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>.

The Imperium of Liberty

The world press corps is seemingly captivated by anti-war demonstrators from Antwerp to Sydney. It is customary to employ the by now banal slogan that the United States is engaged in “a cowboy foreign policy” which translates into shoot first and think later.

Demonstrators carry signs that call Bush “the bully” and chant words about American imperialism. Clearly the left has found a new cause and as clearly has found a way to vent its reflexive anti-American sentiment.

What is not so clear, and perhaps what should be stated, is that despite an unrivalled global position that compares favorably with the Roman Empire, the United States seeks neither territorial acquisition nor imperial dominance. If there is an imperium at all, it is the “imperium of liberty,” to use Jefferson’s phrase.

The U.S. wants to foster free markets, democracy and stability. These conditions generally do not coexist well, or at all, with tyrants. Moreover, weapons of mass destruction in the hands of people who cannot be deterred represent a threat of massive proportions that must be thwarted.

For better or worse, history has imposed this responsibility on the United States. There isn’t any other nation or combination of nations capable of thwarting the threat.

Yet, and this is the point overlooked by America’s detractors, the U.S. has not imposed its will on nations like France and Germany intent on delaying and interfering with war preparations. If anything, President Bush has worked feverishly to build a coalition of nations that recognizes the threat posed by Iraq. By any standard the U.S. has an imperium (if that word applies at all) “by invitation,” a voluntary arrangement that sanctifies sovereignty.

Surely the U.S. leads, but it leads because of a powerful military, a successful economy, stable leadership and a culture—despite its imperfections—that many across the globe choose to emulate. Here the comparison with the Roman Empire falters. We do not impose our will everywhere, notwithstanding that capability. The remarkable condition of the moment is that the U.S. assumes responsibility for international equilibrium, even though it doesn’t always receive the credit and recognition it deserves.

Should the invasion in Iraq prove to be successful, there will be many announced parents for this new, infant democracy. Tyranny will have lost another war and tyrants throughout the region will wonder if they might be next on the U.S. hit list.

Should democracy emerge in Iraq the demonstrators may be quiescent for awhile, but their argument will veer from the need to avoid bloodshed to the war could have been prevented with clever diplomacy. America will never win with these folks, nor should the administration attempt to mollify their concerns.

Thomas Jefferson noted that the United States would stand as a beacon of liberty for other nations. Despite its many imperfections, that is the case. But liberty cannot survive as an island surrounded by tyranny. Its future is tied inexorably to the defeat of totalitarians.

Accomodationists that believe in coexistence, such as France and Germany, have refused to consider the direction of international affairs or perhaps their irrelevance in the global equation. Lacking the military strength and diplomatic clout to alter conditions, they carp from the sidelines.

The United States, by contrast, doesn’t have the luxury of being a backbencher. It is obliged to confront history directly. That is the nation’s mission in the new century. I suspect that in time the world will appreciate America’s role. But the moment of appreciation is not yet at hand. That will happen when liberty is recognized as a worldwide condition and people across the globe consider how that was achieved.

September 11 forced the U.S. to confess its empire status by default. The test ahead is to resist hubris, decline and self-doubt, thereby proving John Quincy Adams wrong when he warned America might become “dictatress of the world” only to lose her spirit.

The Danger of Russian Depopulation and Lessons for the West

As the Wall Street Journal (1/24/03) noted “the world’s population could decline by nearly 500 million people by 2075.” As notable as this statistic is, it pales in comparison to the demographic condition in Russia.

The most recent predictions indicate a decline in the Russian population of twenty million people in the next decade anticipated by an excessively low birthrate of 1.2 children per family (well below replacement level) and a rise in the death rate due to widespread alcoholism and the spread of disease.

According to Professor Antonov

Two-thirds of Russian territory is settled now as sparsely as it was in the Neolithic Age: less than one person per square kilometer. In other words, east of the Urals a demographic wasteland is superimposed on the geographic wasteland.

What this startling point reveals is a dramatic decline in the desire for reproduction among the younger generation. The prevalence of one child families, the decline in the number of recorded marriages, the increase in cohabitation, the rise in divorce are symptoms of this condition.

While some sociologists contend that “demographic equilibrium” will change attitudes toward reproduction, the belief in some transformative event is not borne out by the virtual breakdown in the family. What most theorists fail to note is the need for actions that reconcile the desire of the individual with the interests of the society, perhaps a pro-natalist policy. Yet policy prescriptions do not automatically result in a fertility rate increase.

