< PREVIOUS ] [ 1988 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Admittedly, it's hard to come up with much excitement about this presidential election. The likely candidates, Michael Dukakis and George Bush, seem to be competing in a blandness sweepstakes. Comparing them is like arguing the merits of white Wonder bread versus Velveeta processed cheese spread.
After eight years of Reagan revolution,
perhaps
that's what we need -- not a contest of ideologies, but a
selection between two managerial types. Neither offers much
in the way of change; each just says he has a great resume
and can do the job better than the other guy.
But there are a larger questions that ought to be addressed at every presidential election. What kind of country do we want to live in? What are our national goals? What's important to us?
The Reagan administration seemed intent on restoring the world order of 1946 -- when America pretty well ran everything. Little countries seldom got uppity then, and if they did, we could always send in the Marines or the CIA and install a new government, more favorable to our interests.
But those days are over and won't ever come back. We can't afford it. So maybe we ought to ponder what sort of future we can create, instead of indulging in all this useless nostalgia for a time when Americans didn't get taken hostage and no one dared fire on an American ship.
What, for instance, remains of the glory that was Greece? Do the victories of the Attican fleets and armies still influence us? Do they matter any more? No more than the maneuvers of the Hittites. The enduring power of ancient Greece lies in Homer, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Aristophenes, Euripedes, Archimedes and scores of other bards, philosophers and mathematicians.
Are the Mayans of a millennium ago admired by contemporary New Agers on account of their jungle empire -- or because of their accurate calendar?
To bring this closer to the present, consider Germany at the turn of the century. Although Germany had been a nation for only 30 years, it was already a world leader.
German universities were of such caliber that all modern universities are modeled after them. Scholars from throughout the world flocked to Germany for advanced degrees.
German industry, especially chemicals, pharmaceuticals
and steel-making, the high-tech
of that era, was
among the best in the world. German physicists and chemists
announced discovery after discovery and dominated the Nobel
Prize list. Germany produced influential philosophers,
linguists, novelists, playwrights.
Now suppose that the German leadership of circa 1900,
searching so desperately for Germany's place in the
sun,
had decided to continue along that line. Instead
of turning Germany into a major military power, its leaders
would have kept just enough of an army to defend the
borders.
For one thing, the planet would likely have been spared the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust.
For another, Germany would be immeasurably better off today if it had resisted militarization in 1900 and had devoted the bulk of its resources to scientific institutes and universities.
Had that happened, it's quite possible that Germany would still be a world leader, a place whose glittering accomplishments made it impossible to ignore. It would attract the best and the brightest from the entire world.
Instead, Germany is today a divided nation, and something of a backwater where nothing of much importance ever happens. That's what building a huge army and navy did for Germany.
That's something we ought to think about when we're selecting presidents and thereby determining a national course. But it looks as though 1988 isn't the year for thinking.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1988 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >