A Word from London

Herbert London

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

Remembering the Past to Fight War in the Present

As 9/11 recedes into the memory bank of most Americans, it is hard to recall the surge of nationalism and patriotic fervor that percolated to the surface of our culture more than three years ago.

During this subsequent three-year period the nation has been free of terrorist attacks, albeit the FBI and CIA have thwarted more than 100 plots to destroy American institutions--from the Brooklyn Bridge to shopping malls--and kill our people.

Strangely, this success, which is quite remarkable considering the intent and capability of the terrorists, has bred contempt and complacency in many quarters. There are Americans who believe the threat is exaggerated. There are others who contend the real issue is compromising civil liberties in order to address the threat. And there are still others--thankfully small in number--who regard the homeland security arrangements as some kind of conspiracy to extend government control; one might call this the Noam Chomsky school of political judgment.

What has emerged is the natural equilibrium in politics after success has been achieved. The first understandable national cry after victory in war is “bring the boys home.” It was hardly surprising that President Bill Clinton balanced the budget in the ‘90s by slashing the defense budget. This occurred because of victory in the Cold War.

One might assume that a defensive insurance policy for the nation is warranted. But that isn’t how the political game is played and it isn’t how the public responds. In fact, when the horror of terrible atrocities is forgotten, or largely forgotten, the prospect of new horror is underestimated. Most people suffer from historical amnesia because it is too difficult to cope with the possibility of massive death and destruction.

For many, another terrorist attack on our shores is a condition for which there is collective denial. The mind cannot cope with the possibility of bloodshed for one’s loved ones. Many choose to ignore what is too horrible to contemplate.

As a result, our leaders must be vigilant even as complacency sets in among the people. They must construct scenarios that prepare for the worst that can happen. And they must remember what the public chooses to forget.

It is instructive that Senator John Kerry in a New York Times article compares the ultimate decline in terror to a decline in gambling and prostitution. As he notes, we can’t eliminate terror, but we can reduce the influence it has on our lives as we have reduced the influence of gambling and prostitution. The problem with this analogy is prostitutes don’t fly planes into buildings and kill 2,800 innocent people. Gambling and prostitution are ostensibly victimless crimes.

This Kerry statement reveals how far 9/11 has receded from public recollection. It reflects the demonstrable aversion to the totality of terrorism’s aims.

We are at war. What some have called World War IV. But because it hasn’t affected us directly since 9/11, because we have averted catastrophes at home, this war seems unreal at times.

At a recent law school conference my discussion of the threat we face and the world war we’re in was dismissed as the rantings of a misguided analyst. In fact, one of my protagonists kept referring to the “police action” needed to address the problem. He couldn’t bring himself to say “military action.”

In reality, of course, it isn’t only the police we need, but the full array of military assets that must be deployed in this war. There will be many fronts and many horrors we will be obliged to consider.

If there is one impediment to the victory we must have, it is the complacency that emerges form prior success, as well as the forgetfulness that is a natural result of horror too awful to recall. But despite all the difficulty and fear that comes with confronting reality, there is only one appropriate message for the American people: “remember.” Remember what we have; remember what we’ve gone through and remember what could happen if we let our guard down.

The Ill -informed Voter

Thomas Jefferson once noted that democracy flourishes when the electorate is informed and flounders when there is a lack of knowledge. This comment is particularly poignant when one considers the general level of ignorance among voters and, as a consequence, the extent to which citizens can be manipulated by elites.

Admittedly public policy questions, such as the stem cell debate, are more complicated than they were in the past. Yet the public relies increasingly on shorthand evidence to gain knowledge. The Internet and television news serve as the primary sources of information.

Political scientist John Ferejohn wrote: “Nothing strikes the student of public opinion and democracy more forcefully than the paucity of information most people possess about politics.” Ferejohn is not alone in his assessment. Few scholars would dispute the view that most voters are ignorant of basic political considerations.

