A decade to change a century

By Ted Córdova

We left the past Century without making a serious study of the last decade, the nineties, a decade of change. Where all the Twentith century 's events radically changed, like a tortilla flip-flop in a frying pan. In the decade of the '90s, almost every important that was done in the preceeding ninety years of this Century has been changed reformed or simplified... or just erased from the face of the map.

China has changed, from a state of permanent revolution whereby enormous masses were being programmed in pro of an antiwestern style of life, to an opening towards an acceptation of the western style of free economy. But still, the great power of Asia with its unknown destiny will be a power to be reckoned with at the end of this Century.

Latin America, promised to be the paradise of eternal revolution promoting utopias like that of the "new man of the Americas". Che Guevara idealized a new man (El nuevo hombre americano) in Central America, Mexico and South America, in contrast to Yanquee imperialism. Now, leftist revolutionaries and guerrilla movements have almost faded out and the new trend of life amongst the middle class in crowded South American cities is the "American way of life."

Latin America is no longer the place where the fire of an extended revolution was the greatest fear. Now in those same fearful countries, life has changed dramatically. Cable television and the digital era have assured this.

In the otherwise agitated societies of Latin America where in view of social injustices, threats of revolutions were a permanent time bomb, supposed to explode before the year 2000, these same are now resignated and live a prolongation of Miami like style in a rampant race towards consumism. Contrary to the Revolution of Che, expected before the year 2000, what now predominates is the "Revolution of the Chip", that tiny electronic device so vital for global communications. In fact, the "the chip" has contributed to awaken interest in a better standard of life much more than the quixotic ideas of Che.

This plain truth is difficult to reject, even by Fidel Castro, who once said in one of his speeches at the beginning of the Cuban Revolution in 1959 that consumism is not precisely bad, but the privileges in reaching consumism in an unjust society are the real problems and that was why Castro was opposed to an entirely free economy.

During his first campaign for president, Bill Clinton spoke repeatedly of the weakening of the spirit and the lack of will that was undermining the American spirit. And, at certain moments, he defined the "American fear", the posibility the the US could become a chaotic society at the edge of the worst and without possibility of rehabilitation.

But then, he also offered an enlightened scenario: the growing economy, more jobs, and the great American middle-class awarded for its capacity for work and strong values. It was the British historian Arnold Toinbee, who in his study of history analysed how important the boost of adversities are in the awakening of people and countries. This has been an important factor in Anglo-Saxon countries, even in the US where prosperity contributed to a more conformist society.

Time magazine made a realist essay of this idea (Feb. 22 '93) and reminded us that with the exception of times of war and the Great Depression, the idea of sacrifice brings with it the fear of decadence. The national theology according to Time goes in the opposite direction: lanes paved with gold leading towards liberty for more prosperity and a better life.

If an American president asked the American people to make sacrifices he would be succesful if he were able to show a very clear danger, (eg. a monster, a communist threat or aliens from outer space). A real threat of danger to the American way of life must be experienced if he hopes to provoke a reaction. The lack of a threat tends to weaken a society, and in this case, without a threat Americans do not pay attention to the call for sacrifice. Remember how John Kennedy's famous statement: "Ask not what your country can do for you but, what you can do for your country."

The history of the USA is rich in examples that have sounded like trompets calling for sacrifice used by presidents that have failed. A newspaper during the times of Jefferson proclaimed: "We will not stop in front of any sacrifice", as an answer to the boycott of 1807, when the navy ships of France and England put the budding US nation out of the world trade. The farmers, the exporters and the traders became bankrupt because of this embargo. The strategy did not work out. Disillusioned by this experience, Jefferson left the presidency.

President Herbert Hoover tried to force the Americans to make some sacrifices, using his own economic plans as the moral flag of his fight. He also failed.

During the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt tried to induce the Americans to a community of sacrifice, and he was successful because of his capacity for leadership and credibility. "Americans were ready to endure hard times because they believed that FDR was trying to solve the problems", said Bruce Kuklick. And so it happened.

Today, Clinton wants to repeat History. India, a country that was predicted by most pundits as the scenario of great famines with attrophic consequences before the end of the century. Yet it's leaders mantaining a mistique of peace and neutralism like a global sense of peaceful resistance, has become a dynamic society in the 90s with essential agriculture development while new style Indian trusts produce great advances in outstanding cibernetics. It is also a nuclear power capable of producing the most advanced weapons for modern warfare. India will enter the Third Millenium as an emerging superpower and that, is also part of the World Disorder.