Cleveland, Chicago, America

I heard it on the radio this morning. Cleveland won its twenty-second consecutive game. They already have the American League record. The National League (and the Major League) record was set in 1916 and belongs to the New York (now San Francisco) Giants. It's twenty-six and surpassing it, or even reaching it would be quite an accomplishment. But that's not the point. The team has worked together to set the AL record, and they're deserving of enormous praise for that feat.

The Chicago Cubs won the World Series for the first time since 1916. They'll probably get into the playoffs this year, but they're 14½ games behind the Dodgers, who have the best record in the NL thus far. They've slipped.

What happened? What's the difference between the two teams? Three things: talent, teamwork, and confidence. Not to belittle the Cubs, but Cleveland has it and they're inconsistent. Cleveland expects to win each day and they perform. The rest of the league fears and respects them. The Cubs play reasonably well, but it's a day-to-day affair.

And that's the story of America. We're Chicago. It's a place we earned following, first of all, a revolution that surprised the world (or at least Europe). A long period of international political dormancy, then premier status, and now, at best, inconsistency. We used to be the envy of the world, but now, though we have a better than even record – our people are doing well economically by world standards – our performance is inconsistent.

Following World War II the United States was viewed favorably by our friends and with great respect by our enemies. We were the leader of the “free world.” We were rich enough to help out many of our friends and strong enough to keep out our enemies. We showed that strength during the Cold War and held our own until the Soviet Union imploded.

It is not surprising that our riches and the strength offended many nations and people, even if these attributes had been courted with so much solicitude before. When the threat was lifted the solicitousness turned to envy and any offers we made were seen as attempts to impose our values on others. We abandoned our friends and pandered to our enemies. Our rulers backed off and apologized for our behavior without pointing out how our generosity had helped others. And we surrendered to the United Nations our obligation to take action when it was indicated. Some may view it as a virtue to be one of many rather than a leader in difficult times, but we ended up as an ignoble, ignorable, and disrespected nation. Even those we relied on looked at their own situations paying no heed to anything we said. We had counted on them but they no longer counted on us.

Current blusters intended to show determination and dedication are viewed as hollow threats. No one takes our current administration seriously. The demonstrations that our president can not control himself or his own party bring into question our ability to deal with our own needs, let alone those of others. We decline to take actions around the world when we consider them as justified. Someone else has a veto. Our foreign policy is no longer our own.

What can help? Only a pattern of strength, support, loyalty, and honesty. And confidence coupled with teamwork. Talk won't do it. As the cliché states, “Actions speak louder than words.” That, however, is all to the good since most of us are embarrassed by the words.

Chicago is the “Second City.” Has America lost its first place status and dipped into the second tier of countries? Time will tell. But it won't take a century.

September 15, 2017

Pride And Principles

 

It must be unusual to think about Gary Cooper and foreign policy together, but the two are really related – whether or not that was not intended. The link is the movie High Noon.ⁱ It's a pure American movie – wild west, gunslingers, and all that sort of thing. There's nothing in it that deals with anything foreign, especially foreign policy.

But the idea behind the movie – the conflict – is between Will Kane's pride, and his sense of right and wrong, and Amy's principles – her Quaker sense of right and wrong. The pride, despite his fear, is that of a marshal who is ready to die rather than lose face,ⁱⁱ and the principles are those of his wife, who rejects violence for any reason. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. There's more than pride involved. There is the eternal tension between good and evil, and the need to stand up for what is good irrespective both of the consequences and of who will fight with you against evil. And the principles are someone else's. Clearly Will doesn't subscribe to them to the same degree as Amy. He is willing to accept them,ⁱⁱⁱ but they must yield to the reality he perceives. They must be subservient to his “duty,” even if no one else, including his new bride, will support him. Others would rather take the easier and the safer way out – and the people of the town warn him about a battle they themselves are not willing to fight.

It all reminds me of America, of the way we approach the threats we face, and the problems in the world in which we live. In a way it makes me proud of that approach – standing up to what we consider wrong even while we're aware of the hazards we face. And it's not just a single man, but the courage and self-sacrifice of the numerous men and women who defend us all. And those who support them deserve our gratitude as well.

But despite the threat to our values, we are reluctant to become engaged in military actions.^iv We, too, have principles. For us, as for Amy, killing is wrong. But in the end, our country's pride and it's recognition of responsibility take precedence over other considerations. Like Will Kane, we'd rather be left alone and allowed to attend to peaceful pursuits, but that isn't always possible. Like Amy we abhor the need to violate our principles, to kill, but we are prepared to do it if that is what is required in a time of crisis, even if we wish it were not necessary and we resent the fact that it is.^v Amy returns and saves Will's life even though it means killing someone. It's in violation of her principles, but so are the actions of those attempting to kill her husband.

The townspeople of Hadleyville, for reasons of fear, expediency, and profit, make no attempt to help their marshal, although many of them praise him greatly. It's hard not to compare them to the nations of the world, many of whom are grateful to the U.S. for aid, who mouth agreement with the need to take action, but who shy away from their own involvement. Some critics understood the film to be an allegory depicting the cowardice of those who feared to protest the Hollywood blacklist of the time and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, or the nations who were happy to accept American support during World War II, but who feared any engagement with Communist powers afterward. They would not join with us in the defense of Korea. Both were major issues at the time of the film's release. Perhaps these ideas reflected more on those who expressed them than on the movie itself,^vi but it is the mark of a classic if it sheds light on a situation far removed from its times, or if it enables viewers to see other events in that light.

Corny isn't it? Ignoring possible harm to himself, he stood up for what he considered right. In retrospect, the marshal's actions were those of principle, not pride. Yet they make me proud.

Next episode: “Full Disclosure” – Time to come clean.

 

i     1952. Gary Cooper and Grace Kelly.

ii    He maintains, as well, that his antagonist will follow him wherever he runs, so any attempt to escape the confrontation will fail sooner or later.

iii    At the beginning of the story (by John Cunningham) he gives up his badge and tells of his plans to become a storekeeper.

iv    “A leader who doesn't hesitate before he sends his nation into battle is not fit to be a leader.” Golda Meir, then Prime Minister of Israel.

v     “We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children.” – Golda Meir again.

vi    Whether evaluating the Bible, a work of Shakespeare, or a movie – or anything else for that matter – analysts sometimes see much more than what was intended. Perhaps what they find below the surface was there unconsciously rather than consciously intended, perhaps it is simply the product of their imagination, but whatever the source, real or imagined, their commentary enlarges the scope of the work.