Let’s talk worldviews. Facing the reality of a world war, Woodrow Wilson said in his second inaugural address, “matters have more and more forced themselves upon our attention, matters lying outside our own life…and over which we had no control…It has been impossible to avoid them….” Ever feel that way? You know, things, circumstances, and events are out of your control? That a storm of war is upon you?
In that speech, Wilson said Americans could no longer consider themselves provincials, “We are a composite and cosmopolitan people…We are of the blood of all the nations that are at war.” And now here you are, a hundred years later trying to mind your own business while “matters” force “themselves upon your attention.” So, you, like the Americans of the early twentieth century, have a dilemma. Do you get involved? Can you insulate yourself from all that swirls in the encompassing hurricane of problems? Can you pull in, say “I’m not getting involved,” and remove yourself? Arguing friends, arguing relatives. My gosh! Arguing neighbors and townspeople. Arguing. Arguing. Arguing.
You want an easy answer, don’t you? You want me to give you an easy guide. Would you be happy if I said, “The right thing to do is to follow Woodrow Wilson’s steps and get involved, because, as he says in that speech, ‘armed neutrality…is worse than ineffectual.’” Or would you be happy if I said, “Chill; it’s their problem. Just get out of the way and go about doing your own stuff.”
You really do have a dilemma. You say to yourself, “I didn’t start all this stuff; I didn’t start the bickering or all the petty foolishness. If I get involved, I’ll be drawn into a protracted ‘war.’ If I don’t get involved, I’ll be drawn into a protracted ‘war.’” So, there you are, just like Woodrow Wilson. The guy didn’t want to get involved before the war started, but he found out that he couldn’t maintain the provincialism that had been his view. Germany was violating the peace on the high seas in its “warfare against mankind.” Its ships attacked American commercial vessels and even “hospital ships.”
You can run, but only in the life of a hermit will you find a nonthreatening provincialism—that is, if you are totally resigned to who you are at the moment. You and I both know that there is a self-belligerency in the questions that always arise: “Am I happy?” “Is this all there is to life?” “Is this what I want to be?” “Am I happy just watching a world in turmoil?” “Do I really live in the eye of the hurricane?”
Maybe you think you live in the eye. You think not getting involved is always the best course of action. For me the best course is cosmopolitanism. The winds of a hurricane are most violent at the boundary of the eye, at the eyewall. That’s the tough part to get through, but then the winds lessen. You know that you are going to be hit by the storm, regardless of your desire to remain in the peaceful eye. Either you get involved on your terms, or the storm will involve you on its terms.
In that speech, Wilson said Americans could no longer consider themselves provincials, “We are a composite and cosmopolitan people…We are of the blood of all the nations that are at war.” And now here you are, a hundred years later trying to mind your own business while “matters” force “themselves upon your attention.” So, you, like the Americans of the early twentieth century, have a dilemma. Do you get involved? Can you insulate yourself from all that swirls in the encompassing hurricane of problems? Can you pull in, say “I’m not getting involved,” and remove yourself? Arguing friends, arguing relatives. My gosh! Arguing neighbors and townspeople. Arguing. Arguing. Arguing.
You want an easy answer, don’t you? You want me to give you an easy guide. Would you be happy if I said, “The right thing to do is to follow Woodrow Wilson’s steps and get involved, because, as he says in that speech, ‘armed neutrality…is worse than ineffectual.’” Or would you be happy if I said, “Chill; it’s their problem. Just get out of the way and go about doing your own stuff.”
You really do have a dilemma. You say to yourself, “I didn’t start all this stuff; I didn’t start the bickering or all the petty foolishness. If I get involved, I’ll be drawn into a protracted ‘war.’ If I don’t get involved, I’ll be drawn into a protracted ‘war.’” So, there you are, just like Woodrow Wilson. The guy didn’t want to get involved before the war started, but he found out that he couldn’t maintain the provincialism that had been his view. Germany was violating the peace on the high seas in its “warfare against mankind.” Its ships attacked American commercial vessels and even “hospital ships.”
You can run, but only in the life of a hermit will you find a nonthreatening provincialism—that is, if you are totally resigned to who you are at the moment. You and I both know that there is a self-belligerency in the questions that always arise: “Am I happy?” “Is this all there is to life?” “Is this what I want to be?” “Am I happy just watching a world in turmoil?” “Do I really live in the eye of the hurricane?”
Maybe you think you live in the eye. You think not getting involved is always the best course of action. For me the best course is cosmopolitanism. The winds of a hurricane are most violent at the boundary of the eye, at the eyewall. That’s the tough part to get through, but then the winds lessen. You know that you are going to be hit by the storm, regardless of your desire to remain in the peaceful eye. Either you get involved on your terms, or the storm will involve you on its terms.
RSS Feed