17. THE LESSONS OF HISTORY

KEY COMPONENTS OF AN EXCELLENT SOCIAL ORDER

It is social morality that defines, and gives strength, to society.  The study of social dynamics is not a new thing.  Since man himself set out to find answers to why his social world was shaped and acted the way it did, he actually has been asking the great moral question:  is this the way society is supposed to work?

And there is an amazing agreement among those that since even ancient times have taken up that question.  The Greeks left a rich literature to their descendants in dealing with this very issue. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle spent a huge amount of energy trying to answer this question.  Unfortunately, Plato fell victim to the tendency to believe that a moral social order could simply be designed by an enlightened individual (such as himself, of course) and was invited to the Greek kingdom of Syracuse to put his "Platonist" ideas into effect.  He nearly lost his life in the political mess that followed, and had to be bought (ransomed) out of captivity (actually slavery) by a friend.

However Aristotle, rather than designing a perfect utopia, studied carefully a wide variety of societies existing either currently or historically (thus employing true social science) and came up simply with a very astute observation: the "good society," as opposed to the "bad society," was distinguished not by the number of people involved in governing that society, whether a government of one, the few, or the many.  The good society was characterized by the moral character of those, whether one, few or many, called to govern the society.  In other words, a government of a single ruling individual could either be good or bad, depending on the moral character that this person brought to his governance.  At the other end of the spectrum, rule by the many could be good, if conducted under well-understood and well-respected moral rules, or could be nothing more than a horrible mob led blindly by demagogues able to whip up the emotions of the masses on the basis of "well-reasoned" whims of this nature or that (usually the political interests of those whipping up the emotions of the democratic masses).  The critical difference in each case was the moral discipline that those responsible for the governance of society were working under.

The Jews of the Bible too had their way of addressing the same issue, using the power of historical narrative (the Biblical story-telling about the many centuries of existence of their leaders and their people) –to highlight the good and the bad of their own social behavior.  In virtually every instance the good was identified with Israel's ability to stay on course with God's instructions, through following God's unchanging Word (the same Word that put the universe into existence), but also his ad-hoc counsel given to those in a leadership position, usually one or another of the Hebrew judges or prophets.  However, when the Israelites wandered from this Godly social-moral counsel and discipline, and proceeded to "walk in their own counsel" (which they invariably would do over time), they immediately fell into trouble –until God, out of simply the grace of his ever-faithful heart, came to rescue them from their self-inflicted moral folly.

More recently, the British historian Arnold Toynbee, in his twelve-volume A Study of History^[1] (taking nearly thirty years, 1934-1961, to complete) examined 28 civilizations in order to see what made them strong or weak, rising or falling.  What he noted was the inability of the society to stay on course with the moral foundations that originally brought it into existence and growth, instead over time wandering from that moral course because, in the face of new, rising challenges, a closed and detached elite group of leaders tried to follow unrealistic or utopian (but always self-evidently rational, even if socially suicidal) alternate courses. They would simply abandon their precious, well-tested traditional moral legacy –instead of carefully (thus wisely) drawing on that legacy in creative ways in order to meet the new challenges of life as they arose.

A society's sense of "fair play."  Judging from the behavior of Washington politicians both in Congress and in the "deep state" or federal bureaucracy, there is today an incredible lack of any sense of proper rules of social behavior.  Almost anything that appears that it might advance an individual's personal political ambitions seems to find some rational justification, one pretending to be in accordance with some kind of moral rule –one that is made up as a person goes along.  Can you imagine trying to conduct a soccer or tennis match with the rules simply developed to the advantage of this side or the other in the course of the match?  It would be a mess.  It would look something like a Third World political election!

Indeed, lately, American politics is looking very "Third-Worldish."

