Listen to Podcast
World peace yet again threatened by hubris
H was always going to be problematic. H is of course, for history, but h is also for that unfortunate human affliction that has caused so many unnecessary conflicts and unimaginably high death tolls. I am speaking about the unspeakable hubris. Hubris may be acceptable in the primary-school yard, or perhaps in theatrical or sporting circles, but it is unacceptable for those in leadership positions at national and international level. It is on the record; opposing leaders afflicted with hubris start pointless wars. That means people who should have survived into old age are cut down prematurely, while children and old people experience a brand of suffering that is catastrophically tragic. But the pattern of response is by now predictable.
Past conflicts are discussed, analysed, dissected, revised, and appallingly, while comparisons are always made after the fact, they never seem to be made during the fray. A small group of stalwarts try to push for answers during a conflict, but they are always brushed aside by those who are too busy fighting a war, or cheering on as spectators. Amnesia settles in at the highest level and trickles down marvellously; only later; after the body counts, the rubble clearing and the rebuilding, does it become respectable for the world at large to question the latest debacle. But as is so often the case, the world at large is reduced to the chattering reactionaries in the media. The feathers of outraged opinion writers and commentators are ruffled in the post-atrocity momentum-gathering murmuration; their outrage becomes the news, rather than the atrocity.
It's a sad tale spanning thousands of years; far too few Mr Bumbles running the show and far too many Mr Grimwigs watching from the wings. Becoming the boss of anything though, requires a certain proclivity for the dark arts. If there’s one thing I have learnt from Professor Noam Chomsky’s Who Rules the World?[1] it’s this; you must be a ‘special’ type of person to become US President, and that’s not a good kind of ‘special’. From George Washington to Barak Obama, none of them were squeaky clean. The most alarming message from Chomsky though, is that most ordinary decent citizens have been lulled into a state of apathy while democracy is increasingly diluted; a worrying situation, you will agree. And while ‘democracy lite’ is tolerated by most ordinary decent citizens – I count myself in this group – the Bumbles face each other off, strut around in high dudgeon, and stand at the helm of brinkmanship, navigating an increasingly chaotic world while the rest of us are side-tracked by the bagatelle of cyberspace, sports, and celebrity. Things haven’t changed much since ordinary decent ancient Roman citizens fled to the arenas for recreation and relaxation to forget about the likes of Nero, who Tacitus said was viewed by the Romans as ‘compulsive and corrupt’. The sound of those undulating cheers baying for victory has remained constant down the centuries. Escapism is a well-oiled and well-financed machine. Modern day gladiators are paraded as role models to impressionable schoolchildren, the cunning, guile and agility of the high-stakes performance being regarded as the most desirable.
One modern example of needless loss of life because of the one-upmanship associated with hubris happened in 1964 and resulted in the escalation of a war that would be the backdrop to the nineteen sixties and early seventies. In the lead-up to the 1964 US presidential election, arch anti-communist and right wing Republican candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater[2], accused the Democrats of being soft on communism. This rubbed President Lyndon B Johnson up the wrong way, giving that ueber manly Texan a severe dose of hubris. He was now determined to show the American electorate that he was just as anti-communist, or even more anti-communist, than Goldwater. Three weeks later he got his chance in what would become known as the Tonkin Gulf Incident. What better way to prove your anti-communist credentials than dropping bombs on North Vietnam, and Johnson ordered the bombing based on inconclusive evidence. Proving your anti-communist credentials was far more important than waiting for proof of aggression by North Vietnam before striking back. While it is now agreed that reports of attack were mistaken, President Johnson did not hesitate authorising retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnam; now he had his votes. After five hours of bombing it can only be guessed how many unsuspecting North Vietnamese men, women and children were killed. And what for? One wily politician trying to prove he was more anti-communist than another so that he would win an election in his own right rather than go down in history as the unelected president who replaced John F Kennedy. He would now use the flawed evidence to convince Congress to support an escalation of the war. In later years, as more evidence about Tonkin became available, many concluded that Congress had been misled.
Today, a battle of fisticuffs is playing out between North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un and US President Trump. Please remember that hubris is a form of extreme arrogance, which indicates being out of kilter with reality while overestimating one’s abilities; not a good complaint to suffer from if you are in a position of power with nuclear weapons at your disposal. Unfortunately for the ordinary decent citizens of the world, both Kim Jong Un and President Trump are afflicted by hubris. Current machinations are purely a test of will between two unpredictable men who have incredibly landed in positions of power. On foot of Trump threatening North Korea with ‘fire and fury’ Kim Jong Un has upped the ante by threatening to send four missiles toward the Pacific island of Guam, which has two US military bases. Now it’s Trump’s turn to make a face-saving move.
We can joke all we like about the funny hairstyles sported by these portly gentlemen but neither of them are going to back down. We can only hope that their diplomatic subordinates can temper their hubris with a more considered and grown-up approach. H is for history, but all the evidence shows that neither Kim Jong Un or President Trump are scholars of that subject. ‘Historical amnesia,’ says Chomsky, ‘is a dangerous phenomenon not only because it undermines moral and intellectual integrity but also because it lays the groundwork for crimes that still lie ahead.’ For the next fifteen months, we will continue to commemorate that schoolboy squabble between cousins, that gargantuan monument to hubris, or should I say the First World War. That juvenile competition was responsible for over forty-one million military and civilian deaths.
©Berni Dwan 2017
[1] Chomsky, N. Who Rules the World? 2016. Hamish Hamilton.
