This post was originally published in 2017 under the title, "When Hindsight Is Blind Sight, History Comes to the Rescue." Although written five years ago, it is just as applicable today, hence the addition of "still" to the title.
Chances are, most of you are familiar with the
phrase “Hindsight is 20/20.” The idea is that when we look back on certain
choices or events we are able to see more clearly what course should have been
taken or why it was imperative or fortunate that we took the course we did.
Closely related is the principle that we can and should learn from our
mistakes, and there is certainly an element of truth to these concepts, but
there is also a flipside.
The opposite of 20/20 hindsight is what I’ll
call the “Good Ol’ Days syndrome,” i.e. looking at the past through
rose-colored glasses resulting in (or perhaps resulting from) a chronic
dissatisfaction with life as it is in the present, a discontentment with
circumstances and with society, a pining for the glory days when all was
well--or at least better--with the world. This kind of past-gazing, I’ve
found, is rarely 20/20. In fact, it’s more akin to blindness. How so? Let’s
explore a bit...
Have you noticed lately that there have been
increasing cries for unity in America as constituents, pundits, and politicians
alike bemoan the harsh and often vitriolic tirades that are so prevalent all
across the political spectrum? Certainly verbal assaults and physical violence
are uncalled for and are rightly rejected, but a careful observance of the
sentiments expressed by those who point out just how out of hand the political
culture is becoming reveals that there is a good bit of the “Good Ol’ Days
syndrome” sneaking in.
Time and time again, I’ve heard pundits and
commentators remark, “I haven’t seen anything like this in my lifetime,” or,
“Tensions are higher than they’ve ever been, at least in my time.” And maybe
they are, but the implication is that our current state is far worse than
anything most people have seen. Woe are us.
What so many seem to be missing is the fact
that, in many ways, the level of hostility among us is nowhere near what it was
during numerous periods of our country’s past. To illustrate this point, let’s
play a game, shall we?
Below are three sections with several
statements each, all describing the state of affairs of a given time in
American history. Read them and decide if you think that given time is today
(i.e. 21st century) or not.
Section 1:
a.
Critics of
the President highly object to his extended absences from the capital.
b.
A
high-profile individual expressly wishes bodily harm to befall the President.
c.
People who
previously were cordial, even close friends, go out of their way to avoid each
other due to deep ideological differences.
d.
Differences
of opinion and conviction result in physical violence.
e.
Divisions
exist not just between parties but within parties as well.
f.
The media
uses inflammatory language to rile up supporters and opponents of the
administration and of each party.
Section 2:
a.
Americans
find that politicians in neither party represent their views.
b.
Members of
Congress take personal offense at the President’s decisions and let that
offense influence their vote on bills.
c.
The
Secretary of State, nurturing Presidential aims, calculates what advice to give
to the President in such a way as to be able to benefit from association with
the administration if things go well yet to avoid blame if things go badly.
Section 3:
a.
Campaign
financing is corrupt.
b.
Immigrants
not yet eligible for citizenship are allowed to vote anyway.
c.
Party
workers incentivize specific ethnic groups to win their votes.
d.
Partisan
media outlets use extreme language and condone violence against their
ideological opponents.
Section 4:
a.
A former
President rebukes the incumbent, accusing him of hypocrisy and immorality for
his positions.
b.
A man
disgruntled with the current political system detonates a bomb in the middle of
a crowded street.
So what do you think? Would you be surprised to
learn that the statements in Section 1 all describe the late 1790s, that those
in Section 2 describe the 1840s, those in Section 3, the 1850s, and in Section
4, the 1910s-1920? Take a look below the signature in this post to see the
exact years and exposition on each statement from David McCullough’s biography John
Adams for Section 1, Robert W. Merry’s A Country of Vast Designs
(Section 2), James M. McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom (Section 3), and
David Pietrusza’s 1920: The Year of the Six Presidents (Section 4). It’s
fascinating stuff, largely because the similarities to today are so striking.