In the days when social leadership was entirely a male concern, much care was given to the social-moral development of male character.  Not to do so was to very likely lead to male behavior that can only be classed as "criminal" –and end up a young man in prison.  In fact it is the threat of prison that has long been used as the ultimate discipline to male behavior.  But an alternative was once also used –of letting a socially rebellious youth chose military service rather than prison (prison, anyway, famous for teaching even worse social habits!).  That was actually a wise choice –because it offered the social-moral discipline that was lacking in the young man's earlier development.  Little wonder too that the young men who have served in the military have tended to be much more supportive of the idea of the necessary social order –"patriotism" as we know it.  We saw this strongly present in the Vet generation –a generation which served sacrificially in World War Two.

Sports and scouting were other, less drastic, ways for a young man to achieve this same path of social-moral discipline as he approached manhood.  Sports taught the importance to young men of "fair play" or "good sportsmanship." A "win" in sports was actually dishonorable if it was not achieved in accordance with the rules of the game.  But sadly, sports today is considered merely a game, something for pleasure.  Thus the original social purpose for sports is missing entirely.  Missing also is the critical role that scouting offered a young man.  In fact it has been considered to be highly "progressive" today to take away this very key and very traditional function of boy scouting's focusing on bringing boys into manhood. According to such "progressive" minds, not giving any particular  focus on male development will now result in less toxic manhood.  Actually, the results are guaranteed to be quite the opposite.

Leaders, not social designs, shape the moral-social order.  Modern writers of American civics textbooks typically present the general character and specific features of a social order, or in our case the American social-political order, as the product of a vast amount of legal engineering.  The social order is presented as the sum total of well-designed legal structures, laws, political offices, civil and social institutions, that direct the behavior of the members of a society.  In other words, it is good laws and good political structuring that make the good society.  It is all very mechanical, all very personality-neutral in its operation.

Understanding social dynamics from this viewpoint, it becomes imperative for those involved in social engineering (social-political reformers found in public office, in academia, in the press, even in the field of entertainment, etc.) to lay out on paper and in their public proposals the blueprints for a truly great society, one whose political offices are designed to work along highly rational lines.

We saw how the social commentator John Locke, for instance, was invited in the 1600s to set out a rational social-governmental plan by which to direct the development of the new Carolina colony.  But so perfect was it in design that it was quite useless in dealing with the messy circumstances which this new society faced in actually getting up and running.  Then also, we saw how the highly academic President Wilson had precise plans for democratizing global society –which tragically fell apart in the face of political reality.  More recently, President Johnson and his advisors had beautiful plans and programs to bring America to perfection as the "Great Society," all of which crumbled in the face of unanticipated social dynamics.  And then there was the American effort to rebuild a war-torn Afghanistan and a post-Saddam Iraq through implementing constitutional reform.

Beautiful social plans did not automatically make for beautiful social results.  But this is a hard reality almost impossible to get the world of intellectual and bureaucratic social planners to understand.

Thus unfortunately, Americans have been taught that "the office makes the man."  Political office supposedly empowers, directs and limits the behavior of anyone filling that office.  If the office is well-designed, then anyone holding that office and operating under its directives should fulfill quite nicely the responsibilities society has conferred on him or her.

That principle perhaps holds true at the lower, more bureaucratic level, of the social order (whether a nation, a corporation, a military organization, a university, etc.).  But it is not bureaucrats that inspire or direct the behavior of larger society.

Indeed, as has been very clear from the American example itself, societies are actually highly leader-dependent in who or what they happen to be.  Sadly, Americans –so enraptured with the rather mechanical idea (even ideal) of legal-mechanical constitutional-democracy –find it almost impossible to acknowledge the key role that individual leaders play in the successes (and failures) of societies.  Tragically, Americans love to overthrow authoritarian leaders in the name of promoting their ideal of legal-mechanical constitutional-democracy –then always shocked and confused to see how, instead, their efforts to do so typically throw a society into violent social disarray. 

But to anyone who has looked seriously at how human history has worked over the countless generations of human life on this planet, it is always very clear how a single individual can shape the character and operation of society.

