Back to Basics :: Herbert I. London

When the American history of the late twentieth century is written, my suspicion is that it will be called the Era of Experimentation. Ideas from the sublime, such as the discovery of DNA, to the ridiculous, such as the “curative waters” of Esalen, will be plumbed in an effort to make sense of that period.

Although it is probably premature to attach a label to the beginning of the new century, I sense that there is a general attitude coming into focus, predicated on the rejection of absurd experimentation. In its most elemental form I would describe this current attitude as “back to basics.” It is already evident from relatively trifling issues, like dieting, to serious ones, such as American foreign policy. Perhaps a few specific examples would be helpful.

For decades Americans were told that eating was fun and losing weight easy. An industry was created around weight-loss fads. There was the ice-cream diet, the water diet, the Atkins diet, “magic” pills, Weight Watchers, and a host of other regimens. But it is now indisputably clear to millions of overweight Americans that the way to lose weight is simply to use more calories than you consume. This isn’t hocus-pocus, but basic arithmetic. Conversely, should someone consume 2,500 calories a day, but maintain an activity level of 2,000 calories, the waist and hips will expand.

If there is one area of life where experiments have been tried continually over the past century, it is education. From the open classroom to whole language study to the new math, educators displayed extraordinary imagination in organizing dubious programs. Students were told that memorization is wrong, process is more important than outcomes, specifics in history (such as dates) are unimportant, and all subjects are a reflection of power politics in one form or another.

After years of such nonsense, President Bush and U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige have argued for a return to drills, phonics, and “old-fashioned” methods of pedagogy. To the astonishment of many, even the teachers’ unions seem to embrace this emerging standard, perhaps due in no small part to the obvious failure of the experiments they once adopted.

American business has seemingly come to its senses as well. In the high-octane economy of the late 1990s, it was easy to believe that price-earnings ratios don’t count and that the laws of financial transactions had been repealed by the New Economy. Now that the bubble has burst, and it has become increasingly evident that corporate valuations in the 1990s were often fictional, fundamentals have regained appeal. Value rather than growth is suddenly in vogue. Earnings—once dismissed by a Wall Street guru as telling you nothing important about a company—are once again seen as the most important indicator of a company’s strength.

Even psychology, that great warren of ridiculous ideas, is reevaluating its past and recommending logical and, I might add, obvious recommendations on everything from child development to courtship. The 1960s recipe for self-actualization led to one accident after another on the rocky shoals of freedom-without-limits. There is an unavoidable price to pay for instant gratification; “If it feels good, do it” died with a generation of strung-out drug addicts.

Moreover, the contention, “If you’ve got it, flaunt it,” is wrong as well, as many have learned the hard way. Show-offs are usually knocked off their pedestal. Walk humbly in the face of God is reemerging as a welcome code of deportment, even though Hollywood hasn’t yet imbibed that message.

The father of America, George Washington, warned against entangling alliances. For most of our history these words led directly to foreign-policy positions, including but not restricted to America’s unwillingness to join the League of Nations. During World War II, Franklin Roosevelt challenged this belief with his assumption that only through a global organization could international equilibrium be established.

He was not entirely wrong: United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations have proved to be invaluable in several trouble spots. But when preparations for the Iraq war were stalled through UN resolutions and a Security Council veto, America’s independence to act in behalf of its interests on the world stage was adversely affected. It is not at all surprising that President Bush stated he wanted UN support for the war but would not be deterred by UN objections. In fact, what he was saying is consistent with America’s traditional foreign policy position.

If the nation has indeed begun to come to its senses and reject the extreme experiments of the last half of the twentieth century, it is nonetheless true that believers in hoaxes and fantasies will not disappear. Not only is a sucker born every minute, but it is often impossible to dispel silly ideas even with rational argument and incontrovertible evidence. Nonetheless, there are hopeful signs. The “back to basics” philosophy appears to be catching on. As soon as buttons appear with the letters BTB on them, and red, white, and blue ribbons are worn on everyone’s lapel, the counter-revolution will be in full swing. Who knows, perhaps the new century will be the Age of Restoration. It happened after Napoleon; maybe now it will happen after Dr. Spock.

receive the latest by email: subscribe to herbert i. london's free mailing list