[2] Incidentally, the young Hilary Rodham was a ‘Goldwater girl’
World peace yet again threatened by hubris
H was always going to be problematic. H is of course, for history, but h is also for that unfortunate human affliction that has caused so many unnecessary conflicts and unimaginably high death tolls. I am speaking about the unspeakable hubris. Hubris may be acceptable in the primary-school yard, or perhaps in theatrical or sporting circles, but it is unacceptable for those in leadership positions at national and international level. It is on the record; opposing leaders afflicted with hubris start pointless wars. That means people who should have survived into old age are cut down prematurely, while children and old people experience a brand of suffering that is catastrophically tragic. But the pattern of response is by now predictable.
Past conflicts are discussed, analysed, dissected, revised, and appallingly, while comparisons are always made after the fact, they never seem to be made during the fray. A small group of stalwarts try to push for answers during a conflict, but they are always brushed aside by those who are too busy fighting a war, or cheering on as spectators. Amnesia settles in at the highest level and trickles down marvellously; only later; after the body counts, the rubble clearing and the rebuilding, does it become respectable for the world at large to question the latest debacle. But as is so often the case, the world at large is reduced to the chattering reactionaries in the media. The feathers of outraged opinion writers and commentators are ruffled in the post-atrocity momentum-gathering murmuration; their outrage becomes the news, rather than the atrocity.
It's a sad tale spanning thousands of years; far too few Mr Bumbles running the show and far too many Mr Grimwigs watching from the wings. Becoming the boss of anything though, requires a certain proclivity for the dark arts. If there’s one thing I have learnt from Professor Noam Chomsky’s Who Rules the World?[1] it’s this; you must be a ‘special’ type of person to become US President, and that’s not a good kind of ‘special’. From George Washington to Barak Obama, none of them were squeaky clean. The most alarming message from Chomsky though, is that most ordinary decent citizens have been lulled into a state of apathy while democracy is increasingly diluted; a worrying situation, you will agree. And while ‘democracy lite’ is tolerated by most ordinary decent citizens – I count myself in this group – the Bumbles face each other off, strut around in high dudgeon, and stand at the helm of brinkmanship, navigating an increasingly chaotic world while the rest of us are side-tracked by the bagatelle of cyberspace, sports, and celebrity. Things haven’t changed much since ordinary decent ancient Roman citizens fled to the arenas for recreation and relaxation to forget about the likes of Nero, who Tacitus said was viewed by the Romans as ‘compulsive and corrupt’. The sound of those undulating cheers baying for victory has remained constant down the centuries. Escapism is a well-oiled and well-financed machine. Modern day gladiators are paraded as role models to impressionable schoolchildren, the cunning, guile and agility of the high-stakes performance being regarded as the most desirable.
One modern example of needless loss of life because of the one-upmanship associated with hubris happened in 1964 and resulted in the escalation of a war that would be the backdrop to the nineteen sixties and early seventies. In the lead-up to the 1964 US presidential election, arch anti-communist and right wing Republican candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater[2], accused the Democrats of being soft on communism. This rubbed President Lyndon B Johnson up the wrong way, giving that ueber manly Texan a severe dose of hubris. He was now determined to show the American electorate that he was just as anti-communist, or even more anti-communist, than Goldwater. Three weeks later he got his chance in what would become known as the Tonkin Gulf Incident. What better way to prove your anti-communist credentials than dropping bombs on North Vietnam, and Johnson ordered the bombing based on inconclusive evidence. Proving your anti-communist credentials was far more important than waiting for proof of aggression by North Vietnam before striking back. While it is now agreed that reports of attack were mistaken, President Johnson did not hesitate authorising retaliatory air strikes against North Vietnam; now he had his votes. After five hours of bombing it can only be guessed how many unsuspecting North Vietnamese men, women and children were killed. And what for? One wily politician trying to prove he was more anti-communist than another so that he would win an election in his own right rather than go down in history as the unelected president who replaced John F Kennedy. He would now use the flawed evidence to convince Congress to support an escalation of the war. In later years, as more evidence about Tonkin became available, many concluded that Congress had been misled.
Today, a battle of fisticuffs is playing out between North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un and US President Trump. Please remember that hubris is a form of extreme arrogance, which indicates being out of kilter with reality while overestimating one’s abilities; not a good complaint to suffer from if you are in a position of power with nuclear weapons at your disposal. Unfortunately for the ordinary decent citizens of the world, both Kim Jong Un and President Trump are afflicted by hubris. Current machinations are purely a test of will between two unpredictable men who have incredibly landed in positions of power. On foot of Trump threatening North Korea with ‘fire and fury’ Kim Jong Un has upped the ante by threatening to send four missiles toward the Pacific island of Guam, which has two US military bases. Now it’s Trump’s turn to make a face-saving move.
We can joke all we like about the funny hairstyles sported by these portly gentlemen but neither of them are going to back down. We can only hope that their diplomatic subordinates can temper their hubris with a more considered and grown-up approach. H is for history, but all the evidence shows that neither Kim Jong Un or President Trump are scholars of that subject. ‘Historical amnesia,’ says Chomsky, ‘is a dangerous phenomenon not only because it undermines moral and intellectual integrity but also because it lays the groundwork for crimes that still lie ahead.’ For the next fifteen months, we will continue to commemorate that schoolboy squabble between cousins, that gargantuan monument to hubris, or should I say the First World War. That juvenile competition was responsible for over forty-one million military and civilian deaths.
©Berni Dwan 2017
[1] Chomsky, N. Who Rules the World? 2016. Hamish Hamilton.
[2] Incidentally, the young Hilary Rodham was a ‘Goldwater girl’
