A History Lesson for Us All: Is Hindsight really 20/20?
What I want to talk about today is history. How we redefine it over time; how we reinterpret it to match some version of the recent past—or the distant past—that suits our needs. How common—and how dangerous—a human characteristic it is.
I was twelve when I first recognized the power an autocratic leader wields—when I first heard the voice of a demagogue. It was on the radio, in South Africa, long before the advent of television. The voice belonged to Prime Minister Hendrick Verwoerd, a bullying, angry man, threatened and threatening, his insults intended to instill fear in the hearts of those whose university age children were participating in anti-apartheid demonstrations. I was terrified, and today, more than fifty years later, I still find myself replaying with vivid clarity the sound of his heavily accented English. Much has changed in South Africa since then. The past continues to be rewritten, proof positive that history is not 20/20.
In 1990, when Nelson Mandela was released from prison in South Africa, he and F. W. de Klerk began the negotiations that would lead to the end of apartheid and a peaceful transition of power. There was tremendous opposition from the far right and far left, and there were instances of violence that gave some idea of the violence and upheaval that might occur if a peaceful resolution was not reached. It was imperative that these two leaders manage to come to terms. They did, and in the years that followed 1994, Nelson Mandela was heralded as South Africa’s savior and lauded as the man who was able to transition the country to majority rule without a violent revolution.
Fast forward to 2016. A generation born in freedom, for whom the word “apartheid” belongs to history, is now coming into its own. Their worldview is very different. To many of them, Mandela is a traitor. In negotiating a transition of power, he made compromises that at the time seemed essential to preserve peace—sacrifices he deemed worthwhile in light of what black South Africans stood to gain. But today, a young generation of black South Africans who never lived in the shadow of apartheid sees some of those compromises as a failure of leadership. They see the agreement not to redistribute land owned by whites to the black majority as a surrender of their birthright—the concession not to take the riches accumulated by white South Africans during the years of apartheid, when white wealth was built on the backs of black labor, as a betrayal. As we write, history is once more being unstitched and resewn into a different shape in South Africa, and as a result some terms of the agreements made between Nelson Mandela and F. W. de Klerk, are being changed.
It’s not as simple as this, of course. Political corruption in South Africa plays a role, and so does the failure of the leadership to improve the standard of living. One way a corrupt leadership can satisfy, at least temporarily, the demands of an impoverished population, is to redistribute the assets of the wealthy. Perhaps it’s what is called for. Perhaps it’s necessary. Perhaps it should have happened back in 1994. Perhaps the consequences will be less dire than they appear. And perhaps, just perhaps, land redistribution in South Africa is and always has been inevitable.
This is relevant today for us in the USA because we, too, are subject to the rewriting of history. Donald Trump, aided by the Trumpets, the wide-eyed remnants of the traditional Republican Party, are rewriting the history of the last eight years. But the scope of the rewriting here boggles the imagination. President Obama—and by association Hillary Clinton—have been portrayed as having accomplished nothing.
What’s forgotten is that Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. What’s overlooked is that the Trumpets—even before they were wide-eyed remnants of the Grand Old Party—made it a hallmark of their terms in office to ensure the defeat of anything Obama proposed. In part, Trump is the result of that strategy and the absolute gridlock it produced.
No candidate is perfect. Men and women in office make mistakes, very publicly, for which they’re held accountable. In a public life in which her every act has been minutely scrutinized, Hillary Clinton has done some damage and has made mistakes. But in 40 years of service she has also done a great deal of good. Agree or disagree, we know what her values are and what she’s likely to do on any given issue.
It’s much easier for people in business to hide their moral and financial failures, except when they’re part of the public record, as many of Trump’s failures are. In a private life without the scrutiny that Hillary has experienced, one would think that, using discretion and privacy, he could have run a business about which we know nothing. But he’s run afoul of so many people in so many ways. He’s been the subject of at least 1,300 lawsuits. Several large banks refuse to lend him money because of his business practices.
He’s defrauded students at so-called Trump University. Stiffed contractors in Atlantic City when he declared bankruptcy, and later bragged about how much money he took out of the city to enrich his personal coffers. He’s very quick to say that he’s never declared personal bankruptcy, and to remind us that he’s very rich. He doesn’t recognize—and neither do his followers—the huge contradiction between his actions and his statements. If he’s that rich, he could have done the honorable thing and made sure that his middle-class contractors were paid instead of walking away. But now all of a sudden he wants us to believe he’ll be the protector of the middle class.
And he’s going to bring jobs back to America. Again, actions and words conflict. All his Trump-brand products are made overseas. But it’s suddenly become important to him to bring jobs home.
Last year he claimed to have a relationship with Putin; this year he admits they’ve never met.
He has praised authoritarian and corrupt leaders, publicly stating his admiration for brutal former dictators like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi, yet not recognizing what he reveals about himself when he does so.
Simply by running for office, Trump has alienated our allies. He promises to undo alliances we’ve honored for decades, and ISIS is already using his face as a recruiting tool. This is all before he assumes the mantle of the Presidency.
I can only imagine the kind of chaos he’s capable of wreaking in the Oval Office.
The two candidates presented to us are unacceptable to large swaths of the voting population. The result of the vote is likely to be very close. As in medicine, the first rule of an election should be to Do No Harm. If that’s true, it’s clear who the candidate of choice should be. I’m with Her.
Photo: Derek A./Flickr CC 2.0