“Fame! I want to live forever!” The song lyrics have become a way of life for some, and so the question is: Which came first? The insatiable thirst for fame or the reality show? I suppose that’s a matter for a psychiatrist, but it seems that people are more and more willing to do anything to become famous—some infamous in my view.
In recent weeks, we have seen a father try to get a reality show by having his children and wife lie about their youngest son’s so-called perilous balloon flight. This engrossed the news channels and the American public for most of a day and cost the state and federal governments’ untold amounts of money. Why would a father do this? He was seeking a reality show.
This past week, a couple crashed the black tie state dinner hosted for India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his wife. This couple—whom I won’t dignify by repeating their names--managed to have their photo taken with the president, vice president, and Rohm Emanuel while there, then bragged about their social faux pas by posting the pictures on Facebook. The Secret Service has a black eye, and the Senate and White House are now going to take valuable time to investigate—all because some social climbers who lie pathologically about who they are and what they have accomplished want a reality show. I swear, if Bravo or any other channel signs them on, I will never watch another show on that channel. We have to stop encouraging these people.
Do people seeking to be famous for being outrageous not stop to think about the consequences of their behavior? Of course they don’t. Their narcissism won’t let them. The rest of society pays a price for their folly. The next time a parent calls about some out-of-the-ordinary child mishap, will the emergency services hesitate for just a moment? Will some service be underfunded because of the money spent on a hoax? Will the Secret Service lose credibility at a time when our president has threats against his life too frequently? This is not funny, people.
The airwaves are saturated with reality shows because they are cheaper to produce, and—let’s face it—people watch them, including me in some cases. And this tirade of mine is not intended to lump all reality television into the same clump. Some of these shows celebrate a competition of talent: Top Chef, Project Runway, The Next Iron Chef, American Idol, and others. Some are makeovers that are inspiring like Extreme Home Makeover and The Biggest Loser; others are roads to life changes: Clean House, What Not to Wear, Super Nanny, etc. These do no harm and feature and sometimes reward good or improved behaviors.
What then can be the redeeming quality of Shot of Love with Tila Tequillia? Bad Girls? The Girls Next Door? And--I now apologize to even some members of my own family—how is it helpful to give a platform to assorted Real Housewives or Dallas Divas and Daughters? (Women who have chosen to be homemakers should not be trivialized by this spoiled lot. The real stay-at-home moms deserve more respect.) Because of this kind of reality television, people can become famous for contributing nothing to society except for their own shallow self-absorption. People can become famous for being infamously outrageous. These people make a living via a television contract for living their lives in front of a camera while being the most flamboyant self they can be.
I suppose this is the quintessential entrepreneurial endeavor for those who don’t like to work much or desire to act when they have no innate talent for it. I know this makes me sound insufferable for being so outraged by this kind of societal promotion of the success of some who have done little to earn it. I can’t help it. I know that these shows will go on. They have a devoted audience. All I can do is vent, and so I am.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The U. S. Constitution Did Not Expire:
Not Even in Post-9/11 America
The Constitution is the Constitution, both before and after 9/11, until it is amended or an issue in question is addressed and clarified by the Supreme Court. I want to cringe when I hear people saying we should deal with our legal and military issues as if the U. S. Constitution no longer applied. I too was as dismayed when I saw what horror had been done to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the name of religious fanaticism. I am certain that the British have felt that way every time they experienced domestic terrorism by the Irish Republican Army , and that went on for centuries. The real and longer-lasting horror would be for terrorists to win because they let us destroy the rest of what our country is and represents out of our own hatred, fear, and zealotry.
We have laws determining how we try those who break our laws, and we simply cannot disregard things like the 5th and 6th Amendments. They still apply. The Founding Fathers made these laws and deemed them the right thing for us at a time when they were still fighting with the British, and events that we would call terrorism continued to happen during lulls between those wars. They did not let fear override their knowledge of what our country would be then, and we should not do so now.
