The right and wrong side of history
The presidential election has come and gone. Like many of you, we are relieved that it’s over. As elections go, this national election has been an anxiety-producing episode that’s been more embarrassing than exhilarating.
Now we wait for history to be written, as it always has been. Whatever fear or trepidation about the future we might have, we must wait until time proves them right or wrong. Events being as unpredictable as they are, none of us knows for certain what’s to come. The only thing we have to fear is uncertainty itself.
Many elections in the past have been overwhelmed by the course of unexpected events. Lyndon Johnson, who inherited the presidency from the assassinated John Kennedy, was expected to carry-through on Kennedy’s commitment to equal rights. He did that, and even began to address systemic poverty in America, but the growing war in Vietnam rendered such concerns subordinate. Johnson’s legacy turned out not to be civil rights and curing poverty, but the quicksand of war in Southeast Asia and a failed presidency. He ended up on the wrong side of history.
Richard Nixon ended up on the wrong side of history, too, but ironically enough he opened America’s relationship to China and established the EPA. By today’s political standards, Nixon would be classified as a liberal, not a conservative Republican. History is fickle, and the twists of fate have always been a mystery.
Ideas recurrently emerge and submerge within society and for a while transform human culture. Nativism has surfaced repeatedly both domestically and internationally over the centuries. In many ways and despite the emergence of global communication, people flock together by nationality, ethnicity or political ideology. When economic difficulty, warfare or climate shift challenges the status quo, people tend to respond with nativist scapegoating, victimizing and bigotry. These are group responses; people generally act differently when in groups than as individuals.
As the centuries have passed aspirations of emancipation have become stronger. One group after another seeks freedom of expression and freedom of choice, but this often runs up against long-standing traditions and habits. The gains of some appear to cause loss for others. Each era contains people of multiple generations, and each generation brings along its own particular ideas, feelings and traditions. Change is always disruptive to one group or another, and a good argument can be made that slower change allows people to adjust best. Unfortunately, change in the 21st Century is anything but slow.
Like all of us, we now wait to see what happens next. Some will be inclined to try to influence the future, others will be content to sit back and watch and yet others forced to fight to survive. A future is certain, but its nature uncertain.
If past history is any guide, at minimum it teaches that the recurrent ideas which have fueled human civilization for so long will continue to fascinate and compel us. The real quandary is whether any of our ideas suit a world beset by climate change, dwindling resources and a growing population. It may well be that Mother Earth will write the next chapter of history, and our role in it may be secondary. For all our storied accomplishments, humanity itself may be on the wrong side of history.
– Sun Editorial Board
