What, therefore, does history teach us about the future? First, tyrannical states (however defined) cannot be expected to care about the suffering of their own population. Second, tyrannical states will act in ways we consider irrational because the well-being of their own people isn’t on their list of concerns. Third, an unquestioned doctrine (Marxism-Leninism or Fundamentalist Islam) can push its high priests into doing stupid or irrational acts in the name of the doctrine. Fourth—and most importantly—no amount of concessions will change their behaviour. It has to be made clear that the leadership will be targeted if rogue states decide to cause trouble.
History, I’m afraid, also teaches us that far too many people will refuse to grasp those points.
But what does this all mean for the West?
The West (by which I mean Europe, America, Australia and New Zealand), on the face of it, doesn’t have those problems. We have not birthed a tyrant who took the reins of power and wreaked havoc. I am perfectly aware that people threw mud at President Bush and are throwing mud at President Obama. Even so, the worst of the West’s recent rulers (Jimmy Carter? Richard Nixon? William (Bill) Clinton? Tony Blair? Jacques Chirac?) was never a tyrant.
The West is not perfect. Far from it. But the West is still paradise compared to even a “benevolent tyranny,” if such a state can be deemed to exist outside theory.
Even so, the West has problems. One of them is that there is an increasing separation of rulers and ruled. It doesn’t take much investigation to see political leaders acting in ways that—if done by anyone else—would have resulted in the most serious of consequences. Sometimes—as in the UK Parliamentary Expenses Scandal—they become a farce. If that wasn’t bad enough, there is a growing trend among politicians to assume that if they hang on long enough, the world might forget the scandals and they might be able to continue in power.
Our politics are rapidly becoming poisonous. Just consider the amount of mud thrown around about President Obama’s birth certificate. Or Bush’s supposed lack of intelligence. Or Brown’s rather dubious grasp of national and international banking. Or Blair’s honesty and integrity. No one can enter politics without being smeared or insulted by his opponents—one example of epic fail is the old lie “if you oppose immigration, you’re a racist”—and accusations of past failings and unfortunate remarks.
The politician (or should it be pollution) who wins the prize for sheer bare-faced arrogance and unsuitability for office is, in my opinion at least, Shahid Malik of the British Labour Party. Having been caught red-handed (he was hardly the first politician to be caught during 2009) fiddling his expenses, Malik counterattacked by accusing his critics of racism. Later, when he lost his seat in 2010, he claimed that an independent candidate had been brought in specifically to make sure he lost. It did not seem to occur to him that his own conduct might have been the cause of his downfall.
But then, what else can you expect from the political class?
This has had a disastrous effect on the West. Where long-term planning is required, short-term planning (plans to run up to the next election and no further) has been used instead. The governments have created an increasing number of bureaucrats and bureaucratic regulations that strangle small business, along with writing laws that border on the absurd or are never properly scrutinised or discussed. The vital pillars of society—police, fire brigades and even the military—have become political footballs. Political correctness has damaged freedom of speech. And, perhaps worst of all, faith in governments and public institutions is declining sharply. The public no longer trusts their government.
And there are barbarians at the gates. Like it or not, we are at war.
Clemenceau said, back during the First World War, that war is too important to be left to the generals. Like most quotes, it is often taken out of context. I believe that he meant that war and politics had become tangled and battles couldn’t just be fought for purely military objectives. Levelling an entire town in Iraq for harbouring a sniper would work perfectly, from the military point of view of suppressing enemies, but it is the kind of act that tends to make enemies.
Just as war is too important to leave to the generals, politics is too important to be left to the politicians. Whatever you (and they) may feel, democratic politicians work for the public, not themselves. Who pays the piper calls the tune. If you want real change, change people can actually believe in, get out there and get involved in politics. Remember, if there is one thing that politicians fear, it is becoming unpopular. They will bend over backwards to avoid it. Find out what you need to do and get out there. Keep the bastards honest. As to why you should do it, Heinlein put it very welclass="underline"
“Because you are needed. Because the task is not hopeless. Democracy is normally in perpetual crisis. It requires the same constant, alert attention to keep it from going to pot that an automobile does when driven through downtown traffic. If you do not yourself pay attention to the driving, year in and year out, the crooks, or scoundrels, or nincompoops will take over the wheel and drive it in a direction you don’t fancy, or wreck it completely.
When you pick yourself up out of the wreckage, you and your wife and your kids, don’t talk about what “They” did to you. You did it, compatriot, because you preferred to sit in the back seat and snooze. Because you thought your taxes bought you a bus ticket and a guaranteed safe arrival, when all your taxes bought you was a part ownership in a joint enterprise, on a share-the-cost and share-the-driving plan.”
And why is this important? Consider the chaos that followed Saddam’s removal from power, or the collapse of the USSR. Why did it occur? One possible answer is that there weren’t enough people who knew (from experience and/or theory) how to make a democratic society work. I worry that we’re running out of them over here. We need competent and serious men.
Where are they?
Read some history. Then get out and make it.
Federation of Humanity Timeline
2030: Establishment of Armstrong Base on Luna. First shipment of lunar HE3 to Earth.
2031-35: Establishment of Japanese, Russian, European and Chinese mining bases on the moon. Launch of first asteroid capture missions.
2037: Launch of first Mars mission.
2038: Effective collapse of the Middle East owing to the replacement of oil by HE3
2040: First large-scale colony ship launched to Mars. First military bases established on the moon.
2045-50: Third World War pits Americans and Europeans against Russians and Chinese, fighting it out for control of NEO and access to space-based resources. War ends in orbital bombardment of China and Russia, followed by unconditional surrender.
2051: Terran Federation established by victorious powers as a replacement for the discredited United Nations. Mars population booms as seven new colony ships are launched towards Mars.