Speaking to the World
This discussion has given us all much to think about and I'm grateful to the others who joined me and for their kind comments about The Candy Bombers. I think we're all in vigorous agreement about the value of history. Yes, analogies can be overused and misused, but history does teach us about present as well as the past. Perhaps I put it less artfully than I should have but when I sought to compare Berlin and Baghdad in my original post, I was not drawing some equivalence between the two. Nor was I saying we are in analogous times. In fact, I made a point to say that we were not. Nevertheless, I do believe that the manner in which we turned around the American occupation of Germany and the way America inspired people all around the world in 1948 are moments that offer lessons about how we should act as a nation - and they serve as rebukes to what has gone wrong in recent years.
Mike Tomasky is right to look forward and ask "What now?" We are in a moment where we need to look again to 1948 - not to replicate what they did then, but to repeat it; to take some of those same principles and apply them to our own time. Now, as then, America is facing new types of national security challenges in a different kind of environment. Then it was a global ideological and military threat at a time that we were - for the first time - operating at the summit of world power. Now it is a set of interconnected threats that know no boundaries - global terrorism, global warming, global poverty, global disease - at a time that most of the world's people live in democracies. Just as Truman and the others had to create new institutions and principles in 1948 to deal with the new situation they confronted, we have to do the same to respond to a world where American foreign policy will no longer just be conducted in embassies but will have to speak directly to people all over the world - to get them to instruct their governments to change course but also to get them to change course in their own lives. To combat terrorism, we will need to convince ordinary people in the Middle East and elsewhere to turn their backs on jihadism and turn in the cell leader who may be living next door. To fight climate change, we will need to convince a factory owner in China to change the way he does his work or change his lightbulb. To fight the spread of deadly diseases, we will need to convince a farmer in Africa to start living his life differently.
To do all this, America has to present a different face to the world - and speak to the world in a different voice. Mike pointed to one Barack Obama speech; I'd like to point to another that shows he understands this: his first big foreign policy after announcing his candidacy - a speech he entitled "The American Moment."
We must do so not in the spirit of a patron, but the spirit of a partner - a partner that is mindful of its own imperfections. Extending an outstretched hand to these states must ultimately be more than just a matter of expedience or even charity. It must be about recognizing the inherent equality and worth of all people. And it's about showing the world that America stands for something - that we can still lead....It's time we had a President who can do this again - who can speak directly to the world, and send a message to all those men and women beyond our shores who long for lives of dignity and security that says "You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now."
There are many things I think we can learn from the history I cover in The Candy Bombers: that we can bring true democracy to places that many think are incapable of supporting it (as was true then of Germany and is true today of places like Iraq); that great presidents ask Americans to sacrifice and serve (Truman reinstated the draft in an election year, drawing fire from both far right and far left); and that restraint is often the best course.
But perhaps the most important lesson is the one Senator Obama was talking about: that it is important to make people around the world understand that we care about them for their sake, and not just ours. What turned around the failing occupation of Germany was not just economic aid but the Airlift and, I argue in the book, one of the things that made the Airlift work were the candy drops to children of the city conducted in secret by a lone American pilot. While some could see the Airlift itself as treating the Berliners as pawns in a global game, there was no ulterior motive in this pilot dropping candy to 7-year-olds.
Ultimately, this book is about a moment that America was able to win hearts and minds around the world and was able to discover that we succeed as a nation when we combine our military power with an undisputedly moral voice. Those are principles we've gotten away from but that need to undergird our next foreign policy.
I was moved by Lawrence Kaplan's post and believe he is right to say that the essential kindness of the American people is one of our most fundamental characteristics. But I did not write this book to rebuke us for our leaders. What I hope The Candy Bombers shows is what flawed individuals Harry Truman and the great wise men of 1948 were. Each was battling their own demons and limitations and the book chronicles the many mistakes of judgment they made. But somehow these imperfect people were able to make decsions that transformed the world for the better. If they can, why can't we?
Comments (10)
Which, of course, doesn't prevent us from incinerating millions -- less if they're white, more if they're brown.
June 6, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm.
Don't know why the quote ". . . the essential kindness of the American people is one of our most fundamental characteristics" didn't show up, above.
June 6, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
" we have to do the same to respond to a world where American foreign policy will no longer just be conducted in embassies but will have to speak directly to people all over the world - to get them to instruct their governments to change course but also to get them to change course in their own lives."
This may seem like a continuation of last week's discussion, but isn't that sort of... condescending? As if American citizens can "instruct" their own government.
No, I don't see the US able to get on the Ron Paul international plan any time soon, but American citizens have some real problems right here. It would be pretty hypocritical for our leaders to start telling citizens in other countries to effect what they will not permit here, wouldn't it?
I think I remember some European leaders suggesting international oversight of our own 2004 election. I didn't think that idea was half bad.
June 6, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You actually think that Truman was right to reinstate the military draft? Why? So that conscripted soldiers could be used to fight unnecessary wars in North Korea and Viet Nam? It took decades to undo the mess Truman made by bringing conscription back in a time of peace.