Moreover, emerging in social science theory is the virtually unchallenged belief that divorce and “one child families” are desirable conditions that must be protected. An undeclared war is being conducted against those who identify a crisis in the family and a demographic implosion.

In Russia, if nothing dramatic occurs to encourage larger families, the retreat from childbearing will continue and accelerate. Two children in a family will certainly not be the norm and, as a consequence, Russia could become a nation of 100 million in thirty years (it is about 149 million today.)

Most significantly, depopulation can decide Russia’s fate. A decline of 50 million people can undermine the territorial integrity of this vast nation. Similarly, a population decline of this magnitude would undermine any effort to create industrial market capitalism that depends on mass production and mass markets.

It is instructive that sociologists have not commented on the social consequences of school closings, the reduction in demand of children’s goods and services, the transfer of people out of the education sector and the restructuring of the labor market.

Yet far more troubling is the social atmosphere that accompanies the collapse of the family. The signs are already clear. A revision in cultural perspective has led to prestige bestowed on homosexual behavior and increased evidence of suicide. These conditions not only threaten the foundation of civilization, but human self-preservation itself.

Russia, and arguably much of the West, is in the midst of an historic revolution that is weakening the family, devaluing the role of children and threatening depopulation. Norms are changing and will change further as this demographic condition gains a head of steam.

It is not exaggerated to contend that Russia’s future and perhaps the fate of other nations depends on the restoration of family- and child-centered lives. A relentless drive for consumer gratification and self-fulfillment have taken us down a path that threatens societal well-being.

If Russia is thought of as a prototype—an exemplar of what could happen elsewhere—perhaps policies can be endorsed that are pro-family and that alert the public to the danger of rapid depopulation and the erosion of society’s foundational institutions. If that return to normalcy doesn’t happen, the consequences may be very dire indeed.

The Le Bron James Story

Writing in the ESPN website Jay Bilas provides a series of explanations and rationalizations for a ruling which made Le Bron James, high school’s premier basketball player, ineligible for the reminder of the season after he accepted a gift of two replica jerseys from an Ohio store, but has been subsequently reinstated.

First Mr. Bilas says, “James is a nice young man, and has shown admirable maturity, given his age.” Then he notes, “He is still a kid and needs guidance and limits.” After all, he has received sneakers from Adidas and had been given the star treatment wherever he goes.

Bilas suggests that his mother, Gloria James, who might have been responsible for her son’s actions, “had no experience in raising a superstar.” I wonder how many parents have had this experience.

James’ coach, Dru Joyce, should not be held accountable for his star players’ action, according to Bilas, for he had nothing to do with the high school’s high-powered schedule and trips to California and North Carolina.

Equally blameless is St. Vincent-St. Mary’s High School since authorities could not possibly have anticipated the media attention heaped on James: “There is no rulebook for how to handle a student superstar…” The school may have been given thousands of dollars for the rights to televise its games, but “this was not an issue of right and wrong, it was an issue of what was best,” maintains analyst Bilas.

The Ohio High School Athletic Association enforced its rules in making James ineligible. After all, he did accept an inappropriate gift. But, as Bilas contends, surely there is something wrong with such rules when even a free sandwich for the local deli would have been a violation.

Shoe companies? They too can’t be held responsible. Who can blame them for wanting to secure a long-term endorsement deal with the next NBA phenom? They didn’t break the law.

Perhaps the media is culpable. No, not even this chestnut works. “The media covers stories, and Le Bron is a story.” Without television coverage Le Bron James would not be a national celebrity able to command a seven figure bonus from the NBA.

How then can anyone explain this story? Well if you take the Bilas position and turn it on its head the explanations are readily apparent.

Le Bron James may be a nice kid, but once it was clear he could hit three pointers and can lift off at the foul line for a dunk, his emotional development was arrested. Surely he knew or should have known that accepting a gift was a violation of amateur rules. And just as surely he owed it to his teammates, if no one else, to avoid acts of indiscretion.

His 34-year-old mother may have limited experience with superstars, but after giving her son a $50,000 Hummer which generated widespread controversy, she should have been alert to any gift which would jeopardize her son’s eligibility.

Dru Joyce knew well before the season began what kind of attention Le Bron would draw. For him to suggest that he didn’t want the publicity is disingenuous, to say the least.

School officials who contend they were overwhelmed by the attention given James did negotiate the television rights for their games with ESPN, and as far as I know, did not return the thousands given for this privilege.

