Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, January 27, 1992 TAG: 9201290300
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-9 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: MARSHALL FISHWICK
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
MYSTERIOUS PARALLELS
A YEAR ago this month it began: Desert Shield became Desert Storm, and the nation held its breath. Another war - a "good" war like World War II or a "bad" one like Vietnam? How well would our troops - with their new high-tech but largely untried weapons - respond? Would we get bogged down in the sand and heat? Would our flimsy alliances hold? Would neighboring states, bound in close ties by Islam, fight hard to assist non-Islamic invaders?The answers came quickly, and were good beyond believing. The war didn't take months or even weeks; it was essentially won in 100 hours. Casualties - on our side, at least - were incredibly light, 148 lives. The giant hospital ships sat in the harbor with few patients. A bully little war: Home came the victorious to never-ending parades and ever-flying flags. Not since 1945 had the nation been this united. Rally round the flag!
The big winner was America's commander in chief, George Bush. He had proposed, planned and coordinated this remarkable victory. His approval rating topped 90 percent. His re-election seemed assured.
But Bush's popularity quickly vanished. His approval rating has dropped below 50 percent, his key proposals are gridlocked and Democratic candidates nip at his heels. The euphoria of victory has vanished, and we are entering our winter of discontent. We confront a mystery. Why?
Possible answers pour in from all sides: The economy, over which he has no real control. His advisers, who seem arrogant and inept. The rapid flow of events that befuddle and bedevil us all.
He had his golden moment - swift and sudden victory - and he squandered it. Abroad, he seemed to know just where he was going. At home, he lost his way. On Main Street, they were asking: Where is the peace dividend?
The closest presidential parallel is Woodrow Wilson, who also won a war, basked in heroic acclaim, lost a peace, and died a broken man. Will Bush repeat Wilson's tragic cycle?
Perhaps not. Part of the heroic pattern is rejection by one's people - Jesus by the Jews, Caesar by the Romans, Churchill by the British. Bush may not be of their stature, but he might be on the same roller coaster, now in a precipitous dip. The ride is far from over.
But indeed the ride seems over for another potential hero, Mikhail Gorbachev. His story has become a kind of Tolstoy tragedy, full of implications of war and peace. He has changed all our lives. The man who had for six years electrified the world with his bold reforms left office on Christmas Day. He surrendered to Boris Yeltsin.
Watching Gorbachev's resignation, I was suddenly taken back to Appomattox Court House, where Robert E. Lee surrendered. Lee's birthday, also this month, is one I always remember and celebrate. But this is the first time I have compared him to Mikhail Gorbachev, the two being so separated by time, culture and profession.
The similarities are fascinating. Both passed up positions of great power and assured success (Lee as commander of the Union Army; Gorbachev as head of the Communist Party and state). Both left safe roads for dangerous ones. They seemed more motivated by conscience and duty than power and prestige. Once committed, they displayed a courage, consistency and high-mindedness that even their enemies had to acknowledge. They were men of honor. Everyone understood this. They were fair-minded, and did not abuse their power. They stood in the midst of crimson fields, but there was no blood on their hands. Ousted from power, they resigned with great dignity and credibility. Both ended up men without a country. Lee died a prisoner on parole.
Both were rejected by their own nations but admired by the world.
And in this month of Robert E. Lee's 184th birthday, we would also like to pay the general our respect. So far as I can discover, he was a truly humble man. There is about him a soft, winsome quality - which I also saw in Gorbachev's face as he resigned.
Forget the Lee of battle, and see the college president in the black suit. Note that nobleness of self and firmness of character that impart sufficient strength to let the past be the past.
The tragic elements in these two men's lives invite comparison to yet a third figure whose birthday we celebrate: Martin Luther King Jr. He also spent his life fighting for unpopular causes, refusing to be lured into easy solutions, appealing to the world even when he was reviled at home. All three showed grace under pressure. Of all Americans in the 20th century, King may eventually make the greatest impact. He had a dream, and a part of it has become public policy and national hope. For that dream he paid the ultimate price, his own life.
Perhaps Scott Fitzgerald was right: Behind every hero there is a tragedy. That is only part of the story. Every hero is a mystery, and every mystery can kindle new fires.
Marshall Fishwick is professor of humanities and communication studies at Virginia Tech.