The 5th Amendment is pretty unambiguous: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
What exactly does the 6th Amendment say? "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall be been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
When asked, most people--and, evidently, too many of our legislators—only recall that the Fifth Amendment is about not testifying against oneself. The underlined portions in the amendment above show that there are two other very important parts that address how this country tries those who commit crimes against us, whether those crimes are defined as terrorism, mass murder, or any other heinous travesty. Yes, the 9/11 perpetrators were terrorists, by any definition. They planned and committed the premeditated murder of all those trapped in the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon as well as those who foiled their plans and crashed a plane in a Pennsylvania field and the first responders who tried to rescue the victims. Their crime killed many and wounded our country's morale. Americans felt and continue to feel more vulnerable than they had felt since, perhaps, Pearl Harbor, the Civil War or the Revolutionary War Era.
If asked, "What rights do we have under the Sixth Amendment?" people reply that it has something to do with trial rights, if they can recall anything at all. They forget that the amendment does not specify that it is only U. S. citizens who have these rights. The rules apply but to anyone who breaks one of our laws on our soil. During the Glenn Beck inspired 9/12 rally, I saw Congressmen and women waving about a copy of the Constitution and claiming things about it that are not even correct. I would suggest that some of the legislators waving the Constitution aloft should read it instead.
The Glenn Beck view of 9/12 is not at all like the 9/12 I remember or that which my son, who still lives in New York and was working not far from the Towers on that awful day, remembers. Beck's is not the 9/12 that we all saw soon after the attacks. There was the initial shock and disbelief, and then there was selfless and fearless heroism as first responders risked personal safety, some even losing their lives, to help others. Crime was minimal as people worked together, even as night fell. That was the American spirit of can-do and we-will-not-be-beaten-down. Americans got back to work at being who we are: proud people who can face horror and remain who we are, what the Founding Fathers hoped we would be. When the British were burning down our early American cities, our founders did not decide we should be a military junta in order to be safe. Case in point: those British soldiers who committed what was called the Boston Massacre were defended in court by John Adams, even though he knew he would face criticism and stern condemnation in the press. Why? Because he believed in the kind of legal system that could ably serve to address even those acts of terrorism. After his initial criticism, he went on to be elected our first vice president and second president. Men like Adams and Washington and Jefferson and others did not want us to become the country their parents had fled. They saw a vision of the world our Constitution embodies.
Every time in history that one of our leaders allowed his fears to cloud what our founding document plainly says that we are-- including Adams when he later briefly enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts during his presidency-- they were condemned at the time and by history as well. Our Founding Fathers had seen troops on their own soil during the Revolutionary War which lasted over eight years and resulted in well over four thousand deaths. Even after that, they drew up our founding laws, including the Bill of Rights—ratified in 1791—which includes those pesky Fifth and Sixth Amendments some on the right would like to dismiss. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941resulted in 2,288 soldiers, sailors, and civilians killed, and we let our fears intern Japanese-Americans, many of whom were citizens—for no other reasons than our fear of all Japanese people. And to this day, it remains one of our great shames. After World War II, after over 290, 000 people had died in that war, we went back to being who we are meant to be. During the 1950's Red Scare when innocent people were guilty merely by accusation, cooler heads prevailed and voices like that of Joe McCarthy were silenced by reason.
My hope remains that the hate and fanaticism of the Tea Partiers and right-wing radio along with the politicians who fall into line with their rantings will also go the way of the McCarthy acolytes of my youth. The terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Muhammad, can and should be tried by the dictates of our laws with a speedy public trial with an impartial jury, and yes, tried in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed with the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. That is the way we tried Tim McVey, who killed over 150 people with his homemade truck bomb--including the children in the day care facility of the federal building—and Ramzi Yousef and others. Yousef was sentenced to life plus 240 years for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and his conviction and sentence were unanimously upheld in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. While those terrorists failed to bring down both Towers in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Yousef and others caused great damage and senseless death and injury to others. They were punished. The system put in place by our Founding Fathers worked and worked well. Why are we so afraid of it now? Even George Will, no champion of Democrats or liberals, as well as NYC's Republican Mayor Bloomberg, agree that it is the right thing to do to try Khalid Sheik Muhammad in NYC.