So what are we to learn from this? Well for
one, we’re really not worse off today than we’ve ever been. Granted, I
am in no way diminishing the seriousness of the current climate. Instead, I’m
hoping to put it in perspective, helping us make more informed and relevant
observations, which in turn can lead to more effective solutions. When it comes
to observations, here are just a few:
1. There is
nothing new under the sun.
When we see tensions rise, slurs abound, and
vilification of “the other” increase, we don’t need to be surprised or think
that these are new human phenomena. Sure, the specifics might change, but the
underlying issues are the same, which brings me to my next observation:
2. Man is
fallen.
We deal with the same issues as our forebears
because we, like they, are human, and there are certain things that are always
(with the exception of Jesus’ case) included in being human after the Fall—namely,
a sinful nature. Because we inherit the fallen nature of our first ancestors,
we are given to pride, selfishness, anger, hatred, callousness, and the list
goes on. We are, in short, at complete odds with our Creator who also happens
to be the supreme God of the universe.
When we understand this fact about ourselves,
we begin to see why there is so much commonality across eras, and we see that,
while there is capacity for good in humanity because we are made in the image
of God, our default is evil because that image has been marred by selfish
rebellion. This leads to the next point:
3. Only an
outside Entity can effect the fundamental heart-transformation that is
necessary for changed conduct.
There are schools of thought that either posit
that we are inherently and overridingly good or that we are somewhat defective
but on our way to becoming the best version of ourselves, evolving into a purer
state. Yet the reality of the steadiness of vice across generations should be
evidence enough to convince anyone otherwise.
The very fact that the same division and
viciousness among fellow humans exists today as it did in each previous decade,
century, and millennium shows that no amount of education or legislation can
root out the evil seed in our hearts. The only solution is for us to get new
hearts, for our souls to be made alive, and this can only happen “by grace,
through faith” in Jesus Christ’s life, death, and resurrection for us (see
Ephesians 2:8-9).
So we want to work towards a more unified
nation? A more compassionate and considerate citizenry? Let’s do a heart check,
examining our own lives for evidence of belief and one-step-at-a-time change
(i.e. sanctification). Once we, through faith, have received a new heart from
God, then let’s help others examine their own hearts, lovingly, graciously,
walking them through the process of assessing their own lives and their own
standing before God and helping them discover the new life that is to be found
in Jesus.
As God draws us closer to Himself, we can lose
those rose-colored hindsight glasses, put off the “Good Ol’ Days syndrome,”
and, with imparted wisdom, start using our understanding of the past to inform
our present and shape our future.
1a. 1799: “Convinced he could run the
government as well from Quincy as at Philadelphia [then the nation’s capital], [John]
Adams stretched his stay at home from late March to September, fully seven
months. From the views expressed by his vociferous critics, it was hard to say
which annoyed them more, his presence at the capital or his absence. At worst,
his absence seemed an arrogant abdication of responsibility. At best, it seemed
a kind of eccentric scholarly detachment” (McCullough, 526).
1b. 1799: “Another riled Federalist [of the
same party as Adams], Robert G. Harper of South Carolina, Hamilton’s chief
spokesman in the House, privately expressed the hope that on Adams’s way home
to Quincy, his horses might run away with him and break his neck” (McCullough,
524).
1c. 1797: “Feelings ran deep, dividing the
parties, dividing old friends. ‘Men who have been intimate all their lives,’
wrote [Thomas] Jefferson, ‘cross the streets to avoid meeting and turn their
heads another way, lest they should be obliged to touch their hats’”
(McCullough, 493).
1d. 1798: “Vicious animosity of a kind
previously confined to newspaper attacks broke out in the first physical
assault to occur in Congress. In the midst of debate, when Federalist Roger
Griswold of Connecticut insulted Republican [not to be confused with the modern
Republican party] Matthew Lyon of Vermont, Lyon crossed the chamber and spat in
Griswold’s face. Soon after, Griswold retaliated with a cane. Lyon grabbed fire
tongs from the fireplace, and the two went at each other until, kicking and
rolling on the floor, they were pulled apart” (McCullough, 494).
