An interesting article appeared in the
online magazine called Project Syndicate under the title: “Trump's Effect on US
Foreign Policy,” written by Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and published on September 4,
2019.
Joseph Nye says he is not really
interested in participating in the debate about foreign policy, but will use
the fact that it is ongoing to try answering the longstanding question that
goes like this: Are major historical outcomes the product of human choices or
are they largely the result of overwhelming structural factors produced by
economic and political forces beyond our control?
And that's a good topic in which to delve.
Early in his article, Joseph Nye summarized, in half a paragraph, where the two
major schools of thought stand regarding that subject. He put it this way:
“Some analysts liken the flow of history
to a rushing river, whose course is shaped by the climate, rainfall, geology,
and topography, not by whatever the river carries. But even if this were so,
human agents are not simply ants clinging to a log swept along by the current.
They are more like white-water rafters trying to steer and fend off rocks,
occasionally overturning and sometimes succeeding in steering to a desired
destination”.
This is a good effort, but I believe it
needs improvement. Here is why: Whether we are ants clinging to a log swept by
the current or we are rafters steering and fending off rocks, the analogy
suggests that we are not altering the course of the river. Since we do alter
history by our actions, it cannot be that the river represents history. If so,
we must think of history as being our trajectory in the water, where we remain
confined to the space between the two banks of the river, unable to affect its
course, therefore unable to alter history. From this, it can be seen that the
analogy isn't working as well as it should.
We must think of another analogy. And so,
instead of the river, we think of time as the element that flows at a constant
rate. Also, instead of thinking of ants and rafters, we recognize the reality
that if Hitler were assassinated early on, the millions of people who were
killed during the Second World War, would have lived. And the millions more
that left the Old World for the New World and the other places to escape the
ravages of the war, will not have left Europe.
Thus, the consequences of not having World
War II on the demography of Europe, the Americas, Australia and the other
places around the world, would have been different from what they are now, as
would be the history of these places and the life that we all live today. In
fact, very few of the people alive today would have come into existence to
begin with. I would not have existed to write this article, and you would most
probably not have existed to read it.
So then, how can we improve on the Joseph
Nye analogy? To do that, we need to think of something that is constant by its
nature, but one that can be modulated by an outside force. The electromagnetic
wave fills that requirement. It has a tempo we call frequency that remains
constant. Serving as a carrier frequency, the wave has an amplitude that can be
modulated by another wave of another frequency. And the marriage of the two
waves will create a tune we can think of as one version of history from among
the infinite number of versions that can be had.
As long as the amplitude of the modulating
frequency remains inferior to that of the carrier frequency, the tune that is
created remains within the bounds of what's acceptable. But if someone with the
disruptive intent of a Hitler comes along, he will generate a modulating wave
that exceeds the amplitude of the carrier wave. This is when history will get
distorted and become unpredictable.
When caught in turbulent times, is there
an approach we can take to determine ahead of time what course of action we
must take to avoid being on the wrong side of history when all will have been
said, and will have been done? To answer that question, we first recall the
saying that warns of the reality that the course of history is never obvious at
the start, but always logical when viewed in hindsight at the end.
This suggests that the unfolding of
history is patterned after the structure of the dramatic story. In fact, a well
written drama is supposed to surprise the audience with every one of its twists
and turns while the story is unfolding. But when the play ends, and you look
back at what happened, you realize that the unfolding of the narrative was making
perfect logical sense all along. It is good to know this because it can help us
decide on a course of action that will put us on the right side of history.
Think of it this way: In drama, we may not
determine ahead of time how the play will unfold from scene to scene. What we
can do, however, is determine early on who the characters are and what they
want. This done, we'll be able to tell what kind of trajectory the story might
take, and what kind of ending it is liable to have.
And that's good enough for us. It's
because in a similar fashion, we can observe and determine the character of
those we encounter in real life, as well as what they want. Doing this, will
help us predict to what sort of ending these characters intend to take us.