Next year the American Republic will celebrate its continuance through a quarter of a millennium. As was the case with our bicentennial in 1976, that event will be an opportunity to reflect upon past achievements and future prospects.
As we prepare to assess the state of the Republic on its 250th birthday, it is useful to look back on the results of the very similar inquiry undertaken on the occasion of the 200th anniversary. It is particularly instructive to examine similarities and differences between the two national milestones.
As is the case today, very dark clouds hung over the country in 1976. The national exuberance of the bicentennial was greatly tempered by twin catastrophes. The first was the nation's only outright defeat in a war to the accompaniment of widespread urban rioting, horrific assassinations, and a savage political polarization not seen since the Civil War. The second was the political trauma of the only forced resignation of an American President amidst a rising stench of scandal that left his party reeling to defeat in successive national elections.
Thus did Vietnam and Watergate, taken together, seriously damage the national psyche, undermine faith in our democratic institutions and—internationally— strongly suggest to both friends and foes that America was a giant with feet of clay.
Yet, as it has in times past, the American phoenix rose from the ashes of defeat and doubt with amazing rapidity. The people quickly discarded a President who told them they must lower expectations for themselves and their country while focusing on an insoluble “national malaise.”
To the consternation of pundits and opponents alike, the people replaced him with the highly improbable figure of an elderly B-movie actor who won 44 and 49 states in successive presidential landslides while persuasively telling his countrymen that it would always be “morning in America.” He massively re-armed America's battered military, and pursuing a strategy he described simply as “We win; they lose” without going to war he faced down an “evil empire“ that had killed millions of its own people and taken the world to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.
His goal of ending the nightmare of Cold War was achieved with such completeness that a leading historian described it as the “end of history”—while liberal pundits touted a huge “peace dividend“ and confidently prophesied a new era in which American-led market-based democracy would inevitably prevail over all other systems of governance.
However, much in the manner required by Greek tragedy, pride went before a fall. This overly ambitious vision of a New World Order bringing abundance for all proved to be a mirage. The toxic alliance of those who fervently believed in unfettered capitalism and those who worshipped centralized planning and regulation in the name of a new faith called Globalization, brought not bounty but economic impoverishment to millions of middle and working class families worldwide.
In the United States this calamity was greatly compounded by our disastrous—and sadly very bipartisan—foreign policy that propelled the country into a quarter- century of “forever wars” with a toll of thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers and immense damage to our beleaguered economy
Finally frustration and anger at a political regime utterly deaf to their real needs and concerns led American voters to revolt against a government that offered nothing but progressively worse versions of a status quo that was crushing their hopes and freedoms.
Once again the people turned to a highly improbable figure from outside of politics who absolutely horrified the elites of both parties. They instantly and correctly perceived him as an existential threat to their power and privilege, so dangerous as to fully justify all means within and above the law required to compass his destruction.
It is too soon to tell if the American people's second ballot-box rebellion in 50 years against an inept and clueless establishment can foster recovery as impressively as did the first.
Many thoughtful observers would say no—because the yawning gulf between the people and the ruling elites has grown too wide, the military industrial-complex appetite for war remains unappeased, national debt is metastasizing, entitlements are unsustainable, national health indicators are worsening, and rarely can politicians see beyond the next election. They don’t get the last word, though. We the people do.
In one of his most famous speeches Abraham Lincoln, quoting the gospel of Saint Mark (3:25), declared that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Today a dangerously polarized America remains that divided house. Lincoln also summoned words from the Book of Proverbs (29:18): “Where there is no vision, the people perish.”
In our nation's greatest hour of peril, Abraham Lincoln provided an uplifting vision, and thus our people did not perish. As our country approaches yet another critical turning point in its history, these words and his deeds should be carefully reflected upon by all Americans.
William Moloney studied history and politics at Oxford and the University of London and received his doctorate from Harvard University. His articles have appeared in the Wall St. Journal, USA Today, The Hill. The Washington Post, Washington Ttimes. Philadelphia Inquirer, Baltimore Sun, Denver Post and Human Events.