History is full of such examples.  Chinese history, for instance, is really the study of personal dynasties, ones that have arisen out of a period of confusion when the Chinese society is torn apart by warring warlords, until one of these warlords is able to establish ascendancy over the others, and thus begin a new dynasty, and a new period of peace and social development.

The Hebrew Bible is really a story of ancient Hebrew patriarchs and prophets, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Nathan, Elijah, Elisha, and the huge impact they personally had on the shaping of the Hebrew nation.

Western history is filled with the stories of how such individuals as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Constantine, Charlemagne, Luther, Calvin, Louis XIV, Napoleon, etc., had a huge impact on the defining of the social order of their days.

More recently we have also seen how Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi, Churchill, Mao shaped our world (in ways good or bad) in their days.

And certainly in American history, note the enormous impact that Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, the Roosevelts, Truman, Johnson, Reagan, Obama, or for that matter virtually every American President in one way or another, each had in shaping American society.

Leaders stand as living-breathing examples of the moral ideals that the people need to embrace in order for their society to succeed.  Society's best leaders actually serve society as the very living symbol, even reality, of the moral order and its particular social design.  These leaders are not political dictators forcing the people to adhere to strict social policy that they are imposing on society (though some will certainly try to lead this way).

Great leaders do not dictate.  They inspire.  They themselves become the visible idea, the very embodiment of the ideal features of that society –from the lofty goals or social ideals that the leader represents personally, to the choices to be made or the procedures to be followed which the leader inspires the society to embrace in order for it to be able to reach those lofty goals.  This is what brings a society to success, even grand success (or tragically also, massive disaster if wrongly directed), because such leadership is not just accepted.  It is followed enthusiastically by the rest of society.

Thus it is that truly "the man makes the office" –not the reverse.  We have seen how the office of U.S. president changes in character and political effect as it changes hands, from one individual to the next.  True, the office empowers an individual legally.  But how (and if) that power is used depends entirely on the personal makeup of the individual holding that office.

This idea that the greatness (or failure) of any society is determined heavily by the personal character of the person acting as society's leader is illustrated very clearly in history.

Alexander the Great was no holder of any particular imperial office (though he was the son of the conquering Macedonian King Philip II), but the one himself who defined by his enormous activity what his huge empire was to become.

Hitler was brought to power as Germany's Chancellor in 1933.  But what happened next to Germany had little to do with the mechanics of the German Weimar Republic or the office of Chancellor.  In fact, that German constitutional order was quickly put aside by the German people themselves in order to build a German Third Reich or Empire around the very person of their Führer (Leader) Hitler.  For better or worse (in this case horribly worse) the German nation redefined itself around the personality of a single individual.  The same can also be said of Stalin's Russia and Mao's China.  And we must add, this is exactly what is happening today under Xi Jinping's leadership in China and Putin's leadership in Russia.

With respect to America, in the break with King George III's royal rule in 1776 there really was at that point no precise social or political order presiding over or unifying the thirteen different colonies (now new states) as a whole, because the thirteen colonies had for so long simply and ably looked after themselves.  But with rebellion against George III underway, these new states would have to find for themselves a higher path, one that could bring them together for success in this Herculean task.  Thankfully, there were a number of old well-established social habits that they shared mutually, ones built on America's long-standing moral order, ones that allowed the Continental Congress to function (even though not yet officially approved by all the states).

But the ultimate dynamic that moved America forward from its status as a group of thirteen English colonies to the status of thirteen newly independent but united states was importantly found above even that.  It was in America's actual leadership. And here is where George Washington looms large as the foundation on which the independence movement relied for its existence and its durability.  As Washington stood firm and unbending before the huge challenge of breaking the determination of the British to force the American states back into submission, so also did these states find inspiration not to bend or yield.

Then not only did he lead the country through the dark days of the rebellion, Washington went on after that to shape greatly what the "United States" was to look like in the way he went at the role of serving as the republic's first president.

That's how social orders are put into place, and thrive (or not).

Go on to the next section:  God's-Hand in Human History

  Miles H. Hodges