of the questions that need asking." It's history that shows best how people react to situations, but not all situations.
To think that one can deal with China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Japan, NATO, Islam, Bin Laden without a precise sense of history is utter nonsense. It's a latte and CNN. And that history must be put with the important new questions now on the table --the killer questions. End of resources such as land, water and food. Global warming. Technology's greatest gift to madness, the means for the single individual or small group to end the world or put in motion energies that will.
If one were to imagine that this could be stopped, and personally I don't believe that it can, the effort starts with a cultural and historical understanding of some very old cultures.
America is constantly deprived of important realities because of our relative youth.
Yes. Blow out history. And blow out plenty more with the latte.
June 6, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought we were talking "History," here -- not anthropology, sociology, and theology.
I mean -- if our terminology is going to be that generous . . . . After all, even I employ the "history" of the sun's numerous past risings to inform my answer to the question of whether it's likely to rise tomorrow.
June 6, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Why not try to do some things that have never been done before or even dreamed of before, not by Truman, not by Wilson, not Kennedy, not by Lincoln?"
What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.
But you're right, Dan, even though Ecclesiastes is right too. The fact is that Truman, Wilson, Lincoln and the rest were not ransacking the history books in search of analogies to guide them. They were doing what you recommend: dealing with stuff as it came along, and trying to build, or save, a world worth living in.
June 6, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not an analogy, specious or otherwise, but an assertion to say that the Democratic Party today needs that kind of creativity and rigor in its approach to foreign policy.
June 7, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, we have to clean up a lot of the wreckage that has been left behind by the postwar militarization of US society that began on Truman's watch. It will not be an exciting blast into the future to finally cash in our peace dividend following the end of the cold war. It will mean our cutting back. Fewer overseas bases, fewer aircraft carriers, a smaller army and more importantly fewer wars. These are mostly conservative things. Such as, it is not a good idea to spread democracy out of the barrel of a gun. We should let other cultures find their own futures without trying to bribe them through the IMF, undermine their political systems through an alphabet soup of organizations including the CIA or simply bombing them if they fail to comply.
June 5, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee I don't know, I think there are plenty of reasons to ask questions like "what would Truman do". They are the same reasons that all of us, when confronted with a new challenge, seek wise counsel before deciding how to proceed.
June 6, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're in luck, chemjeff!
It just so happens we have a séance scheduled for June 22 at which Truman has promised to appear. You'll be able to seek his wise counsel on any number of perplexing issues. None of that "what would Truman do" speculating; it'll be straight from the horse's mouth.
June 6, 2008 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
apparently we are living in a post-wisdom world. we either no longer need wisdom or we can now pull it fully formed from our own buttholes like moonbeams and rainbows.
June 7, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most creative thing that the Democratic Party can do today is begin the pull out of all the old alliances. We can't afford it. It's counter productive in the world. China and Japan are the ones who have to work out Asia. China doesn't need any nukes on the loose. We should have Wallmart be the American surrogates there. It would be a sorry thing historically to see China swamp the last stand piece of real estate of Chang Kai-shek, but we've no business defending them more than dealing with any number of situations around the world --Zimbabwe for example. And as for Germany and the rest of Nato-- that part of the world is their bleeding neighborhood and they've been shirking responsibility for too long. They don't want to pay for it you know. They have health insurance, we don't. South Koreans have health insurance, we don't.
Let's have an airlift to my house. I don't want candy. I want that credit card old McCain is going to give the vets. The one I take to the drug store or the hospital when I'm sick.
Americans paid dearly for others to have all kinds of security.
I'm done with it. No matter what Obama says to get elected, if he were to cause this much needed pullback --that would be his most heroic act. Read about the airlift, why not. Mythologize it in a way that keeps Americans thinking that this is how we should act in the world, that makes for bad history, or down the line no history.
June 6, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand a lot of the skepticism here but I still think and effort needs to be made to put Truman, FDR etc back into the Democratic Party story and get it out of the slimy hands of Lieberman and McCain. And I don't think you can accomplish that by simply saying oh Truman he wasn't so hot you know. Not good enough, sorry.
June 6, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Talk about FDR, Truman and JKF. Good politics. But cross your fingers when you mention Truman and don't think that particular name will get you into Heaven. It won't. That elevator goes down.
Present the dual talk/force message on the Middle East. Iran and Israel are the key to the election. And a bit of Pakistan and Afghanistan thrown in.
Talk about how a pullout of Iraq takes the most courage not the least. Show the plans for the pull out on a spreadsheet for the tidy corporate set.
June 6, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truman was the "neocon" choice for Vice-President who replaced the darling of the Left at the time - Henry Wallace - because those in power understand that Roosevelt would not live out his fourth term.
The Left savaged Truman in exactly the same way that they've savaged Bush today...despite the fact that Truman was reluctant to use the atom bomb against Japan and refused to do so against other enemies (while George Kennan, among others, was urging preventative nuclear war against the Soviet Union - according to Niall Ferguson in "War of the World", page 597).
So Michael Tomasky is pure garbage, like much of the Left today and always.
June 6, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink