Tuesday, March 04, 2014
Two paths diverged
Here's a chain of thought that led to a plaintive question.
I was thinking about the odd US 'nation-building' experience in Russia during WW1. We were working with Czechs (who were supposed to be part of the Axis) and we were working with Japs who later mounted a war against Russia during the '30s.
Led me to our later 'nation-building' in China during and after WW2. My father spent his Navy tour in Shanghai, helping to train Chiang's military and government up to modern standards. Obviously it didn't work; Mao chased the Nationalists off the mainland shortly thereafter.
Nation-building never works, but we never learn. We keep doing it.
I wondered whether my father understood that his efforts were futile. He never talked that way; he seemed to enjoy his Navy time, and felt that he had been doing useful work.
His generation didn't ask such questions. Why? Because FDR had given them a genuine reason to trust the government. FDR had provided useful jobs for people who needed them, and had taken down the bankers who caused the problem. He never insulted or disdained the culture and tastes and religion of working-class folks; never shoved aristocratic Satanism up their asses.
So when FDR asked normal people to defend the country, they enlisted gladly because they trusted his judgment.
I've been over all this stuff before, but a new question popped up this time.
Why don't modern presidents WANT to be trusted? The experiments have been done and the data is unquestionable. How do you get people to trust your judgment? Do what FDR did. Bush had a chance to follow the correct path, and Obama had an even better chance. Neither followed. At every single point of decision Bush and Obama specifically chose the path that FDR had NOT taken.
Are they surprised to find complete distrust and cynicism, or is this their goal? I dunno.
¶ 7:15 PM 
