Poll: The Coming Century
Editor's Note: This summer we polled half a dozen historians to find out what they thought would happen during the coming century. Their responses were scheduled to be published the week the World Trade Center was destroyed. Only now, some four weeks later, do we dare share them. The misplaced hopes, open partisanship, or detachment from world events just seemed obsolete and grossly out of step with the new mood of the country.
Our small group of historians included a best selling author, a Pulitzer Prize winner, and several Ivy League school professors. Highly esteemed as they are, we have chosen not to identify them. To do so would be to hold them up for ridicule as if they alone had missed the clues to what was to come.
Eric Foner declined to submit a prediction, but in declining appeared clairvoyant."I am a bit loathe to predict the future," Foner explained,"since almost everything of interest or importance that happens in history comes as a big surprise."
Historian Thomas Fleming submitted his response following the 9-11 bombing. We are publishing it separately. (Click here to read Mr. Fleming's piece.)
THE BIOGRAPHER
For the immediate future, I am not very optimistic. I think we may have serious economic problems that will not be cured by Bush's tax cut or interest rate cuts. I'm also troubled by an administration that has few, if any, imaginative solutions to big problems about the world environment and arms control. This missile shield is a poor idea and will probably touch off an arms race. We seem to be in a period of low expectations from government and the president, a sort of post-1919 reaction against assertive government and involvement abroad. Of course, the year 2001 is vastly different from 1920, but there are similarities that are disturbing. For the long run, I am more optimistic. After all, we are a nation of vast wealth and resources. And as problems become more pronounced, which I believe they will, we will seek stronger leadership and more considered judgments on how to proceed.
THE CIVIL WAR HISTORIAN
If John Paul Stevens and Patrick Leahy can stay alive until 2005, I think the repbulic can still be saved. Helpful too would be a stirring liberal as Democratic candidate for president in 2004. That's as far into the future as I can face facing.
THE DIPLOMATIC HISTORIAN
When Charles Dickens in 1859 described the French Revolution as the"the best of times, the worst of times," he had a truly profound insight into the modern condition. For with that revolution began an era that has been and is still characterized by its contradictory directions. To put it in its starkest terms, one analyst found that just the largest of"democides" (mass murder outside the context of warfare; generally, governments killing their own citizens) in the short twentieth century amounted to 169 million lives. At the same time, life in the democratic, liberal, capitalist countries has evolved to a level of health, security, liberty, and affluence far beyond anything experienced in prior human history.
The twenty-first century will likely continue and even extend this paradoxical evolution. Indeed, the contrast between what one book calls the zones of peace and the zones of turmoil is likely to turn into the great issue of the century, greater than any caused by differing ideology, ethnicity, or religion. Life in the zones of peace will be great; in the zones of turmoil it will be awful. My assessment of the century ahead depends on whether the zone of peace expands or becomes a ghetto (as a percentage of the world population, Europe is expected to shrink by nearly 2/3s over the period 1950-2025). It's a tough call, but I more optimistic than not, for no matter what rancor, envy, and hatred the human heart shields, the pursuit of happiness in the end should prevail over baser sentiments.
THE 18TH CENTURY HISTORIAN
I can't really claim to have, though I say this with embarrassment, any very profound convictions about the future. Certainly none of a professional character. Remember, my historical base is the eighteenth century; I feel proud to have acknowledged the existence of the 20th in a few writings of recent years; the 21st (which is, I think, no longer coming) is a bigger stretch. I'll reflect on this a bit, but I think I'd best decline. But thanks for the invitation.