Woodrow Wilson unleashed some nasty asps of public policy on
the world, the venom of which continues to work its misery on mankind. Professor Wilson as President pushed into
practice the idea that American governance should be shifted from the people
who elect Senators and representatives and entrusted instead to a cadre of wise
men in the executive branch. Experts
like himself, elite college professors and their best students, would know
better how to manage the affairs of others than would the teaming masses of the
nation left to make their own decisions.
Today, thousands of regulations, uncounted yards of red
tape, and millions of bureaucrats later, we all live within a shrinking sphere
of personal liberty, with diminishing control of our lives, permitted to make
few decisions without someone we do not know having a major say in so much of
what we have and do. Increasing numbers of
our neighbors have effectively been rendered wards of the state, unable to
manage their own lives without dependence upon a myriad of government programs
that punish individual initiative and grind up families. Today, the most reliable predictor of poverty
in America
is being a single mother. Lured into the
web of sweet-sounding sticky federal, state, and even local programs that
promise help, these government victims are rarely delivered from poverty, and
neither are their children or their grandchildren. This is surely not what Woodrow Wilson
intended, but it is surely what his model of governance by experts has
delivered. Obamacare is one of the most
recent and obvious examples of this machinery of misery.
Yet it can be argued that nothing that Woodrow Wilson
bequeathed has worked more harm than the destructive principle of “self
determination,” imposed by Wilson and his international experimenters at the
negotiations to rearrange the world after World War I. Of course, he did not act alone, but Wilson did
much to make the world safe for World War II.
Self determination worked its evil by institutionalizing perpetual
turmoil in eastern Europe and the Balkans, as bickering and unstable
micro-states created a power vacuum tempting for fuehrers and commissars to
fill.
The concept of self determination can seem appealing as long
as you do not pause long enough to consider how it might actually play out in
practice and over time. The basic
idea—and it does not go very far past this basic idea—is that every group of
people has the right to find its own place in the sun, either with its own
government or subject to another, whichever the group might wish.
It was this idea that Russian boss Vladimir Putin invoked to
cloak his grab of Crimea. The people of
Crimea had a vote (carefully monitored by Russian troops) in which over 95%
said that they wanted to break away from Ukraine . And then they decided, almost the next day,
that they wanted to become a part of Russia . According to the Russian Government, this was
all very legal and in keeping with international law. It was self determination. Who could object? It was more than faintly reminiscent of the
nearly unanimous votes in the nations of eastern Europe a generation ago—when
occupied by the Red Army—in favor of communist regimes closely allied with the old
Soviet Union. More self determination.
I wonder whether Professor/President Woodrow Wilson thought
of how his principle of self determination would have worked in American
history? What if Wilson
instead of Lincoln
had been President in 1861? Did self
determination apply to the people of the southern states who wished to leave
the Union ?
I also wonder how dedicated Vladimir Putin really is to the
principle of self determination? If it
applies to Crimea, does it also apply to the people of Chechnya , who seem to be eager to be out of Russia ? Are there other minority populations in Russia
yearning to breathe free?
How about elsewhere in the world? Is self determination a universal principle
worthy of universal application? Are Turkey , Syria ,
Iraq , and Iran ready to let the Kurdish minorities carve
up their countries and realize their dream of a new Kurdistan ? How about Muslim minorities in southern islands
of the Philippines? The Tamil populated
northern Sri Lanka ? The Sunni-majority communities in Shiite
majority Iraq ? The multitude of tribal groupings in
virtually every country of sub-Saharan Africa ? Are all of the many minorities of China content with being governed by Beijing ?
When would the bloodletting of self determination ever end? It has not ended yet, whether used as a justification for aggression or as a means of sustaining discontent. It is a ponderous legacy.
When would the bloodletting of self determination ever end? It has not ended yet, whether used as a justification for aggression or as a means of sustaining discontent. It is a ponderous legacy.