Ignatius: What the ghosts of 1918 would have to say
What would the ghosts of 1918 — not just the soldiers who were slaughtered in the trenches of World War I, but the statesmen who failed to make a durable peace afterward — tell politicians a century later about the perilous world we inhabit today?
Ruminations about past and present are inescapable this week. America just finished a snarling, bitterly divisive election, and we’re all puzzling over how to interpret the results. President Trump, meanwhile, heads for Paris this weekend to commemorate the armistice of what historian Margaret MacMillan has called “the war that ended peace.”
I asked some of my historian friends to reflect on the lessons of 1918 for our post-election America. They cited some common themes: the fragility of the world order, then and now; the big, sometimes disastrous outcomes that can begin with small events at the margins; the moral hubris that dooms inflexible leaders to failure; and the humility that allows great leaders to see events through the eyes of adversaries, and thereby avert disaster.
Let’s start with the issue of leadership. Trump in his first two years unfortunately has played the role of divider-in-chief. He tends to see himself as the victim in every drama, which makes it almost impossible to empathize with critics. When he sees a scab healing over a racial or ethnic wound, he often rips it off. He has turned resentment into a potent national movement.
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/ignatius-what-the-ghosts-of-1918-would-have-to-say/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=f95dc85c10-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-f95dc85c10-228635337
