Had there been no Mandela -- and this I know from my own experience in American foreign policy circles -- the "realists" would declare that the South African bloodbath that likely would have accompanied the end of apartheid (or, alternatively, the indefinite continuation of that apartheid regime) was inevitable, and that things could not have been otherwise.
Had there been no Churchill, some would doubtless look upon the peace that Britain would likely have made with the Nazi power (already looking to strike across the English Channel), with the craven terms Britain had been compelled to accept, represented as good an outcome as was possible.
But each of those leaders tapped into a great force of the spirit turned the tide of history in unexpected ways. In some circumstances that spirit expressed itself non-violently, in others as a determination to resist evil by all means available in others. Sometimes as a call to reconciliation, sometimes as a call to battle.* But always stretching the range of the "possible."
Now, we have some of the best people I've encountered in Liberal America arguing that failure to turn back this evil force on the right has been inevitable these past six years.
If these people were right that failure was inevitable, just think about the implications: If the luminous new president in 2009 was truly impotent before this destructive force, then the rest of us must surely be powerless to turn it back.
If those people -- who cannot envision how a nation, like ours, can be awakened to the power that spirit called forth by the human yearning for what is true and what is good -- were right, then what hope could there be for America to be saved? From where else will come the necessary power to turn this national darkening around?
We will not be able to outspend the Koch Brothers and their ilk in their quest to buy our government. We will not out-organize the machinery that the right has assembled these past forty years. We will not be more eager to do battle than the wounded minions of the right for whom conflict is the only social condition in which they feel at home. We will not be able to out-propagandize Rupert Murdock and the other denizens of the right-wing media. We will not be able to match the unity the right enforces with its coercive orthodoxy.
All we have that can turn this around is a moral and spiritual truth - a truth aligned with the deepest values and interests of America and one that can tap into the power of the spirit.
If those good liberal interlocutors who disputed my critique of Obama were right, our goose would be cooked. But I emphatically believe they are mistaken.
There is always a possibility, I say, that the power of the spirit will turn the course of history into a new channel. That possibility is not always realized. There's not always a Mandela or a Churchill around. But the potential is there.
In America, in these times, we have had a tragedy rather than a triumph of leadership. And so the question arises: in the absence of the kind of leadership from the top to ignite that potential power, is there some way that, even without the bully pulpit, we who are further down in the body politic can ignite that fire?
(To be continued with "To Stop Losing, We Must See the Level at Which the Battle is Being Fought."
--
NOTE: We don't think of Churchill as having been a "spiritual" leader in the same way as Gandhi or Mandela, but nonetheless his leadership was profoundly connected with the level of the "spirit." The writings of the time often mention how Churchill roused the "spirit" of the nation. Consider for example this quote from Lynne Olson's Troublesome Young Men, concerning a speech made by Churchill (delivered even before he became Prime Minister, but after Chamberlain's effort to avoid the confrontation with Nazi Germany had collapsed, and Churchill had been brought out of the wilderness into the government as First Lord of the Admiralty):
Had there been no Churchill, some would doubtless look upon the peace that Britain would likely have made with the Nazi power (already looking to strike across the English Channel), with the craven terms Britain had been compelled to accept, represented as good an outcome as was possible.
But each of those leaders tapped into a great force of the spirit turned the tide of history in unexpected ways. In some circumstances that spirit expressed itself non-violently, in others as a determination to resist evil by all means available in others. Sometimes as a call to reconciliation, sometimes as a call to battle.* But always stretching the range of the "possible."
Now, we have some of the best people I've encountered in Liberal America arguing that failure to turn back this evil force on the right has been inevitable these past six years.
If those people -- who cannot envision how a nation, like ours, can be awakened to the power that spirit called forth by the human yearning for what is true and what is good -- were right, then what hope could there be for America to be saved? From where else will come the necessary power to turn this national darkening around?
We will not be able to outspend the Koch Brothers and their ilk in their quest to buy our government. We will not out-organize the machinery that the right has assembled these past forty years. We will not be more eager to do battle than the wounded minions of the right for whom conflict is the only social condition in which they feel at home. We will not be able to out-propagandize Rupert Murdock and the other denizens of the right-wing media. We will not be able to match the unity the right enforces with its coercive orthodoxy.
All we have that can turn this around is a moral and spiritual truth - a truth aligned with the deepest values and interests of America and one that can tap into the power of the spirit.
If those good liberal interlocutors who disputed my critique of Obama were right, our goose would be cooked. But I emphatically believe they are mistaken.
There is always a possibility, I say, that the power of the spirit will turn the course of history into a new channel. That possibility is not always realized. There's not always a Mandela or a Churchill around. But the potential is there.
In America, in these times, we have had a tragedy rather than a triumph of leadership. And so the question arises: in the absence of the kind of leadership from the top to ignite that potential power, is there some way that, even without the bully pulpit, we who are further down in the body politic can ignite that fire?
(To be continued with "To Stop Losing, We Must See the Level at Which the Battle is Being Fought."
--
NOTE: We don't think of Churchill as having been a "spiritual" leader in the same way as Gandhi or Mandela, but nonetheless his leadership was profoundly connected with the level of the "spirit." The writings of the time often mention how Churchill roused the "spirit" of the nation. Consider for example this quote from Lynne Olson's Troublesome Young Men, concerning a speech made by Churchill (delivered even before he became Prime Minister, but after Chamberlain's effort to avoid the confrontation with Nazi Germany had collapsed, and Churchill had been brought out of the wilderness into the government as First Lord of the Admiralty):
As Churchill spoke, Nicolson "could feel the spirits of the House rising with every word. "What roused the first lord's audience was not so much what he said but how he said it. His combative, determined manner, combining candor, wit, and confidence, "carried the exhilaration of a spring morning walk along the cliffs," in the words of one observer. Full of gusto, he conveyed a sense of Elizabethan high adventure in relating the navy's exploits, so different from the torpid style of Chamberlain and the other ministers. When he finished, members on both sides of the chamber jumped to their feet with shouts and cheers. Among them was Cartland, whose spirits had suddenly improved.
(Article changed on November 14, 2014 at 09:31)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
5
4
3