In 1964, in the middle of the Cold War, only 38 percent of respondents to a questionnaire were aware that the Soviet Union was not a member of NATO. Almost 70 percent of Americans do not know about the passage of the Medicare prescription drug programs. Similarly 58 percent admit almost no knowledge of the Patriot act. And 77 percent admit to knowing “little or nothing” about the European Union.

As significant as the lack of knowledge is active misinformation. For example, 61 percent of Americans believe that there was a net loss of jobs in 2004. That, by the way, is simply untrue.

Ilya Somin of George Mason University contends that “a large political knowledge underclass of ‘know nothings’ constitutes from 25 percent to 35 percent of the American public.” Some Americans maintain that experience is as valid a guide to politics as knowledge. While I am somewhat sympathetic to this position, experience is not always a handy guide for policy decisions. Errors about the unemployment rate, for example, are often a function of one’s employment status.

Even at the college level a lack of basic information is evident. In a recent poll a majority of college students could not identify the decade in which the Civil War was fought; a large majority didn’t know whether the American or French revolutions came first and a significant plurality did not know who was responsible for the words “of the people, by the people, for the people.”

It is therefore not surprising that a large number of prospective voters take their cues from opinion leaders, i.e., activists who are intent on promoting a position. Michael Moore, to use one such example, has an axe to grind and a format for reaching many voters. His influence cannot be underestimated. But in many instances activist opinions and the average voter’s predilections diverge.

Deciphering clever commentary is often difficult, especially if people don’t have adequate education. For example, during the presidential debate Senator Kerry said the top one percent of income earners received an $87 billion windfall when Bush cut the income tax rate. On its face, this appears unfair. However, if you know that one percent of the population pays 34 percent of the personal income taxes and that 49 percent of the population doesn’t pay any income tax at all, the Kerry assertions lose their rhetorical power.

Clearly the advantage of the American system of voting is that the electorate has the chance to oust those who engage in what it considers a policy failure. First, of course, the voter has to be able to determine a policy failure and, second, he has to be in a position to determine whether another candidate has an adequate remedy.

The ignorant voter often cannot readily discern what is truly in his best interest and whether a policy has failed. Moreover, with ignorant voters the incumbent is often at a disadvantage since his positions have been absorbed into media presentations, while the aspiring candidate can postulate on any matter without reference to a readily understood record.

Considering the size and complexity of government, the average voter could justifiably contend that making himself knowledgeable about issues is not a valid tradeoff since knowing more doesn’t necessarily result in greater influence over the course of government activity. Even professional political scientists often have little more than a superficial knowledge of how Washington actually functions. It is not coincidental that Aristotle, among others, argued that democracy works best when government is limited and the influence of elites is minimized.

What one can do about this issue is a matter leaders should consider, albeit many leaders prefer an ignorant voting bloc. But for those of us that take this matter seriously, an electorate that is ignorant of pubic affairs imperils the representative system and our entire way of life. That is a matter of which we had better not remain ignorant.

Voting for Credit

In the Never Never Land sometimes called the American higher education system, caricature never seems to work. Every time my imagination conjures some strange condition, reality intrudes to do one better.

Recently faculty members at universities across the nation have decided to award credit for students who vote. At Penn State University sociology lecturer Vanitha Dayananda offers extra credit to students in her class who show proof of having voted.

“I have noticed over the years that American students are less interested in politics, unlike European (students) or students in India,” Dayananda writes.

So I have been giving an incentive to vote by giving them extra credit because of their apathy. I also want them to appreciate and realize the privileges of a democratic society.

At Drew University American literature professor Merrill Skaggs has made voting in the November 2 election mandatory for her class.

I cannot think of a more urgent time for student votes than this election. If students do make a change through their voting power, people will notice. Seize your power . . .

she said.

Low voter participation among college-age students has been a source of media lamentation for some time, but offering college credit so that students will vote is bizarre to say the least.

I can imagine a situation in which my grandfather who never missed a vote in his 85 years receives a college degree for going to the polls.

I am also dismayed by Professor Skaggs belief that students “must” vote. Needless to say with her seemingly activist agenda it is clear what outcome she expects from student voting. But what if students want to register dissatisfaction with the candidates by not voting. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that some people who do not vote are dissatisfied with the options?

