A Word from London

Herbert London

Herbert London is John M. Olin Professor of Humanities at N.Y.U., President of the Hudson Institute, and author of the recently published book Decade of Denial, published by Lexington Books. He can be reached at: www.herblondon.org.

T. R. Can Still Speak to America

With reports of financial corruption roiling Wall Street markets, with terrorism hanging as a dark cloud over America, with the nation increasingly rights-obsessed, atomistic, intellectually indolent and culturally decadent, it would appear to be time for a transformative political statement, one that is uplifting and simultaneously offers guidance for the future.

As I see it, Teddy Roosevelt's claim at the outbreak of World War I is a statement for our time, the intellectual equivalent of "back-to-the-future."

He noted,

The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life . . .

Here are words startlingly prescient as the high octane, high living 1990s morph into economic scandal and the evisceration of financial assets in the present.

Roosevelt reminded America that what counts "in the great battle of life" is not wealth, beauty or even intelligence, but character and, above all in his cosmology, "courage, perseverance and self-reliance."

T. R. might well have been criticized for his ardent acceptance of social Darwinism, but he knew how to inspire his fellow Americans and he knew as well what was at the very core of this exceptional nation.

Consider his claims. He excoriated "prosperity at any price." We now know from Enron to Adelphia that some corporate leaders were willing to exaggerate earnings in order to bolster their net worth. Deception was built into their Weltanschauung, deception borne out of culture that maintained the end justifies the means with wealth as the singular end.

We now know from many examples in the 1990s that excusing terrorist acts or refusing to confront them only emboldens the al Qaedas of the world. Rather than bringing peace, appeasement hastens the onset of war, the presumptive lesson of the Munich Accord in the 1930s.

We now know that being risk averse-counting only on fear avoidance-does not build character or develop manliness. Duty to the family and the nation emerge from calculated risks that promote a welfare greater than the artificial cultivation of self-esteem.

We now know that "soft living" results in degeneracy, an unwillingness to consider anything but sensate pleasures as the spirit desiccates and the soul is made barren. Constant television viewing is the quintessential contemporary acceptance of the soft and ill-considered life.

As political parties retreat from large ambitions and as they shamelessly pander to narrow constituencies and base motives, it is useful to recall that political rhetoric once appealed to the best in the human imagination. It isn't that men once had chests and now they possess only sensitivity; it is the appeal to a higher calling that is missing.

Perhaps in the aftermath of 9/11 Americans will awaken from a fascination with the ephemeral. But this position assumes that the nation can overcome decades of debauchery and self-indulgence. It assumes as well that in the absence of a political vision people will spontaneously recognize the need for truly rewarding pursuits.

T. R. may not be a man for all ages. Yet in his persona he offered an image for young people to pursue. He gave America a spiritual dimension sorely lacking at the moment. He had a chest. It seems to me a person in either party who can recapture this spirit would be elected president. This is probably what pundits mean when they refer to the "vision thing."

"National greatness conservatives" are wise to rely on T. R. as a mentor. But this can only go so far.

What they must do is wrap Roosevelt's inspirational message with the idioms of the moment; uniting the past to the present. What young people want to hear is that the derision of an inevitable death can be overcome by the soul's flowering in special deeds and in the display of personal and national character.

Indonesia as a Model for Coping with Terrorism

It was merely a question of time before Jemaah Islamijah, the radical Islamic organization, would strike. On October 12 a car bomb detonated in front of a Bali discotheque killing more than 182 people and wounding at least 200 with Jemaah Islamiyah as the obvious suspect in this, the worst attack on civilians in years.

The nightclub was filled with Western tourists, including Australians, Europeans and Americans, as is often the case in this world famous resort community. Bloodied and mangled bodies were removed from the carnage as fear gripped this normally serene island.

That, of course, is the point. Jemaah Islamijah has ties to al Qaeda; Bali is a Hindu enclave in the midst of the world's largest Muslim population and it is a resort destination for the rich and famous from the West. In retrospect, Bali was an ideal target for terrorists.

While the war on terrorism continues apace with American attention diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq, the one dimension of this struggle that has gone largely unnoticed till the terrible event on October 12, is the battle for hearts and minds or what is sometimes called public diplomacy.

Recently I had occasion to chat with one of Indonesia's leading public figures about the so-called war on terrorism. His views were both chastening and interesting.

It should be noted that Indonesia is the globe's fourth most populous nation with four major religions represented.

That said, my friend hastily pointed out that Indonesians, who are usually favorably disposed to the U.S., have turned anti-American in many quarters because of the drum beat of criticism from CNN and the BBC, which he described as Asia's al Jazeera. He finds it remarkable that U.S. government officials have done very little to justify the administration's position in the Middle East or the imminent need to attack Iraq. Yet opponents of the war are on T.V. everyday from Java to West Papua offering Jemaah Islamijah, among others, an undisputed hand in the public debate.

