(from “A Tale of Two Cities,” by Charles Dickens)
More humans today experience a higher standard of living than at any time in history. The population of many wealthy nations benefit from international trade, better healthcare, longer life expectancy, enhanced food production/delivery, and computer/network technology that has increased productivity and enhanced lifestyles. Many living in this “developed” world might believe they live in the “best of times.” But, at this same moment in history, there are billions of humans who live in abject poverty, enslaved to Russian mercenaries in Central Africa, ensnared in endless wars in the Middle East, divested of their natural resources by international hegemons, and subject to natural disasters and epidemics without the required recovery resources. These citizens of poorer nations may well experience life as the “worst of times.”
But is it not true that every human baby is born with the same genetic profile? Therefore, why does not every human being have the same inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? The answer to this fundamental question rests with diverse definitions of universal rights—what sages have defined through the ages as the “rights of man (sic).” One definition, sometimes popular in “free” societies, recognizes an individual right to use the goods of nature and society in whatever way he/she chooses—even to the extent of seizing control of the “peoples” government to serve that individual right. This belief anticipates a laissez faire attitude that can result in the excesses of capitalism and criminal behavior that can and has resulted in periodic periods of economic chaos and even a recent attempt to overturn the American democracy1. Another definition, more popular in totalitarian or communist societies, suborns these rights to the human dignity attained by submitting the goods and labor of all to the community and its control of a collective history.2 A third definition, reflective of liberal democracies, associates human dignity with “the power to make these same goods (of mankind and nature) serve the common conquest (or acquisition) of intrinsically human, moral, and spiritual goods and of man’s freedom of autonomy.”3 The American Constitution reflects this definition both in its preamble and in the restrictive “check and balance” structure of the government it defined. The “freedom” therein requires “we the people” to establish, insure, provide, promote, and secure the personal freedoms that define a democratic society and assure the general welfare and the blessings of liberty and justice for all its citizens.
The first definition results in an illiberal democracy, as forewarned by our first President and by many subsequent Presidents4. The second definition can define an idealistic communist state, or perhaps a more pragmatic totalitarian—usually fascist—state. And the third definition reflects the ever-evolving American struggle to maintain and evolve its Constitutionally based democracy—which is the oldest such government in human history. And that struggle is currently engaged with encroachment by its illiberal cousin, as it has been throughout its history. The result of that struggle could determine both America’s and the world’s future—whether either or both may face the “best of times” or the “worst of times.”
As referenced in previous blogs, America has overcome serious setbacks to its democratic venture in democracy—specifically in pursuit of the general welfare of all its citizens. It has persistently fought to maintain its union and reaffirm its commitment to the Jeffersonian ideal that “all men (sic) are created equal.” Those previous blogs outlined many achievements in the rights of women and beleaguered minorities—both in voting and civil rights. And they also highlighted America’s role in creating and promoting the United Nations’ peacekeeping mission through its many agencies. But, however far removed from the World Wars of the 20th Century, America may no longer be the model for a peaceful democracy or the anchor in an international sea of dangerous currents.
“Rule by the people,” the very definition of democracy, implies a people capable of self-rule. And that capability requires a citizenship educated in and supportive of the established principles of its democracy and the laws derived from those principles, as enumerated in the American Constitution. But are they applied consistently by each generation of Americans? Previous blogs have outlined how America has struggled to realize the intent of those democratic principles. Our Civil War challenged our “more perfect union” and our commitment to the principle that “all men (sic) are created equal.” Over 750,000 Americans died in that internecine war—about 6.5% of the estimated population5—to save our union and our democratic principles. How do we Americans live up to that same challenge today? Or have we now, like Hamlet, become “dull and muddy-nettled . . . unpregnant of . . . (our) cause.” How else can we explain support for a Presidential candidate who attempted to overturn a democratic election and now promises to return to the Presidency and to rule like a fascist dictator (reference “A Dark History Reprised”)? He would “weaponize” government to seek his promised revenge on political opponents, rather than seek the general welfare of all Americans. Only sycophants and rapacious parasites would populate his Administration. His would be the very definition of an illiberal democracy—which, by definition, is no democracy at all. Donald Trump has already introduced America to the “worst of times” and promises the same for its future.
Meanwhile, in Russia, an established dictator, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, engages in an unprovoked war against Ukraine because of its desire to join NATO. As his General Apti Alaudinov has declared, “for Russia, this is nothing else but a holy war . . . we are safeguarding our national interest about spirituality, morality, divine and universal human values.” But, at the same time, he reveals the true purpose of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, namely, that it is “just the beginning . . . Russia will persist in fighting until it finds itself at the peak of the world.”6 The purpose of Putin’s war is not just to stymy NATO’s alleged infringement on Russia’s border, but to lay the groundwork for invading and/or dominating all of Europe. Has not history illustrated the ambition of “holy” wars to extend imperial dominance over neighboring countries? What Putin seeks is no different than what Napoleon or Hitler sought, that is, a 21st century version of an empire he could rule as a fascist totalitarian state. His is the ultimate vision of the “worst of times.”