June 6, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Andrei... I have not yet read the book, but I hope to soon. Further, I think you are spot on with your take on how important it will be to have a president who not only speaks to the world, but does so recognizing the importance of "dignity and security" for those living outside the U.S.
One thing to be careful about - and this may be minor, but is still important - is the idea that the ultimate objective should be to "win hearts and minds" of people living all over the world. The phrase itself has its roots in religious texts and counterinsurgency efforts and if we think about it, is actually incompatible with the notion of providing dignity to all. That's not to say that the United States should not be speaking to the world, or that it should not enact foreign policy that will position the country as a leader that recognizes "the inherent equality and worth of all people." But if America is out there trying to win hearts and minds - to "make the world love us" - then it won't be recognizing that there will be differences of opinion... that there might in fact be other voices worth recognizing. Equally important to speaking to the world is listening to it, and until U.S. foreign policy recognizes that, America will continue to pace in circles.
Winning hearts and minds might be need in Baghdad (like it was in South Vietnam and Malaya before that). But America's conversation with the world cannot be viewed as one giant counterinsurgency effort.
Regardless, great stuff. Can't wait to read the book.
Check this post at Mountainrunner for more on "hearts and minds."
June 6, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The moral megalomania on display here frightens me a bit, Andrei.
I know you have been a speechwriter by trade, and so it is not surprising that when you look for the source of US problems abroad, you see mainly a failure to communicate. On your account, we just need better public diplomacy; better and louder speeches aimed directly at foreign populations; more conspicuous displays of niceness and kindness.
But I think you are underestimating the intelligence of people around the globe. The problem now isn't really that people don't understand the American way of life, because they haven't been subjected to enough finely crafted liberal political rhetoric, or haven't had enough candy delivered. It is that they do understand the American way of life, and by and large they reject it.
Even in the years right after WWII, the US was a relative newcomer on the world stage. People were still figuring us out. But that was before the world was flooded by American cultural products of every variety. Now all those non-Americans have had a chance to get a good long look at us. They now clearly see that we practice an extreme, antisocial and inhumane form of capitalism that tolerates absurd levels of inequality, and makes life an anxious, individualistic and lonely struggle. They see a popular culture that it is shallow, trivial and repulsive. They see that our way of life is so thoroughly dominated by commercial values that every human relationship is an exchange. They see a society filled with insane levels of violence and social aggression. Above all, they see people like you who are far too aggressive and presumptuous about telling people what to do and how to live. The United States cannot change these perceptions just by giving better speeches. It would need to change what it is.
When the main alternative to the American way of life was Soviet-style communism, we looked great by comparison. But now that the world is getting a good long look at us without that uglier alternative for comparison, they don't like what they see so much.
We are simply not in a position to be the global moral titans you want us to be. Our own society is too deficient. What we could do, perhaps, is stop doing so much telling, and start doing a lot more listening, and then cooperate with others on the basis of what we hear.
June 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have enjoyed this discussion. Speaking from my own experience and those of many fine artists and writers whose lives suffered far too much under Truman's witch-hunt buddies, I believe the lack of discussion on this topic was bad history and cowardly. That said, good to have the book in the bins. History is made of facts within theories and political leanings, any truth to be had among the disagreements. Those posters here who think that history has little or no importance in current affairs--well, what can one say other than turn off the TV, get off the internet and read a book.
June 7, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And one last time. Authors who engage their posters sell more books than those who don't. Not true with the "big names," the authors who get deals with HBO or PBS. But the history books at this level --often finer work than that of the big shots --require more effort in various niches of the reading demographic.
Sales history is written every day at Amazon.com if you know how to read the stats and relate them to the number and kinds of comments. This is discussed everyday in marketing meetings at publishers that must choose each week between a serious book or some celebrity crap, or books by victims of celebrity politicians.
Such engagement with posters would push advertising revenue here in my opinion. But what would I know? I just buy books. Gas prices are high. Health care is a matter one can't speak of, its impact upon people of small means so drastic. Most of us are cutting back. TPM is a huge bargain in this respect. And the waiting list for good books at the library has tripled.
June 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"undisputedly moral voice."
We are way past that.
I'd like to say that I've enjoyed this discussion on your book.
June 8, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, indeed, the Berlin Airlift was the American nation's finest hour. A pity, only, that it is such an exceptional hour.
And reading this discussion has been informative, sort of. Somehow, one gets the feeling that the occupying power's responsibilities for the civilians in the occupied territories is not taken too seriously, something that unfortunately has been a little bit too obvious during other occupations of foreign territories. I think this is a veritable Achille's heel, and a terrible mistake from the side of America, creating a lot of uneasiness among friends and hostility where it's the least needed.
As a former resident of Berlin (possibly soon again living there) I do also almost take offence and wonder very much whos idea it was to use the "Candy-bomber" term in the book's title. The book will be referred to by its name. Unfortunately.
Coal and food was, of course, a lot more crucial needs. West-Berlin's lack of coal was pretty serious during the blocade winter, particularly as the late autumn had been unusually foggy and virtually inhibited the airlift for many weeks in a row.
June 8, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink