Can history help?

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

From The London Review of Books:

We are, all of us, saturated with information on change. There is 24-hour news. Twitter, Facebook and other online platforms transmit the latest occurrences across the globe. Those of us old-fashioned enough still to want newspapers can scan their online versions at any time. Yet this blizzard of material easily produces a sense of overload, even powerlessness, a feeling that we are simultaneously being told too much, yet can grasp too little. One vital respect in which history can help is by encouraging us to look away from the blitz of ever shifting news stories, and to consider instead what has proved genuinely significant in the past. Once we do this, we are immediately reminded that most really game-changing transformations have happened slowly. Minute by minute change is a media illusion.

To be sure, there have been a few genuinely world-altering events that seem to have happened in an instant. The men who dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 were deploying technology that had taken decades to develop. Nonetheless, in carrying out that act, these US airmen did effect an almost immediate transformation in the nature of warfare and in attitudes towards it. Many momentous changes, however, have taken centuries to work through. Consider the terrible outbreak of plague in the 14th century known as the Black Death. Europe suffered disproportionately, losing perhaps 50 per cent of its total population. One result of this, however, was that the living standards and wages of many of those who survived seem to have improved. This, it has been suggested, led in time to a marked increase in Europeans’ food consumption and demand for consumer goods. And this rise in demand may well in turn have contributed to the increasing number of European trading voyages across the world’s oceans in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Even traumatic shifts in human history can have mixed and sometimes useful consequences.

. . . .

Populists, a widespread breed at present, often like to represent particular territories and sets of people in terms of an unchanging and finite set of characteristics, either out of boosterism, or as a means to marginalise and condemn. Thus, Sarah Palin, one-time Republican governor of Alaska, used to refer to her supporters as ‘real Americans’, as though such unadulterated beings existed, and as though her opponents were somehow not ‘real’. By the same token, the leading populist party in Finland used to call itself the True Finns, as though other Finns were not part of an essential Finnish nation.

What are the triggers of dramatic episodes of change? Savage outbreaks of disease can be a trigger; so can significant alterations in climate, like the so-called Little Ice Age that began in the 17th century. Some leaps forward in technology, such as the invention of printing in China, have precipitated long-drawn-out, transcontinental changes; so have economic crises, and major shifts in the nature of belief and ideology, such as the Reformation. But perhaps the most recurring and paradoxical trigger of change in human society has been war.

. . . .

Unsurprisingly, the countries that were invaded or defeated tended to be the ones that underwent the most fundamental changes. Germany, Japan and France all gained new constitutions after 1945. By contrast, neither the UK, which was seemingly a victor power, nor the US, which was certainly a victor power, changed its political system in the wake of the Second World War. Instead, in both countries, victory served for a while to burnish and strengthen the existing political order.

Over the centuries both the United Kingdom and the United States have indeed been almost too successful in their recourse to war, and this has had mixed repercussions for their political systems and democracy. In the United States, success against the British in the Revolutionary War led to the drafting of the American constitution of 1787, a brief but remarkable document.

. . . .

This conspicuous success rate on the battlefield helped to cement the political system established in 1787, which has been subject to only a limited number of amendments. The US now possesses the oldest written constitution still in operation in the world, which is an achievement to be sure, but also by now a source of some difficulties. The 1787 constitution said nothing about the operation of political parties. This lacuna was manageable so long as the main US parties were similar in outlook and prepared to abide by certain ‘gentlemanly’ conventions. Today, these conditions no longer apply, and gridlock has ensued. Similarly, the second amendment, passed in 1791, allowing US citizens access to arms, was manageable when most firearms were muskets that took minutes to load. Obviously, this is no longer the case. So while it may be tempting to attribute current political dysfunction in the US to particular personalities, some of the root causes are long-term, structural and connected to America’s experience of war. Military success has helped to foster constitutional stasis and complacency.

Link to the rest at The London Review of Books

12 thoughts on “Can history help?”

  1. With all due respect to The London Review of Books, the 2nd Amendment is quite manageable, despite the changes in firearms technology.
    As well claim that the 1st Amendment is no longer manageable because of the Internet.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but the author is not doing a very good job of demonstrating that she has actually learned from history.

    • Also, the op misconstrues divided government in the US as a failing when it is the intended outcome of the system. The purpose of the US Constitution isn’t to decide who gets to be (temporary) dictator but to *prevent* anybody from ever ruling by decree.

      The failing is that it has ever happened at all–Lincoln during the Civil War, FDR during his reign, and Obama’s second term–even temporarily.

      Division and balance of powers is the intent and it works reasonably well in reducing imperial presidencies to temporary aberrations.

