by Chris James
Among the many scientific journals that I pored over as a graduate
student was one titled "Chemistry and Industry." It was a
serious, but quixotic, attempt to bridge the gap between the cloud-cuckoo-land
of academia and the real world. In a rather pathetic effort to soften its
rather sepulchral tone, the last page of the journal was unusually frivolous. Below
is an example of its editorial prowess in its handling of this oddball
switcheroo. This was deliberately meant to be "punny":
British lad, with a PhD in Chemistry, emigrates to the U.S., marries an
American lass, and has a son. Dad and boy are very close. Every evening,
the boy sits on his Dad's lap and they watch about two hours of children's T.V.
together. Eventually, the day came when boy wanted to get into the
beginner level of Little League baseball. The Mom thought that Dad should do
something in Little League to support their son. So Dad signed up for umpire
classes. From the first day that Dad umpired a game, the boy never
climbed on his lap again. This bothered Dad so much that he went to a child
psychologist to find out what went wrong. The doctor smiled and said: "Oh,
you shouldn't upset yourself. Everyone knows that the son never sits on
the British umpire."
The
phrase "the sun never sets on the British empire" is attributed to
John Wilson in 1829. However, there are many claimants for its
originality, or for phrases similar to it. They range throughout history from
the ancient Persian empire to the Spanish empire to Victorian Britain. This
verbal progression is an apt metaphor for the real-life fact that empires come
and go. They are as flaky as the parody in the above paragraph.
Most
of us have heard that "history repeats itself." A fair amount
of empirical evidence exists to suggest that there is a robust element of truth
to this claim. Then there's Santayana's famous aphorism, "those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It is another
maxim that has appeared down through the ages in one form or another, giving it
the weight of credibility. And lastly, we have Scottish author Thomas
Campbell's warning that "coming events cast their shadows before."
He wrote it prior to the Battle of Culloden (1746), in which the Scots
were quickly and bloodily defeated by the English, and the country was
subsequently put to the sword. Specific as this phrase was to, what
turned out to be, the last pitched battle on British soil, it actually had, and
still has, an infinite number of generic applications. So, keep these
three trenchant, perceptive canons in mind when you read what follows.
Well
then, what about the British empire? Our story begins with the Treaty of
Paris, late 1815 to early 1816, that ended the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon
was deposed and exiled. France made large reparations and was required to
set its borders back to pre-war locations. However Britain, as lead
negotiator, resisted any attempt by the allies to break up France, to repress
France with an on-site standing army or to confiscate parts of the French
empire. British reasoning was that such draconian punishment would destabilize
post-war Europe and risk further trouble as a result. Very perceptive and
statesman-like. The outcome was that Europe had a satisfying period of
growth and Britain, with its massive Empire, became world leader - a role that
peaked around the turn of the 20th century.
World War I proved to be the sun starting to set on Britain's top-spot.
Britain's fall from grace occurred not just because of the War's enormous
economic toll, nor because of the massive loss of able-bodied manpower.
Several other factors were involved. Arguably, the most important
of these were the burdens imposed by the cost of the rising trend in social
legislation and by the aggressive growth of unionism. Justifiable as
these factors may have been, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Worse, the early days of global anti-Imperialism did nothing to help
Britain's fading influence on world affairs.
Britain's demise was not over in an instant. It was a long road
down. It did not cause the complete evaporation of the country.
Today, Britain is still a player among the "major powers," but
a very minor one. However, the gradual erosion of British power allowed
the controlled emergence of a new world leader to take Britain's place.
In
April 1917, the United States finally entered World War I. There is
absolutely no doubt that the impact of U.S. military power shortened the War by
several years and brought the allies to victory. The calling card of the
next world leader had been dropped in the world's tray. The subsequent
Depression in the U.S. certainly put a dent in the prototypical new leader's
image, but the dominant role of the U.S. in World War II left no doubt about
who was in charge. And so it has been ever since. That is until the
fairyland, pussy-wussy peregrinations of the Obama administration pirouetted
onto the world's stage.
If
Obama's slimy international policy was not enough, then consider U.S. social
legislation during the last eight years. Obamacare, tons of new rules and
regulations, tsars to play God and run the show, piles of new debt to finance
this farce. Plus we have two wars, mishandled by the Obama bone-heads, as
well as the rise of public employees union aggression (for local readers, see
"BART," a poster-child example). Do I have to spell it out?
Britain: Socialism, unions, war. U.S.: creeping Socialism, unions,
two badly managed wars. Britain, roughly 1816-1916. U.S., roughly
1916-2016(?). Yes! We may indeed have front row seats to view the
potential unraveling of a one hundred year place-in-the-sun routine. Such
beautifully symmetric history is a relatively rare phenomenon. So stand
by for more unintended consequences, and count yourself lucky - or not so lucky
- to be able to say "I was there."
And
so that you can all sleep well at night, I ask: Do you really believe that
President Trump has the slightest idea of what is at stake here? And do
you really believe that his strategy of isolationism (please don't make me go
over, yet again, the long list that he has cobbled together to do just that) is
the way to make America great on the world stage? If we play "follow
the leader" and withdraw into ourselves - and feel mighty good about it -
then who will step up to be the next true global leader? Russia, China,
India, Iran, Burkina Faso, Greenland? Hey! Have a nice night!