The Ohio High School Athletic Association already excused James for the Hummer. One might well have asked how a mother on public assistance can buy a $50,000 car for her son. That matter was overlooked; the jerseys made indiscretion too obvious.

For years shoe companies have attempted to influence the game in order to generate revenue for their companies. The right endorsements lead inexorably to profits. What they saw in Le Bron is dollar signs.

ESPN was out to exploit an overhyped 18-year-old. Surely, someone at that network could have pointed out that it’s better to consider the welfare of a teenager and the integrity of a high school education then the revenue from televised games. But sports networks have long been degraded by greed.

And last, Jay Bilas, a college basketball analyst at ESPN, deserves some of the blame for the Le Bron James fiasco since he is part of a herd that will excuse and rationalize any act as long as the actor is 6 foot 9 inches, flies through the air, and hits jump shots routinely.

Who’s to blame? Everyone on this list and a culture that inspires facile rationalizations for athletes.

School Choice and Cultural Decline

For years I have argued for vouchers in the public school equation believing, as I do, that individuals should have the right to select schools for their children and believing, as well, that competition will have a salutary influence on all schooling. So convinced was I of this proposition that I regarded it as axiomatic.

While I retain a faith in the idea, my view has been shaken by a recent documentary film produced by Eugene Shirley on the South Central Los Angeles school system. Mr. Shirley’s remarkable film illumines the life of Annar Alfaro, a teenager from a dysfunctional home of illegal Mexican immigrants, who attended—infrequently—Venice Central High School.

From one perspective, the school’s teachers are incompetent, the administrators myopic and the students feral. From another perspective, the culture in the world Annar inhabits is so depraved and decadent that even heroic actions probably cannot salvage it.

Here is the dilemma for advocates of vouchers: How can those parents who have made inappropriate decisions throughout their lives now make appropriate educational decisions for their children? More significantly, if culture trumps rational judgment—a conclusion based on encyclopedic empirical evidence—why should one assume that someone embracing decadent cultural norms will make sound educational choices?

Of course the market, however imperfect, does work reasonably well, surely better than government-run schools. But it may be a mistake to assume that parents in the inner city can apply choice effectively when the culture in which they are immersed suggests an obverse conclusion.

In the film entitled AKA Creek the protagonist does not attend classes for long periods. He laments the lack of a learning environment, but since he is rarely in school, it’s hard to know whether that view is valid. If it is a rainy day, his mother says you don’t have to attend the school. If he stays out till 4 a.m. no one inquires about his whereabouts. His mother works out three hours a day and on some occasions isn’t home for long periods without an explanation. She is occasionally in the home but, even then, is hardly there for the children.

As I watched this film I realized that what this family desperately needed are parents like mine. If I chose to stay home from school—an inconceivable idea—my mom would have shaken me out of bed. If I didn’t meet a curfew, I’d be grounded. If any grades faltered I’d be punished. Moreover, my home background—while rich in love—was much more poor financially than the family depicted in this film. My parents couldn’t afford to buy me Nike sneakers and Timberland shirts worn by the Alfaro children.

Obviously the school—marginal as it may be—can do nothing about these cultural conditions. Even if the school had the standards of Stuyvesant High School in New York, it wouldn’t have the slightest influence on Annar.

At the margin, school choice may elicit in some parents a greater level of involvement in educational matters than they have ever known. That’s all to the good. But for the vast majority of single parent families in the inner city, school choice is not likely to have a major effect.

What then can be done? The issue, as I see it, is directly related to a culture degraded by anti-bourgeois sentiments. When conditions of discipline, respect, sobriety, punctuality, decency are permitted to wane, it is not surprising that student achievement declines. When celebrities of the moment employ vile language and promote a debased system of values, it is not surprising that youngsters emulate the kings and queens of mass culture.

The campaign for better schools should address standards, testing, leadership, etc. but it should not for a moment discount cultural concerns and their effect on peer group attitudes. If my mom ever heard me use the “f” word, liquid soap would be deposited down my throat. In this film Annar uses the word as freely as “the” and “yes,” but interestingly, so did his mother and his siblings. Cultural rot runs deep, right into the heart of the family.

Perhaps the school choice movement will have an influence in time, but at the moment—shaken by this film experience—I’m not sanguine about the magnitude of its influence. In the public policy arena it’s wise to hedge your bets in any case. Ω