Khalid Sheik Muhammad is not in any organized army we recognize as such nor is he a representative of any state against whom we are at war. Where the officer who shot and killed fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood will be by court martial, KSM is a different case. We are not under martial law, and I would hope that no one believes that necessary in what has come to be called "Post 9/11 America." Until our fears permit the rule of martial law, those laws in our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, remain our laws, after 9/11 just as they were before 9/11. If we let them, fanatics-- either radical Islamists or homegrown fear mongers--will achieve what the 9/11 terrorists set out to do. They wanted to bring down the sign of our economic system and symbols of our government to destroy us. We cannot let them. Americans are not patient. We need to remember that those who would destroy us are.
They only win if we let them win. It will matter little if we only rebuild destroyed buildings and fight successful battles in Iraq and Afghanistan while we let politicians and hysterical fear shred the very document that defines what and who we are. We will have then won nothing and lost everything. That would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed.
Not Even in Post-9/11 America
The Constitution is the Constitution, both before and after 9/11, until it is amended or an issue in question is addressed and clarified by the Supreme Court. I want to cringe when I hear people saying we should deal with our legal and military issues as if the U. S. Constitution no longer applied. I too was as dismayed when I saw what horror had been done to the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the name of religious fanaticism. I am certain that the British have felt that way every time they experienced domestic terrorism by the Irish Republican Army , and that went on for centuries. The real and longer-lasting horror would be for terrorists to win because they let us destroy the rest of what our country is and represents out of our own hatred, fear, and zealotry.
We have laws determining how we try those who break our laws, and we simply cannot disregard things like the 5th and 6th Amendments. They still apply. The Founding Fathers made these laws and deemed them the right thing for us at a time when they were still fighting with the British, and events that we would call terrorism continued to happen during lulls between those wars. They did not let fear override their knowledge of what our country would be then, and we should not do so now.
The 5th Amendment is pretty unambiguous: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in the time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
What exactly does the 6th Amendment say? "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall be been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
When asked, most people--and, evidently, too many of our legislators—only recall that the Fifth Amendment is about not testifying against oneself. The underlined portions in the amendment above show that there are two other very important parts that address how this country tries those who commit crimes against us, whether those crimes are defined as terrorism, mass murder, or any other heinous travesty. Yes, the 9/11 perpetrators were terrorists, by any definition. They planned and committed the premeditated murder of all those trapped in the World Trade Center Towers and the Pentagon as well as those who foiled their plans and crashed a plane in a Pennsylvania field and the first responders who tried to rescue the victims. Their crime killed many and wounded our country's morale. Americans felt and continue to feel more vulnerable than they had felt since, perhaps, Pearl Harbor, the Civil War or the Revolutionary War Era.
If asked, "What rights do we have under the Sixth Amendment?" people reply that it has something to do with trial rights, if they can recall anything at all. They forget that the amendment does not specify that it is only U. S. citizens who have these rights. The rules apply but to anyone who breaks one of our laws on our soil. During the Glenn Beck inspired 9/12 rally, I saw Congressmen and women waving about a copy of the Constitution and claiming things about it that are not even correct. I would suggest that some of the legislators waving the Constitution aloft should read it instead.
The Glenn Beck view of 9/12 is not at all like the 9/12 I remember or that which my son, who still lives in New York and was working not far from the Towers on that awful day, remembers. Beck's is not the 9/12 that we all saw soon after the attacks. There was the initial shock and disbelief, and then there was selfless and fearless heroism as first responders risked personal safety, some even losing their lives, to help others. Crime was minimal as people worked together, even as night fell. That was the American spirit of can-do and we-will-not-be-beaten-down. Americans got back to work at being who we are: proud people who can face horror and remain who we are, what the Founding Fathers hoped we would be. When the British were burning down our early American cities, our founders did not decide we should be a military junta in order to be safe. Case in point: those British soldiers who committed what was called the Boston Massacre were defended in court by John Adams, even though he knew he would face criticism and stern condemnation in the press. Why? Because he believed in the kind of legal system that could ably serve to address even those acts of terrorism. After his initial criticism, he went on to be elected our first vice president and second president. Men like Adams and Washington and Jefferson and others did not want us to become the country their parents had fled. They saw a vision of the world our Constitution embodies.
