As with most prophets, Jeremiah was not especially popular among his contemporaries. Of course, after his warnings proved true, and with the safe passage of time, we effortlessly assume we’d have agreed with him. But we probably wouldn’t have.
It’s important to note, parenthetically, that the one and only test of a true prophet in ancient Israel was whether his or her prophecies proved accurate. There was no such thing as a genuine prophet whose predictions turned out to be false.
All things considered, we don’t much like prophets. That’s because they say things we don’t want to hear. They are the proverbial skunk at the picnic. And, boy, are they ever negative! Why not lighten up a bit, for God’s sake? Why get all bent out of shape?
The reason is that they’re after the truth. Thus, they reject the convenient lies and comforting half-truths we prefer. They refuse to play to our pet biases, assuring us everything’s just hunky-dory. And they’re not afraid to go against the crowd and its unquenchable thirst for conventional wisdom and soothing clichés.
Prophets seek neither plaudits nor personal affirmation. Just truth.
Jeremiah foresaw the destruction of Jerusalem and tried to warn his fellow compatriots. They were uninterested. After all, Jahweh had established Jerusalem; it was the holy city. Nothing could or would happen to it. Yet Jeremiah persisted, in the face of intense opposition, issuing dire warning and after dire warning. Shape up or things are going to go south, he warned. Return to God or there will be a reckoning. Not a popular message at any time or place.
Despite the kind of drivel coming out of our mainline churches, the kind that lazily and self-servingly goes by the name “prophetic,” but which usually involves some sort of political chestnut or talking point taken directly from the pages of the New York Times or Washington Post, there occasionally appear in society those rare voices who dare to go against the grain and say what needs to be said.
One such individual was Samuel Huntington, whose book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, though written over 20 years ago (1998), is as relevant today as when it was published.
Unlike Jeremiah, he never claimed insight from revelation or the voice of God, but instead employed simple logic and reason, a deep understanding of history, and a clear-eyed assessment of our world and its constantly moving parts.
So while our world, with reckless urgency, struggles to make sense of the geopolitical struggles of today, at a time when cooler heads seem nowhere to be found, we would do well to reconsider Huntington’s discreet, olympian judgments which both undercut the wild speculative propagandizing pushing us toward the brink while recommending a wiser and far more sympathetic path forward.
In the last chapter of his book, Huntington offers a sobering analysis of the West in general and the United States in particular. Great civilizations go through cycles of emergence, rise, and decline. They appear, grow strong, experience a “golden age,” and then decline. No civilization is exempt, he assures, at least so far.
During the golden age, societies naturally assume they have reached a “universal state,” what Arnold Toynbee called “the mirage of immortality.” The citizens of such universal states, Toynbee adds, “in defiance of apparently plain facts…are prone to regard it, not as a night’s shelter in the wilderness, but as the Promised Land, the goal of human endeavors.”
Huntington even goes so far as to say that, historically, “societies that assume that their history has ended…are usually societies whose history is about to decline.” In other words, the West’s golden era just may have peaked, to be replaced in due time by other resurgent civilizations (such as China’s perhaps?).
Writing over 20 years ago, listen to how Huntington’s description of societal decline fits today’s headlines: “This is a period of acute economic depression,” he begins, “declining standards of living, civil wars between the various vested interests, and growing illiteracy.
“The society grows weaker and weaker. Vain efforts are made to stop the wastage by legislation. But the decline continues. The religious, intellectual, social, and political levels of the society [begin] to lose the allegiance of the masses of the people on a large scale. New religious movements begin to sweep over the society. There is growing reluctance to fight for the society and even to support it by paying taxes.”
He also cites increases in antisocial behavior, including a rise in crime, drug use, and violence. Family structure decays with increasing rates of divorce, illegitimacy, teen-pregnancy, and single-family households. There is a loss of “social capital,” i.e., the loss of membership in associations that foster interpersonal trust. The work ethic declines along with a rise of the “cult of personal indulgence.” Finally, he cites a decreasing commitment to learning and intellectual activity, with lower levels of scholastic achievement.
As for religion, he observes, in the West generally, there’s not so much hostility as widespread indifference.
Worse still, the elite ruling class works to maintain the status quo, even if it means a grimmer reality for society as a whole. Dynamism and innovation, qualities found in societies on the rise, is discouraged and all but muted.
At this point, I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Huntington’s message so far is about as popular as the onset of malaria.
Then again, as with Jeremiah’s pleadings, Huntington believes things can be turned around. He perceives, however, two competing philosophies inhibiting any such societal restoration.
One, he sees a real danger in multiculturalism. Rather than valuing the strengths of Western Civilization or the “American Creed,” multiculturalism rejects the uniqueness and importance of our culture, deferring to a “tangle of squabbling nationalities,” as Theodore Roosevelt once put it. Simply put, we lose a sense of what it means to be American.
The other danger has to do with foreign relations. Here, with no small irony, we commit the opposite error, that of denying an increasingly multicultural world, i.e., our multipolar world. We indulge in the futile and even dangerous effort to force Western values on others, as if they were universally applicable. This, Huntington assures, is surely a fool’s errand.
The new world in which we live has many civilizations comprised of varying cultural beliefs and traditions. Thus, the illusion that the West is, or should be, in charge of it all no longer applies. That ship has sailed.
Instead, Huntington argues that “the prudent course for the West is not to attempt to stop the shift in power [among today’s newly emerging civilizations] but to learn to navigate the shallows, endure the miseries, moderate its ventures, and safeguard its culture.”
In short, we should stop trying to run the world and commit to reclaiming the uniqueness of the American Creed, that of “liberty, democracy, individualism, equality before the law, constitutionalism, private property.” Domestically, we should stop trying to be all things to all people. Conversely, in foreign affairs, we must recognize that other cultures exist, and that we would do well to seek common ground rather than imposing our values on a vast segment of the world increasingly resistant, if not hostile, to them.
Yet abandoning our “king of the mountain” status does not come easily. By refusing to do so, however, we face great risk: “Western universalism is dangerous,” Harrington prophesies, “because it could lead to a major intercivilizational war between core states and it is dangerous to the West because it could lead to defeat of the West.”
As we risk blundering into a nuclear showdown with Russia, perhaps it would be wise to consider Huntington’s “jeremiad.” For he too warns that unless we humbly return to our roots, we shall perish.
Of course, it’s nearly impossible for Americans, just as it was for Jerusalem, to believe such a thing, especially when we still seemingly hold all the cards. Harder still would be the wholesale reevaluation of who we are as a people. Such would mean, perhaps most especially, the kind of humility we do not generally welcome. I mean, we like being top dog, don’t we?
The solution, however, is not to give up the ship or wave the white flag. Just the opposite. Instead, we need to reestablish a sincere appreciation for the unique and largely non-transferrable gifts of Western tradition. This would require relearning what it means to be American, to value our culture, and to earnestly strive to make it healthy once again.
The alternative is what I fear I’m seeing today, especially as it relates to our current involvement overseas – a weak, degenerate, frightened culture filled with hubris, false bravado, and hollow idealism.
Of course, as both Jeremiah and Huntington apprise, the choice of where we go from here is up to us.
Sadly, I have to agree with everything that Huntington and you have said. During these times I am reminded of The Roman Empire. We could easily end up the way they did.