Look Up

A week ago I got to see Captain America: The Winter Soldier. I wasn’t always a Captain America fan; I wasn’t a comic book fan. But I was totally won over with the first movie. So much fun! And, better, so much love for truth, justice, and the American way. In other words, love of civilization, which works for every country, for every group of people, that tries it. I know there’s a lot of fighting and mayhem in these movies, but that’s just for entertainment; the underlying idea here is very pro-civilization.

The villain in this latest movie is played by Robert Redford. He played it pretty much as always—likable and believably self-justifying, which he does whether playing a bad guy or not. We liked him as a thief in The Sting and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. In this one he’s calm, “reasoning,” and politically slick. His character, Alexander Pierce, is described on IMDB.com this way:

A high-ranking S.H.I.E.L.D. agent and personal friend of Nick Fury, Alexander Pierce is respected and politically connected. Often the person who interfaces with prominent world officials, Pierce is polished and well spoken, and presents a credible face to the world on behalf of S.H.I.E.L.D.”

They’re avoiding spoilers, but I don’t think it’s too much of a spoiler to just come out and say he’s the villain. You can see from the trailer, if you’re paying attention, that Captain America doesn’t trust him, and that’s all you need to know.

What interested me was the character’s common error, that there are only two choices: chaos or control—and of course any power monger wants to be among the elite exerting control. Here’s how it shows up in the trailer (definitely not from one continuous scene).

Capt. A: I joined S.H.I.E.L.D. to protect people.

Pierce: Captain, to build a better world sometimes means tearing the old one down. And that makes enemies…. Look out the window. You know how the game works: disorder, war. All it takes is one step.

Fury: We’re gonna neutralize a lot of threats before they even happen.

Capt. A: I thought the punishment usually came after the crime…. This isn’t freedom; this is fear.

Pierce: “Your work has been a gift to mankind. You’ve shaped the century. And I need you to do it one more time.

Then, before Captain America even leaves the building, Pierce declares him an enemy of the state and sends his team to take him out, which they attempt to do without questioning orders.
 

 

Pierce fits the same mold as Lenin, Stalin, Hitler: use chaos—create it if necessary—so the people will crave order and turn to anyone who offers it. Putin is doing essentially that in Ukraine this month: send in Russian operatives; claim there is disorder within Ukraine, and unfairness to the ethnic Russians who have been living within Crimea and eastern Ukraine; and then send in forces “to offer order” of the type and style Putin personally prefers, regardless of what people living in the region might want. (In response, we could use more Captain America and less ineffectual.)

In the Captain America movie, the protector of civilization doesn’t carry out a philosophical conversation with the power monger. He doesn’t use Spherical Model language, saying, “You don’t understand; there’s a whole northern hemisphere you’re ignoring. Chaos and control are not the only two options. We can have freedom, prosperity, and civilization—all we need is a critical mass of people choosing to live according to the known northern hemisphere principles.” I admit I kind of wished he had. But the movie was probably more entertaining as written.

Captain America doesn’t use a lot of words; he acts. But always according to principle. And in this movie the civilizing principle includes loyalty to an old friend, and forgiveness along the lines of “forgive him, for he knows not what he does.” And there are hints at the end of the movie that this good-heartedness is going to pay off in the future. If you’ve read the comic book series, maybe you already know.

What we can know, in the real world, is that choosing freedom, free enterprise, and civilization leads to better outcomes—every time—than choosing between chaos and control with their associated savagery. That ought to be obvious. But it takes looking up. As we see with Captain America, doing the right thing simple but not always easy. But you do it because it’s right.

Long Game Players

There’s plenty to worry about without even looking at international relations, but sometimes you need to do what you don’t want to.

I wrote last week about Syria, all I want to write and beyond. But I’ve had a specific question about our president and his long-term strategy. I’ve talked this over with the Spherical Model household, and we seem to have a consensus opinion in answer to my puzzlement.