Every time in history that one of our leaders allowed his fears to cloud what our founding document plainly says that we are-- including Adams when he later briefly enacted the Alien and Sedition Acts during his presidency-- they were condemned at the time and by history as well. Our Founding Fathers had seen troops on their own soil during the Revolutionary War which lasted over eight years and resulted in well over four thousand deaths. Even after that, they drew up our founding laws, including the Bill of Rights—ratified in 1791—which includes those pesky Fifth and Sixth Amendments some on the right would like to dismiss. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941resulted in 2,288 soldiers, sailors, and civilians killed, and we let our fears intern Japanese-Americans, many of whom were citizens—for no other reasons than our fear of all Japanese people. And to this day, it remains one of our great shames. After World War II, after over 290, 000 people had died in that war, we went back to being who we are meant to be. During the 1950's Red Scare when innocent people were guilty merely by accusation, cooler heads prevailed and voices like that of Joe McCarthy were silenced by reason.
My hope remains that the hate and fanaticism of the Tea Partiers and right-wing radio along with the politicians who fall into line with their rantings will also go the way of the McCarthy acolytes of my youth. The terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Muhammad, can and should be tried by the dictates of our laws with a speedy public trial with an impartial jury, and yes, tried in the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed with the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. That is the way we tried Tim McVey, who killed over 150 people with his homemade truck bomb--including the children in the day care facility of the federal building—and Ramzi Yousef and others. Yousef was sentenced to life plus 240 years for the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and his conviction and sentence were unanimously upheld in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. While those terrorists failed to bring down both Towers in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Yousef and others caused great damage and senseless death and injury to others. They were punished. The system put in place by our Founding Fathers worked and worked well. Why are we so afraid of it now? Even George Will, no champion of Democrats or liberals, as well as NYC's Republican Mayor Bloomberg, agree that it is the right thing to do to try Khalid Sheik Muhammad in NYC.
Khalid Sheik Muhammad is not in any organized army we recognize as such nor is he a representative of any state against whom we are at war. Where the officer who shot and killed fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood will be by court martial, KSM is a different case. We are not under martial law, and I would hope that no one believes that necessary in what has come to be called "Post 9/11 America." Until our fears permit the rule of martial law, those laws in our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, remain our laws, after 9/11 just as they were before 9/11. If we let them, fanatics-- either radical Islamists or homegrown fear mongers--will achieve what the 9/11 terrorists set out to do. They wanted to bring down the sign of our economic system and symbols of our government to destroy us. We cannot let them. Americans are not patient. We need to remember that those who would destroy us are.
They only win if we let them win. It will matter little if we only rebuild destroyed buildings and fight successful battles in Iraq and Afghanistan while we let politicians and hysterical fear shred the very document that defines what and who we are. We will have then won nothing and lost everything. That would be a Pyrrhic victory indeed.
Monday, November 9, 2009
And the Wall Came Tumbling Down...Now What?
Twenty years ago this month--November 9, 1989—ordinary people began to take down the Berlin Wall using hammers, pickaxes, and any tool they could find. In the U. S. today, many give the late President Regan full credit, or at least the lion's share of it, for single-handedly ending the Cold War. And while he did play a part, it is disingenuous to assume he did it alone. In the process of ending the Cold War as well as reunifying Germany, President Regan had significant help, not the least of which was the ineptitude of the East German Communist Party Politburo's rule highlighted by Guenter Schabowski's press conference and announcement about the easement of travel restrictions. Other people and events of import include: Gorbachev's implementation of perestroika; Hungarians marching to demand democracy months earlier; Lech Walesa's Solidarity Movement in Poland in 1980, and the courage of the Czech people from Prague Spring to the Velvet Revolution. Equally important, President George H. W. Bush--or "Father Bush" as some in Europe call him to differentiate between him and his son—had the wisdom to encourage the unification of Germany, even though some European leaders feared the repercussions of this.