    • Or that she bothers to learn anything about other countries. The Second Amendment (like all of the other nine) does not allow anything. It disallows a specific thing (infringement of the right to bear arms) to the government.

      • You know, there’s a constituency for bombing Russia over 100k in election ads*.

        Lots of folks in lots of European countries have written opinions about US domestic affairs in English on the internet.

        Whereas these countries have neither a first nor second amendment and have in many cases in recent years shown willingness to infringe free speech, and to imprison without due process in order to infringe free speech.

        Whereas given that these countries have socialized medicine, and given the practicalities of socialized medicine, their objections to capital punishment are laughable.

        Whereas these statements made by foreigners on the internet could plausibly have influenced US opinion in excess of 100k of ads.

        Whereas these governments have neither imprisoned, nor tortured, nor executed these people I am irritated by.

        Do we have a constituency to declare war upon these countries, and move from border to border, killing and burning?

        Or are the Jacksonians too decent for that, and the Hamiltonians too interested in the market opportunities of living human beings?

        *Spoilers: It turns out that they aren’t really. You don’t see them appropriating for the missile defense that would minimize our risks in bombing Russia. Apparently it is purely a matter of domestic politics. Maybe they are Russian spies. 🙂

      • The Second Amendment (like all of the other nine) does not allow anything. It disallows a specific thing (infringement of the right to bear arms) to the government.

        This illustrates the core difference between societies that consider themselves to be subjects, and societies that consider the people rule themselves.

    • There really isn’t a way to claim modern firearms invalidate the second amendment without simultaneously invalidating the first and fourth amendments. You covered the first, and the fourth amendment — well, the Founders didn’t anticipate having laptops and tablets, let alone “the cloud,” so surely the government can seize your electronic documents as it pleases … right? Oh, and the fifth amendment against self-incrimination was written before the concepts of digital “encryption” and “passwords,” so it can’t possibly apply in such cases.

      I can’t take seriously anyone who does not understand the implications of the “second amendment is for muskets only” argument, so I’ll pass on LRB here.

  2. The United States was never uniform culturally. There was never foundation for enough mutual trust to have a gun free society.

    We have a long established set of customs and mores that provide the potential for aliens to live amongst each other, and agree and hold to peace. If you add additional aliens who for whatever reason can’t learn those few simple habits, the deal will be less in effect.

    On that culture was built an additional formal contract (the constitution), with a bunch of supplementary items (laws).

    Another interesting bit is oral history. The early settlers came from and were shaped by many different environments, some of which led to lasting behavioral influences. We are shaped mainly by their oral history made here, the stuff from the old country is much weaker.

    Forex, you may have had neighbors that fled Cambodia. Their kids and grandkids know, and you know, but your grandkids might not. Their great grandkids may know, and yours probably don’t.

    The thing them ignorant foreigners in England don’t realize, is that yes we have moved from success to success against external foes (excepting internal sabotage), but there is another threat we know about, deep down in our hearts.

    In the Civil War, we spent the most blood we’ve ever spent against any foe. Our brothers were a worthy foe. We were deeply divided long before that, were certainly deeply divided around the conflict, and are still deeply divided and without complete trust in one another.

    The current situation is not new, it is as it has been for a long time in this country. Certainly as was in my grandfather’s day.

    And the idea that we can’t still settle our foreign problems by simply killing enough of them is, looking at the historical record, apparently based heavily on lies of foreign origin.

  3. The men who dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 were deploying technology that had taken decades to develop.

    With all the respect that I can muster for the author, Ms Linda Colley — that is, none — the technology they deployed took only 3 years to develop, not decades. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

    Yeah, history can help. I recommend that Ms Colley read it some time.

    • The history of the spread of atomic weapons is really really interesting stuff. The most interesting part is that they were only developed once. And what took the Manhattan District project three years hasn’t been independently replicated by anybody at all. And the folks who did it in three did it *twice*, in two different ways, too.

      Every single nation with the tech has either been given it, bought it, or stole it.

      It’s a tale of politicians and spies, not of scientists or engineers.

  4. Thus, Sarah Palin, one-time Republican governor of Alaska, used to refer to her supporters as ‘real Americans’, as though such unadulterated beings existed, and as though her opponents were somehow not ‘real’.

    I’m reminded of people For The American Way as though such an unadulterated way exists, and as though their opponents were somehow not for that way.

    Anyone remember Obama’s continued lecturing about how “that’s not who we are as Americans?”. As though such an unadulterated American exists, and as though his opponents were somehow not Americans.

    • Shhh…
      That’s not the media way.

      The media way is reporting tbe prez going ballistic and studiously avoiding mention of what triggered the rant.

      Cause “some animals are more equal”. Always and forever.

Comments are closed.