1e-f. 1797: “Regional and party differences
had made a tinderbox of American politics. It was not only that Republicans
were divided from Federalists, but Federalists were sharply at odds with
themselves, and the role of the strident, often vicious press was changing the
whole political atmosphere” (McCullough, 484).
2a. 1844
“Whatever might be said about the eloquence and soundness of these arguments
[on whether or not to annex Texas], their underlying significance was clear:
The political establishment of both parties had taken a position at variance
with the strong sentiment of the broad electorate” (Merry, 77).
2b. 1846 “By July 11 [President Polk] feared many northeastern
Democrats [members of his own party] would line up against the [tariff] bill—in
part, he surmised, because of lingering animosities over his patronage
decisions. ‘There is more selfishness among members of Congress which is made
to bear upon great public measures, than the people have any knowledge of,’ he
wrote” (Merry, 274).
2c. 1848: “Polk
wasn’t fooled by [Secretary of State] Buchanan’s machinations. Though the
conversation was ‘unpleasant to me,’ he put in his diary, ‘. . . I thought I
ought to rebuke him, and let him understand that I understood the motive that
governed him”—namely, Buchanan’s presidential ambition. He wished Polk to send
up the treaty [ending the Mexican-American War] against his advice because he
would then be well positioned irrespective of the outcome. ‘If it was received
well by the country,’ speculated the president, ‘being a member of my
administration, he would not be injured by it in his Presidential aspirations,
for these govern all his opinions and acts lately; but if, on the other hand,
it should not be received well, he could say, ‘I advised against it’” (Merry,
428).
3a-c. 1856, 1858: “The War
and Navy departments had awarded contracts without competitive bidding to firms
that made contributions to the Democratic party. Postmasters in New York and
Chicago under both [Presidents] Pierce and Buchanan had siphoned public funds
into party coffers for years. Democrats had used some of this money in
congressional contests in 1858. They had also bribed judges to naturalize
immigrants prematurely so they could vote in the crucial states of Pennsylvania
and Indiana in 1856, and had “colonized” Irish railroad construction workers in
Indiana to help swing that state to Buchanan” (McPherson, 226).
3d. 1856: “The Richmond
Enquirer pronounced ‘the act [of caning Senator Charles Sumner] good in
conception, better in execution, and best of all in consequence. The vulgar
Abolitionists in the Senate are getting above themselves. . . . They have grown
saucy, and dare to be impudent to gentlemen! . . . The truth is, they have been
suffered to run too long without collars. They must be lashed into submission’”
(McPherson, 151).
4a. 1917 Teddy
Roosevelt on a Woodrow Wilson speech: “I do not regard any speech as a great
speech when it is obviously hypocritical and in bad faith; nor do I regard the
making of such a speech of service to the world. I regard it as a damage to the
cause of morality and decency. So far as concerns what Wilson has done in the
past few months, I think on the whole it has been badly done; and, what is
more, that it has been badly done because of very evil traits on his part” (in
Pietrusza, 62).
4b. 1920 “When
authorities indicted [anarchists] Sacco and Vanzetti (‘the best friends I had
in America,’ said Buda), he swore revenge on the capitalist system and headed
for New York. After obtaining a horse and wagon—and a hundred pounds of
dynamite—Buda, at noon on Monday, September 16, parked at Wall and Broad
Streets, in front of the House of Morgan. [...] A minute later, 12:01 P.M.—lunchtime,
with the streets packed with workers—hell broke loose. Five hundred pounds of
shrapnel perforated the sky. [...] The blast would eventually claim
thirty-three lives” (Pietrusza, 153).
Sources:
McCullough, David. John Adams. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2001.
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom.
New York: Ballantine Books, 1989.
Merry, Robert W. A Country of Vast Designs.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 2009.
Pietrusza, David. 1920: The Year of the Six
Presidents. New York: Basic Books, 2007.
.jpg)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