The relationship between Regan and Gorbachev was an important page in this history. Their friendly yet candid relationship took us from détente to perestroika, or openness. Just as a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a Communist country quickly learned that it could not be a little bit open. Regan, always an eloquent speaker, made his famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall" speech on June 12, 1987, but others were working to achieve democracy in Eastern Europe before that, some, long before that.
In August of 1980, Lech Walesa organized the ship workers at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, and they went on strike. This was the birth of the Solidarity Movement which led to a democratic election making Walesa president in 1990. On that day in August, 1980, around 17,000 ship builders stopped work and rallied for a right to form an independent union. Solidarity achieved that goal 17 days later. And while the Soviet Union cracked down on Poland after this, Walesa's winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 reignited the underground. These rebels continued their work toward a free Poland, even while Walesa was in prison. Walesa, Solidarity, and the Polish people may not have chinked the Berlin Wall literally, but that movement sparked others, including those in East Germany as well as Hungary, to seek their own freedoms.
About eight months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, courageous Hungarians marched to demand democracy, ignoring the memory of a bloody and brutal put-down of a similar revolt by the Soviets in 1956. Because of their effort, 150 miles of barbed wire fencing came down to allow open the border between Austria and Hungary.
Even before these events, the Czech people continued to work to remove the yoke of repression that had been strengthened when Soviet tanks and troops rolled into Prague on August 20, 1968 (Prague Spring). This invasion resulted in the ouster of the Czechoslovakian leader, Alexander Dubcek and years of oppressive Communist rule. The efforts of the Czech people finally resulted in what has been called the Velvet Revolution that saw Dubcek reinstated on November 24, 1989. Their courage gave heart to others behind the Iron Curtain, and they should not be dismissed when we in the U. S. recall the end of the Cold War and take full credit for it.
Yes, on November 9, 1989, a concrete 12 foot wall topped with electrified barbed wire stretching 100 miles around West Berlin did come down, and history changed when it did. Today, former members of the Warsaw Pact—Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic and Slovenia (formerly Czechoslovakia)—are among the 28 members of NATO. When they left the Pact, the only country remaining was the former USSR.
What most people do tend to forget is that the historic event's occurring on the exact date of November 9th was more or less a fluke. Travel restrictions from East Berlin to West Berlin had already been easing due to perestroika as well as work between Helmut Kohl of West Germany and Eric Honecker of the East. Significant travel restrictions were lifted by November 4th and trains were taking East German people into West Germany by the thousands. West and East Berliners and others continued to demand more clarification on the restrictions which resulted in a press conference led by, perhaps, one of the more inept speakers on behalf of the East German Communist Party Politburo. As reporters asked Guenter Schabowski exactly when these new eases in travel would occur, he stammered around, searching for the right words, and said what was translated to mean "immediately." Reporters and others rapidly communicated this to their embassies in Germany as well as to radio and television stations, and the news spread rapidly. People came out in droves, eventually dancing in the streets and taking down the wall themselves. To this day, many may remember the pictures of young people standing atop the wall in exultation. Remarkably, not a shot was fired.
The wall was down, but there remained much work to do, the most pressing of which was: Should the two Germanys remain separate countries or should there be a unified Germany? Germans, as a whole, wanted the latter, but for some European leaders, the memories of Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm ruling a unified Germany that began two World Wars were still painfully present. Mitterand of France was especially leery, and both Margaret Thatcher and her successor, John Major, had reservations. Had it not been for the leadership of President George Herbert Walker Bush, the unification might not have occurred when it did. Bush, Sr. was able to talk with other leaders and to show them that the advantages of a unified Germany far outweighed the disadvantages. The most remarkable thing to me is that the Bush, Sr. team did not gloat about their role in this. Did their willingness to work toward the greater good of the project mean that history should forget? Republicans seem to have forgotten this because I have yet to hear a GOP pundit mention anyone other than Regan. Bush 41 was not eloquent, and I did not agree with many of his domestic policies, but his international vision should not be forgotten by any of us, Democrats or Republicans. Had Bush 43 had that kind of vision, we would not be in Iraq, and Afghanistan would have been fought more decisively.