America, and many democratic states aligned with it, face an unapparelled threat both from illiberal parasites within, and from fascist imperialists without, to include Russia, Iran, and North Korea—the new axis of evil. Meanwhile Russia seeks to enslave parts of Central Africa and to regain its “colonies” like Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. But it also has made political inroads in some European countries, like Moldovia, Hungary, Belorussia, and Slovakia. No less imperialist, Iran uses terrorists’ proxies to extend its power over many Middle Eastern nations and threaten the trade routes that support Europe and the world economy. And North Korea not only test-fires missiles across the bow of South Korea and Japan, but continuously expands its nuclear war capabilities to the alarm of not just neighboring Pacific nations, but mainland America itself.
Do not fascist regimes like Russia, North Korea, and Iran already threaten the “free” world? And how is that threat increased by their nuclear capabilities? Russia and North Korea are already threatening the “free” world with nuclear weapons. Iran, which is no longer being monitored effectively, has the nuclear infrastructure to build nuclear weapons but so far has denied any intent to do so. These three nations are now aligning much like the Axis powers of World War II. Given the conflicts already underway in Europe and the Middle East, what are the risks of another world war, even between nuclear powers? Russia is already facing off NATO and the US in Ukraine. Meanwhile, North Korea confronts US allies in the Pacific, to include South Korea, Japan, and Australia. China, which is also a nuclear power, is surrounded by nuclear armed countries, but shows more interest in economic hegemony than nuclear intimidation. Nevertheless, China recognizes the threat of nuclear proliferation and is actively upgrading and extending its nuclear war capabilities.
Given the reality of nuclear proliferation, is the world edging closer to nuclear annihilation? Let us relive a moment in history when only two nuclear nations confronted each other. That moment was the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Russian Navy threatened to break through an American blockade to protect its nuclear missile sites in Cuba. But American intelligence was unaware that these missiles were already armed with nuclear warheads aimed at America’s Atlantic Coastal states. The American Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, recommended that these sites be attacked before the Russian naval armada drew closer. Also unbeknownst to him, Prime Minister Khrushchev had already given the order to fire these missiles if under attack. Of course, if Russia had done so, the American President would have been duty bound to obliterate Russia in a counter nuclear attack. But President John F. Kennedy stayed McNamara’s recommendation. Instead, he opted for direct communication with his Russian counterpart. The defense department at that time had no established communication channel between the leaders of these two nations. But the American President ordered that direct communication be established ad hoc. And, as a result, a nuclear war was barely averted. The point of this reiteration of history is its illustration of how a misunderstanding or miscommunication could have resulted in a nuclear disaster. How much more likely is such a mishap when undisciplined men like Kim Jung Un, Donald Trump (should he be reelected), or a headstrong nationalist like Putin hold the nuclear trigger? If a nuclear war were ever initiated, its proliferation could easily include nuclear nations like the NATO countries, Pakistan, and even China. Welcome to the world this generation could leave for the next one, a very deadly inheritance indeed!
The world does not need a twenty-first century Cassandra to point out the obvious. Kim Jung Un has been developing a nuclear arsenal for years. During the Trump Presidency, he developed missiles that could deliver a nuclear payload to America. And, with Putin’s help, he now has a satellite that might be able to guide that payload to its preferred target. Trump, before he found “love” in his kinship with the Korean dictator, declared his ability to wipe North Korea off the world’s map. And Putin constantly reminds NATO and the world that he is prepared to use “tactical” nuclear weapons if his encroachments in eastern Europe are resisted. These nuclear “saber-rattlers” have only one recourse when all their threats go unheeded. Have either Kim Jung Un, Putin, or Trump ever conceded defeat without doubling down on their threats? No, they always prefer to escalate, unless removed from power. . . sometimes even by their death at the hands of those they governed, like Mussolini, or by suicide, which was Hitler’s preference. Once the Rubicon of absolute power is crossed, only assassination or suicide can stop the hubristic conqueror. That Rubicon is now the capability to deliver a nuclear warhead.
As China expands its nuclear arsenal, Russia and North Korea continuously strive to improve their delivery systems. Meanwhile the United States has begun to execute plans that will upgrade both its entire nuclear arsenal, and delivery systems. Will mutually assured destruction (MAD) continue to secure the world’s human population? Ask yourselves what stopped men like Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, Hitler, or Mussolini and how is their threat different than ours today.
For those of us who believe we now live in the “best of times,” it is well past the time to wake up to the future we are creating for ourselves and the innocents who already live in the “worst of times.” As our world fueled by gas and oil boils to an unlivable future, we may yet explode ourselves into a premature oblivion under a world circulating nuclear cloud. While we differ and dither over how we are governed, all of us humans must awaken to the future we are creating for ourselves and our planet. We are facing not just the “worst of times,” but truly “the end of times.”
_____________________________________________
1 Run-away capitalism is not just a threat to, but part of the American democratic experience as summarily outlined in “American Exceptionalism Revisited.” It can impower the ambition of wealthy opportunists to subvert the free electoral process of a democracy for personal gain. This type of subversion was forewarned by our first President, as quoted in “What is American Democracy’s Fate?”
2 The dangers of totalitarianism as reflected in Putin’s Russia are described in “Eat Crumbs and Bask in The Glory of Empire.”
3 Jacques Maritain, “Man and the State,” p.207.
4 In “The Rapacious Public Servant,” Washington and Jackson were quoted for denouncing those who seek office for self-serving purposes. But many Presidents have taken to this same pulpit, including America’s current President.
5 By comparison, the 450,000 Americans who died fighting in WWII represented less than 1% of the American population.
6 These quotes are excerpts from an interview on the Kremlin Broadcast network. They were also published on Twitter (X).