Rose Colored Glasses and History

It is a truism that those who forget history and its lessons are bound to repeat it. Repeating the errors of the past repeatedly occurs and supports the value of a well rounded balanced history program in our school systems. While forgetting history can be an issue, a more common problem is the tendency is an unbalanced ahistorical view of history.

This unbalanced view is found in glorifying past events and/or people well beyond reality, and to dismiss or worse overlook the negatives that would dampen the glorification. Such a process is known as hagiography, which is currently taking place within some political spheres in the United States with regard to Ronald Reagan whereby his words and views are being held so high that they are considered and used as if he and his words are as infallible as Holy Writ. Further, a host of his actions, speaches and statements are taken not only out of context but are being reinterpreted to mean something beyond what he meant while disregarding his words and actions that are contrary to "what Reagan said."

It is not just Reagan that is misused, but it happens with all sorts of historical figures and events across nations and the centuries.

Equally or even more dangerous tendency is our interpretion of the past through rose colored glasses. Much of it is innocent, but it too ultimately opens us up to being mislead. The greatest danger of rose colored glasses is when its purveyors masterfully cherry pick through past events, statements, etc. to justify present actions and views even though that which is selected may actually speak contrary to what one is advocating. When in the hands of golden tongued craftspeople playing upon people’s emotions and fears use rose colored cherry picking for insidious ends. The cure against such modern day snake oil pitch people, whether they be businesspeople, politicians, or churchmen is to constantly read, study a broad array of solid thoughtful historical items.

Is Democracy At Risk? Can We Learn From Rome?

Last year’s trip to Italy rekindled an interest in refreshing my knowledge of the Roman Empire, a glorious empire that dominated the Meditation and much of “civilized” Europe. All empires go through a life cycle of rise and decline. Though causes for both the rise and decline of any empire are numerous and can be debated, with Rome the decline highly involves three primary factors:

a.  Corrupt leaders who used their positions to advance their own wealth and power as well as those of their family and friends

                b. Centralization of power in the hands of Caesar and the leaving the Senate marginalized as a paper tiger

                c.  A military industrial complex that increasingly dominated the society and the budget of the empire to the point where the military, and a handful of public works which more often than not were either military driven or designed to placate the poor with entertainment.

Threats from outside were real, but Rome declined due to internal reasons and when it moved away from what had given rise to the empire.

News reporters and commentators, and political leaders at all levels and of all persuasions in modern democracies need to be heedful of what happened in Rome. The citizenry likewise needs to be heedful of the lessons.

To remain vibrant and strong, modern democracies ensure that all branches of government civil discourse, freedom of information and the exchange of the same, and each branch in the checks and balance process are vibrant and well. Consolidating power in the hands of one or two leaders is unhealthy and moves any country down the Roman pathway.

When Congressmen, Senators (or MPs in Canada, England) are expected/required to fall in line behind their leadership (President, PM, House or Senate Leadership) on all but minor matters a democracy is under threat. Thinking that what is good for the party is good for the country is dangerous thinking…it is dangerous is like a driver driving at a high rate of speed and thinking that they are too skilled to have an accident. Party winning at all costs stifles independent thinking, civil discourse and undermines a democracy.

When a party membership is reluctant to call out its leadership for potentially immoral or criminal conduct, or when it gives them passes for what they would consider most unacceptable if done by those of the other party, democracy is under attack. When leaders say that their number one priority is to defeat the opposition in the next election and to obstruct as much of their other party’s agenda as possible, democracy is eroded and slipping away. The good of the country should never come above the good of the country. When an is attack, even ones the attacker had proposed in the past, primarily because it is put forward by the opposition, democracy is starting to become a shell.

When people are appointed to the judiciary, particularly to the highest court in the land, mainly because of narrow political beliefs on a handful of issues ranging from the highly questionable unitary executive doctrine to abortion, the checks and balances within that democracy is being lost. The court system, including the highest court, should not be used as an extension of a political position for if it were, not only is democracy threatened but so is justice itself.

Any country which does not give attention to lessons from the past is at risk of repeating the same mistakes. Are our democracies vibrant and on a sound footing? While for the most part they are solid, I fear that they may not be on as firm as we believe.