And so on this date, November 9, 2009, let us not forget that many brave people as well as President Regan helped to end the Cold War. Nameless people were jailed and/or died to end Communist oppression; furthermore, these small and large rebellions exposed a weak and failing economic and political system that was already in a state of decay. Instead of our bragging that we in the U. S. won the Cold War, it might be more correct to say, as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it in an NPR interview today, to say that the USSR "lost the Cold War because the system did not work, and in time, the people knew it."
A further extrapolation of history—particularly noting 20th century events in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia that ended Communist domination of their countries-- should help us learn that revolutions are most successful if the people themselves rise up to demand it. Our system of government is not a one-size-fits-all model, and we need to be mindful of that. I still do not think we had any business going into Iraq, but I supported our going into Afghanistan after 9/11. In spite of that, I remain fearful that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't when it comes to Afghanistan. The war was fought haphazardly for seven years, and now things are indeed a mess. If the Afghan people are too fearful or uninterested in changing their country, how can we expect to be successful? I do fear what will happen if we pull out with a nuclear and unstable Pakistan on its border, yet I do not know how we can control or pacify a huge and rugged country ruled by a tribal structure with an economic and political system that is Third World, if that. We need only to recall the former British Empire and the former USSR to know what could happen.
Today, we remember a significant historical event: the Berlin Wall came down. Today and tomorrow and the days that follow, we need to recall other historical events. Let them teach us what walls can come down, and whether the people themselves even want them to fall. Two quotations come to mind here: 1). George Santayana--"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." 2). David McCullough—"History is a guide in perilous times."
Some facts were heard on NPR/s WMNF in Naples Florida, today. Other information came from Making History by Howard Sargent: "Cold War International History Project Documents and Papers," and www.historyquotes.com.
The relationship between Regan and Gorbachev was an important page in this history. Their friendly yet candid relationship took us from détente to perestroika, or openness. Just as a woman cannot be a little bit pregnant, a Communist country quickly learned that it could not be a little bit open. Regan, always an eloquent speaker, made his famous "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this Wall" speech on June 12, 1987, but others were working to achieve democracy in Eastern Europe before that, some, long before that.
In August of 1980, Lech Walesa organized the ship workers at the Lenin Shipyard in Gdansk, Poland, and they went on strike. This was the birth of the Solidarity Movement which led to a democratic election making Walesa president in 1990. On that day in August, 1980, around 17,000 ship builders stopped work and rallied for a right to form an independent union. Solidarity achieved that goal 17 days later. And while the Soviet Union cracked down on Poland after this, Walesa's winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983 reignited the underground. These rebels continued their work toward a free Poland, even while Walesa was in prison. Walesa, Solidarity, and the Polish people may not have chinked the Berlin Wall literally, but that movement sparked others, including those in East Germany as well as Hungary, to seek their own freedoms.
About eight months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, courageous Hungarians marched to demand democracy, ignoring the memory of a bloody and brutal put-down of a similar revolt by the Soviets in 1956. Because of their effort, 150 miles of barbed wire fencing came down to allow open the border between Austria and Hungary.
Even before these events, the Czech people continued to work to remove the yoke of repression that had been strengthened when Soviet tanks and troops rolled into Prague on August 20, 1968 (Prague Spring). This invasion resulted in the ouster of the Czechoslovakian leader, Alexander Dubcek and years of oppressive Communist rule. The efforts of the Czech people finally resulted in what has been called the Velvet Revolution that saw Dubcek reinstated on November 24, 1989. Their courage gave heart to others behind the Iron Curtain, and they should not be dismissed when we in the U. S. recall the end of the Cold War and take full credit for it.