It is a given that our president is a power monger. He loves control, and seeks more control wherever he can get it. Nevertheless, he acts in ways that weaken the United States on the international scene—apology tour, leading from behind, setting red lines which he manages by hoping they won’t be crossed and then dithering when they are. He has verbalized his belief that America is no more exceptional than any other country, and he believes we have been arrogant, so he is purposely taking us down a few pegs.

Here at home he seems pleased that the economy falters and sputters, and gleefully proud that more and more people become dependent on government. He has devalued the dollar, and our credit rating, to the point that we are at serious risk of losing our economic status in the world. He seems pleased at this new depressing normal.

So my question is, why would someone who seeks ever increasing degrees of power act in ways that reduce his status? What is his long game?

Does he see a path from what he is doing to increased power, such that he could leap from the lowly position of US President to something bigger, something more global?

I think he does see that path. I think he holds the belief that claiming connection with the Europeans and third-world nations, letting them know he’s not like the rest of us ugly Americans, will raise his image in their eyes. And their eyes are more important to him than the eyes of his fellow Americans, who are beneath him—evident in the sneering and condescension showing up his ubiquitous speeches.

He’s the un-American president. It’s a little like that phrase “compassionate conservative”; it implies that the special “compassionate” ones are different from the run-of-the-mill conservatives, who are, then, by definition, compassionless.  He thinks of himself as something other than American, and he believes that having such a self-perception makes him more appealing to the world.

But, as in most things (maybe everything) he is wrong wrong wrong! No thinking person in any country actually likes our president for his anti-Americanism. If they are our enemies, and thus anti-American themselves, they might like what he is doing—the less for them to fight against. But no one supports him as a better leader for tearing down the world’s greatest country—the economic, social, and freedom dream of the oppressed everywhere. No one trusts him as reliable. No one would say, “He’s so wise; why don’t we make him ruler of the world?”

So, if he is a power monger (and I think that is evident), and if he sees the US presidency as merely a career step to even greater power, then the logical conclusion is--he must be deluded.

On the bright side, concerns about him becoming the Left-Behind-Series style anti-Christ world tyrant are unnecessary. Likely his future role will be a more feckless Jimmy Carter, occasionally sniping from the sidelines, but without a listening public.

Do we need to worry instead about Putin? I’m not sure. After the “rescue” Putin did to dissuade the president from a Syrian strike, the metaphor was going around that Obama was playing cards while Putin was owning him at three-dimensional chess.

Star Trek 3D Chess
image found here

I was an adult by the end of the Cold War, so I’m beyond trusting anyone from the KGB. I’m sure Putin wants increased power, and I’m sure he’s playing an actual long game to get it. But I have my doubts that he can do it.

There’s a new book by Ilan Berman, called Implosion, subtitled, The End of Russia and What It Means for America. The author spoke with Michael Medved on radio Thursday (last third of first hour; these details come from that conversation). Much of his theory relates to demographics. Russian culture and people, Slavic Christians we could say, are disappearing. Russians lose half a million of their population a year, to death and out-migration. Life expectancy for men is about 60 years, a good two decades shorter than American men. Women live longer, to about 73, but still on par with Saudi Arabia, well short of Western longevity. Birth rates are well below replacement. The population will be 25% smaller, and still shrinking, by mid-century.

Meanwhile immigrant Muslims abort less, drink less, and support the traditional family more, so their numbers are growing. Some projections show Muslims will reach 50% of the population by 2050, subsuming the native population.

Young Russians are leaving in droves. A shocking 40% of 18-35-year-olds are considering leaving the country. The most popular Russian blog is titled (translated) “Time to Scram.” In the US and Canada there are large, thriving Russian populations, including scientists, engineers, symphony musicians. When a country is bleeding so many if it’s intellectual talent, that’s a county in trouble. And as long as the country continues as an uncertain threat to intellectual property, the bleeding will continue.

So, while Putin is posturing as powerful on the international stage, his country is floundering at home. It is my guess Putin will not be able to satisfy his power mongering hunger either.

Here's the better, Spherical Model long game: limited government that fills the role of protecting natural rights, free enterprise, adherence to the Ten Commandments, and strong families may not lead to world domination but will lead to unequaled flourishing.