He argues the U.S. can influence public opinion and should influence opinion so that the radical Islamists do not gain a substantial foothold. So far little has been done in this nation with great strategic importance for the U.S.

Indonesia-located between Australia and China-could conceivably be the barrier separating democracy from Communism or the model for a moderate Islamic state.

Its population is between 3 and 4 times greater than Turkey, and while Indonesia never had an Atatürk who imposed democracy on his people, it has, since its independence, been a nation mainly linked to the West. But it is also a nation with tumultuous politics and corruption in every crevice of public life.

Despite its problems, including a faltering economy, it is a nation that could serve to promote U.S. interests through its standing in the Muslim world. Abdurrahman Wahid became president in the late '90s in large part because he was a religious leader capable of uniting all factions. Although maladroit as a politician, he did exercise his authority to promote religious tolerance of every Muslim faction, as well as tolerance for Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism.

It is the potential for religious tolerance, despite Jemaah Islamijah, in this Muslim nation that offers hope for the future. If Indonesia can be stable, if it can permit various Muslim factions to coexist, it might yet emerge as a political exemplar.

This would be in the best interest of the U.S., but so far the administration has dropped the ball. Religious leaders have not been consulted about the reasons for military action in Iraq. Their views are a function of television news, not U.S. intelligence. Moreover, as my friend pointed out, one would be hard pressed to find anyone in Indonesia who knows that the U.S. put its military weight behind the Muslim population in the Balkans. There is the simple-minded assertion that the Bush administration is anti-Muslim, whatever the president's speeches contend.

These misguided beliefs can be countered. It will require a systematic application of public diplomacy using all of the intelligence and energy the U.S. mobilizes in war. We must win this war on the ground and in the streets; we must win in the world's nations and in the peoples' heart.

Yet it is largely military action that captures public attention. Even in an administration intent on persuading 1.3 billion Muslims that Americans do not harbor animosity toward them, the arguments marshaled for this effort have been ineffectual. The BBC is winning the diplomacy battles.

One way to influence Islamic thought is through events in Indonesia. If this nation can stabilize and prosper; if it can control its radicals; if it can export tolerance to a part of the world where it is rare, it can save itself and save the U.S. from spending its blood and capital.

This isn't pollyannaish. East Timor is now quiescent after thousands were killed in a bloodbath. Australians and Americans collaborated to bring a peace and the Indonesian government has honored the independence of this new nation once in the orbit of the motherland. If it can happen there, it could happen in the entire Indonesian archipelago; notwithstanding the carnage in Bali. And if peace, or should I say stability, can be achieved in Indonesia, perhaps that would hold the key to stability in the Muslim world.

The N.E.A.-Democratic Party Alliance

According to "Labor Watch," a publication of the Capital Research Center,

The National Education Association (N.E.A.), with 2.6 million members, is the nation's largest union and one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington-One of every twelve delegates to the 2000 Democratic National Convention was a N.E.A. member (total: 350), a number greater than the entire California delegation.

Any way one looks at it that number represents real political clout. In fact, it has so much clout that William McGurn of the Wall Street Journal contends

Those of us who have long dismissed the National Education Association as a tool of the Democratic Party have been badly mistaken. Apparently it's just the opposite. . . . It's the Democratic Party that is the tool of the N.E.A.

Recent reports from the Landmark Legal Foundation suggest that this high-powered association clearly in alliance with the Democratic Party may have overstepped the bounds of propriety with its partisan use of tax-exempt money.

In fact, the Federal Election Commission has been investigating allegations that the N.E.A. spent funds to benefit Democratic candidates directly, a clear violation of campaign finance laws that prohibit candidates and political parties from coordinating their activities with outside groups. Democratic Party documents show that an organization called the "National Coordinated Campaign Steering Committee," which included N.E.A. representatives, set national and statewide campaign strategy for Democratic candidates and coordinated spending on their behalf.

While the N.E.A. tilt to the Democratic Party has long been recognized and-I should hastily note-there is nothing wrong with that bias, the tax-exempt status enjoyed by the teachers' union comes with government rules on how union dues can be spent. Operating funds intended to influence the outcome of an election must be disclosed. From 1994 to 1996, the N.E.A. listed zero dollars for political activity on its tax forms.

Should it be determined that the N.E.A. was in violation of tax law, the organization's political influence would be significantly impaired and, it should be noted, union members could recover the portion of dues used for political purposes.