Yes, on November 9, 1989, a concrete 12 foot wall topped with electrified barbed wire stretching 100 miles around West Berlin did come down, and history changed when it did. Today, former members of the Warsaw Pact—Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic and Slovenia (formerly Czechoslovakia)—are among the 28 members of NATO. When they left the Pact, the only country remaining was the former USSR.
What most people do tend to forget is that the historic event's occurring on the exact date of November 9th was more or less a fluke. Travel restrictions from East Berlin to West Berlin had already been easing due to perestroika as well as work between Helmut Kohl of West Germany and Eric Honecker of the East. Significant travel restrictions were lifted by November 4th and trains were taking East German people into West Germany by the thousands. West and East Berliners and others continued to demand more clarification on the restrictions which resulted in a press conference led by, perhaps, one of the more inept speakers on behalf of the East German Communist Party Politburo. As reporters asked Guenter Schabowski exactly when these new eases in travel would occur, he stammered around, searching for the right words, and said what was translated to mean "immediately." Reporters and others rapidly communicated this to their embassies in Germany as well as to radio and television stations, and the news spread rapidly. People came out in droves, eventually dancing in the streets and taking down the wall themselves. To this day, many may remember the pictures of young people standing atop the wall in exultation. Remarkably, not a shot was fired.
The wall was down, but there remained much work to do, the most pressing of which was: Should the two Germanys remain separate countries or should there be a unified Germany? Germans, as a whole, wanted the latter, but for some European leaders, the memories of Hitler and Kaiser Wilhelm ruling a unified Germany that began two World Wars were still painfully present. Mitterand of France was especially leery, and both Margaret Thatcher and her successor, John Major, had reservations. Had it not been for the leadership of President George Herbert Walker Bush, the unification might not have occurred when it did. Bush, Sr. was able to talk with other leaders and to show them that the advantages of a unified Germany far outweighed the disadvantages. The most remarkable thing to me is that the Bush, Sr. team did not gloat about their role in this. Did their willingness to work toward the greater good of the project mean that history should forget? Republicans seem to have forgotten this because I have yet to hear a GOP pundit mention anyone other than Regan. Bush 41 was not eloquent, and I did not agree with many of his domestic policies, but his international vision should not be forgotten by any of us, Democrats or Republicans. Had Bush 43 had that kind of vision, we would not be in Iraq, and Afghanistan would have been fought more decisively.
And so on this date, November 9, 2009, let us not forget that many brave people as well as President Regan helped to end the Cold War. Nameless people were jailed and/or died to end Communist oppression; furthermore, these small and large rebellions exposed a weak and failing economic and political system that was already in a state of decay. Instead of our bragging that we in the U. S. won the Cold War, it might be more correct to say, as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright put it in an NPR interview today, to say that the USSR "lost the Cold War because the system did not work, and in time, the people knew it."
A further extrapolation of history—particularly noting 20th century events in Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia that ended Communist domination of their countries-- should help us learn that revolutions are most successful if the people themselves rise up to demand it. Our system of government is not a one-size-fits-all model, and we need to be mindful of that. I still do not think we had any business going into Iraq, but I supported our going into Afghanistan after 9/11. In spite of that, I remain fearful that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't when it comes to Afghanistan. The war was fought haphazardly for seven years, and now things are indeed a mess. If the Afghan people are too fearful or uninterested in changing their country, how can we expect to be successful? I do fear what will happen if we pull out with a nuclear and unstable Pakistan on its border, yet I do not know how we can control or pacify a huge and rugged country ruled by a tribal structure with an economic and political system that is Third World, if that. We need only to recall the former British Empire and the former USSR to know what could happen.
Today, we remember a significant historical event: the Berlin Wall came down. Today and tomorrow and the days that follow, we need to recall other historical events. Let them teach us what walls can come down, and whether the people themselves even want them to fall. Two quotations come to mind here: 1). George Santayana--"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." 2). David McCullough—"History is a guide in perilous times."
Some facts were heard on NPR/s WMNF in Naples Florida, today. Other information came from Making History by Howard Sargent: "Cold War International History Project Documents and Papers," and www.historyquotes.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
