Schmookler:
Fein:
Schmookler:
I believe your responses take us very close to the end of our trail. They bring up one last question that has been sitting there from the first round, but that I refrained from pursuing since it seemed somewhat peripheral to the main thrust of our discussion.
You speak here of "the reasons for [nations'] success, and also of the "philosophical underpinnings of [Americans'] freedom and prosperity." This recalls a comment you made at the outset about your "convictions about the signature features of the United States that occasioned its blossoming from a tiny nation into a global superpower," which I did not understand at the time but which those more recent comments of yours may help to explain.It seems now that you are saying that the "blossoming" of America into a great power is a function of various human and institutional virtues (virtues that you now fear are fast eroding). And I am inferring from the general tenor of these remarks that these "underpinnings" are virtuous not just in the Roman sense of being "strengths" but also in a moral sense. Do I infer correctly?
Is it, then, your belief that, in the course of history, those societies that have risen to become great powers in their worlds have been enabled to do so chiefly because their people and their institutions were more characterized than those of other societies by morally virtuous qualities?
I am particularly interested in this issue, inasmuch as one of my own books -entitled THE PARABLE OF THE TRIBES: THE PROBLEM OF POWER IN SOCIAL EVOLUTION-argued otherwise. According to the central idea of that work, while some of the qualities that increase the power of a society are or can be "good" in a moral sense, in the course of history many of the social characteristics that enhance a society's power have been, in moral terms, quite problematic.
So to what extent would you say that the factors enabling America's rise to global pre-eminence have been its morally praiseworthy aspects and to what extent would you say that they have been morally questionable or disreputable aspects of this nation?
(It occurs to me that perhaps it is differences in our answers to such questions as this that might account for our having located ourselves on different parts of the political spectrum.)
Fein:
My conception of a great power is a nation that celebrates and applauds civic and private virtues or morality. Whether it happens to be a dominate power on the world stage is a secondary issue. Genghis Khan, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, among other non-civilized leaders of nations or peoples that dominated other countries for a time through sheer brutality. In other words, global pre-eminence, simpliciter, is not praiseworthy or great. It is only pre-eminence constructed on virtue that deserves homage. The United States became politically and culturally dominant in the past because it served as a beacon to people everywhere of individual dignity, religious freedom and freedom of inquiry, the rule of law, and a status in life based on merit rather than caste. The Statue of Liberty speaks volumes on that score. This beacon was a major factor in attracting plucky and industrious immigrants. It also found expression in China's Democracy Wall, Charter 77, and Solidarity, among others. But that beacon-based dominance is yielding to dominance resting on military force alone. Afghanis and Iraqis do not receive the United States as did post WW II Japan and Germany and Western Europe with the Marshall Plan. My observation is not to deny many ugly features in the United States in its infancy and adolescence, for example, slavery, national origins immigration quotas, racial and gender discrimination, and religious bigotry. But I do think until recent years our international ambitions were driven more by moral virtue than by a quest to dominate for the sake of dominance or to relish in economic pillage. The latter now seems to be overtaking the former.
Wisdom is more an intellectual and moral attitude than a store of knowledge. No one enjoys a monopoly on truth. No one is infallible. No one is pure saint. Humility and charity should guide action and inquiry into moral truths. The way in which that quest is undertaken is the difference between civilization and barbarism.
Schmookler:
I would like to thank you, Mr. Fein, for giving so generously of your time, and for your thoughtful responses, in the course of this interview. Most of all, I am grateful that you have been speaking up in defense of our precious birthright as a free people, the Constitution and the rule of law. I hope you will continue to raise your voice in that cause.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