The Associated Press reported:

Tens of millions of dollars in workers' dues were spent on activities designed to defeat Republicans or elect labor-friendly Democrats in 1996.

Within the Democratic Party, N.E.A. funding and membership gave the teachers' union veto power over party strategies. It is therefore hardly surprising that the party was vehemently opposed to education vouchers or any other parental choice mechanism that challenged the union's hegemony.

Will the N.E.A. tax-exempt status be revoked? Despite all of the evidence that may support this outcome, I doubt that will happen even with a Republican in the White House. The N.E.A.'s political muscle does not end on one side of the Congressional aisle.

What the N.E.A.'s power does suggest is that any genuine educational reform faces formidable opposition from the Democratic Party. In an unusually candid moment Bob Chase, N.E.A. president, noted in a 1999 keynote address,

For Congress, we supported pro-public education stalwarts of the Democratic Party, the folks who have helped Bill Clinton become the best "education president" in history.

This comment was made as basic skills scores for students in urban schools continued to plummet. It was a statement that defied the relatively poor performance of American students on international tests compared to their counterparts in foreign nations.

But Chase was being disingenuous. He was speaking not to students, parents or even teachers in his union; he was speaking to Democratic Party leaders-his colleagues in a political alliance. All they wanted to hear is that the N.E.A. can be counted on as a stalwart of Democratic Party politics.

Jimmy Carter and the Nobel Peace Prize

Giving the Nobel Peace prize to former president Jimmy Carter is perfectly consistent with other decisions of the Nobel committee. After all, Rigaberta Menchú, a fraud, and Le Duc Tho, a mendacious opportunist, were erstwhile recipients of the award.

I should hastily note that Carter is neither a fraud nor a liar, but in my opinion he is one of those naïve true believers who finds a silver lining in every dictatorial regime. Whether it's Castro's Cuba or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Carter is johnny-on-the-spot to tell Americans why present policy is misguided.

In many respects Carter is like Lincoln Steffans who discovered the "promised land" in the Soviet Union on a train ride through Sweden. This was his first voyage to the land of his dreams, but his mind was already made up before arrival. Dreams trumped reality. It wasn't a Potemkin Village that he observed, but a vision of what he wanted to believe.

This, in many respects, is the Jimmy Carter story. If only we could appreciate the plight of these poor dictators imperiled by the big, bad United States that throws its weight around so carelessly, notes Carter in a variety of ways.

There is unquestionably a market for this kind of attitude, especially in Europe. It is not coincidental that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee took a slap at President George W. Bush in granting this year's award. Despite public denials, it is obvious that the administration's stance against Iraq serves as a backdrop for the decision. In the mind of the committee and perhaps Jimmy Carter as well, Bush is a cowboy, unsophisticated in diplomacy and overwhelmed by war fever.

There were other worthy candidates for this award, albeit worthiness is not always a criterion for selection. But the Committee might well have given the award to the democracy movement in Cuba that has lobbied for free elections. It might have given the award to Senator Dick Lugar and former Senator Sam Nunn for their efforts to disarm the Soviet nuclear stockpile.

In the end, the decision to honor Carter was irresistible because it coincidentally dishonors Bush. Moreover, everyone knows that Carter coveted this award so fervently that his every decision from serving as an observer at Indonesian elections to urging President Clinton to send him on a special mission to North Korea had that objective in mind.

Carter's historical legacy was tied into this award. As the third American president to receive the Nobel Peace Prize (T. R. and Wilson were the others) he believes-rightly in my judgment-that people will forget or ignore his marginal performance as president. This is a condition already underway.

Unfortunately, almost every award in the West has been politicized, whether it's the Pulitzer or the Academy Award or the McArthur Genius Award. Awards today tend to affirm politically correct attitudes. Genuine accomplishment may be recognized, but it is more likely to get noticed if it also has the correct political pedigree.

In time this understanding may affect the prestige accorded awards. But we've got a long way to go before that happens.

At the moment awards bring money, fame and status. Celebrities chase them understanding full well that one award can offset a career of mediocrity.

Since leaving the presidency Carter has engaged vigorously in this pursuit. Surely he has been involved in worthwhile projects including, but not restricted to, Habitat for Humanity. But as noteworthy as these activities are, they should be evaluated in conjunction with the entire Carter record.

As I see it, the former president has not brought glory to his post or his record with recent public commentary. I suspect that would be the consensus of Republicans and Democrats. But these aren't the people who confer awards. In Europe, Carter is a hero.

His newly discovered status has been wrought by his implicit anti-Bush opinions, and his soft-pedaling of dictatorial sentiments. That says a lot about Carter, a great deal about European attitudes and even more about the Nobel Peace Prize Committee.