Voting can be construed as a civic duty. Yet one is neither rewarded for nor compelled to vote. It appears that some professors have lost their way. Seized by their own enthusiasm, they have lost a sense of what voting means.

It may well be that American students are less serious about politics than their European counterparts. But if one looks at the result of student voting in Europe it is hard to believe Americans would be satisfied with Chirac and Schroder as their leaders.

At the moment colleges offer credit for life experience, effort, sincere expression and cries de coeur. For some, it is only natural that voting should be a credit bearing experience as well. Students, however, who receive this credit, are being given a distorted view of reality. The reward for voting should be psychic uplift. Presumably one recognizes and acts on his civic responsibility.

Many university professors in their zealous desire to engineer social policy have arrogated to themselves a role inconsistent with professorial duties. They want to remake society in their own image using student pawns as the instrument for this goal.

Students should vote because they want to do so, not because they must vote or because credit blandishments are offered. It’s time for students to rebel against faculty manipulation. Now there’s a rebellion I could support.

There Was a Clear Choice

At a dinner party in New York a distinguished Yale professor said “that there would not be any difference between a Kerry presidency and a Bush presidency on American foreign policy.” While I accepted his judgment without comment, the prospective debate left his opinion very much in doubt.

Leaving aside debating style for which Kerry seems to be superior, there are substantive differences between the candidates that are more profound than the pundits have suggested.

For one thing, Kerry noted that he would not take our forces to war unless conditions passed a “global test.” Although it is not at all clear to what test he refers, one might infer that he would want U.N. approval before deciding to employ American troops abroad. Relinquishing foreign policy decisions to a body that has already demonstrated moral bankruptcy with the “oil for food” program is a decision different from any in our history. It challenges the essence of American sovereignty and puts the U.S. at the mercy of some of the most tyrannical regimes on the globe.

Second, while there were many glib assertions by both candidates on coalitions and multilateralism, what should have been said is that there are times U.S. interests are served by both multi- and unilateralism. There isn’t a formula that determines which is right.

Kerry, for example, chastised the president for not organizing a sufficient coalition to fight the war in Iraq; yet he was similarly critical of the president’s strategy of multilateral talks on North Korea. If I were in Bush’s shoes, I would have asked when multilateralism is desirable and when it’s not. He missed an opportunity.

Yet this is not merely a debating point. Multilateral talks on North Korea are essential. Without China’s presence, diplomatic leverage is severely constrained. Overlooked in the debate is the fact that the Clinton administration engaged in bilateral talks with North Korean representatives and made major concessions in an effort to restrain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. But these talks failed.

Last, is the issue of “staying the course.” President Bush made much of Senator Kerry’s “flip-flops.” Here again this is more than a mere debating point. This nation cannot retain its prestige and reputation as the world’s great power if it withdraws from war the moment casualties increase. The Iraq mission is difficult with well-armed Baathists in the county and porous borders that allow enemies into the fray.

Kerry is, of course, right when he says we must fight a “smart war.” But what this means isn’t clear, particularly when he disparages allies that have assisted the U.S. mission and when he opposes financial assistance for reconstruction of the infrastructure.

It is facile to give debating points to the candidates as if a presidential debate were an Oxford Society contest. There is more at stake than simply sounding good. Essential policy issues are in play.

Senator Kerry at one point noted that American troops sought body armor from friends and private charity because the government didn’t provide it. This is a dubious claim; yet the far more important issue is if this is true, why didn’t Kerry support the supplementary budget provisions for the war which included body armor?

My colleague at Yale may see similarities between the two candidates, but I do not. If anything the debate suggests two very different directions. The road ahead is clear: one position is equivocal on national sovereignty, the other is not; one aims to stay the course, the other is not sure; one is pragmatic about alliances, the other is dogmatic about them.

Whatever one thinks about the candidates and the election, there are different perspectives and a clear choice. How one chooses is very much dependent on how the war on terror ought to be fought.     *

“Newspapers . . . serve as chimnies to carry off noxious vapors and smoke.” –Thomas Jefferson