Imagining the 21st Century
Imagine a future in which the people of the world are finally living life in peace.

BY BEN FISHER RABINOWITZ

       My son Ben passed away last year, the victim of a cruel, debilitating, and merciless cancer. Despite his pain and his certainty of how it would end, Ben wrote this poignant essay. Although he was spared the horror of September 11, his counsel of optimism and hope has softened my shock and outrage over his death and the deaths of so many innocent victims of that tragedy that stunned America and the world. Ben had great faith in America in the 21st century; his optimism can be a salutary antidote for us all.

             -Mario Rabinowitz

America survived the 20th century, somehow intact. As the Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight toward the end of the century, splintering into 15 newly independent states, America emerged as the single superpower of the world. And as it did, it assumed an awesome responsibility.

Globally and domestically, America faces monumental spiritual, social, and political questions as we begin a new millennium. What should be the cornerstone principles that guide our nation through the 21st century? What can we do to fan the flames of hope and compassion that are just beginning to burn brightly? How should we invest our nation's great wealth and direct its tremendous strength to guard against the tragic errors of the 20th century while shaping the 21st century and our dream for America's future?

Lennon's Song
John Lennon may have been contemplating similar questions when he penned the poignantly timeless lyrics to his gentle, powerful anthem, Imagine. When he wrote, "Imagine all the people/Living life in peace," he was as much voicing a prayer as a universal song of hope.

 In his song, Lennon longs for a utopia -- a world where there is "no heaven . . . no hell . . . no countries . . . no possessions . . . no need for greed or hunger."  Most of us, I suspect, if asked to imagine a utopia, would not focus, as Lennon did, on the negatives. We'd look instead at the positives -- unlimited possessions, satiated desires, heaven on Earth. In our utopia, everyone would be as rich as Bill Gates or as talented as Shakespeare or as brilliant as Einstein.

All utopias, of course, are unrealistic, and whether we dream for the banishment of desire or the fulfillment of it, we should leaven our imaginings with the plausible. It is good to know what we are ultimately aiming for and to aim high, but we shouldn't aim too high. We need to remain hopeful but realistic, to better avoid delusion and disillusion.

The American Century 
While it is a commonplace that the 20th century was "the American Century," we can only imagine what the next 100 years will reveal about us. If America hopes to be a great leader throughout the 21st century, it must assume greater responsibility for its past. We must appraise our successes and our failures -- through commission and omission -- and commit ourselves to a future based on peace and the "ideals of a brotherhood of man."  We need no more Hitlers or Holocausts or Pearl Harbors, no more trauma and terrorism.

America's successes in the past century have paved the road for the present one. Advances in worker safety and medical science have given us powerful tools in the fight against accidents and illness. The end of the nuclear arms race and the Cold War has freed up financial and technological resources. Economic growth and ecological rescue have ceased being competing ethics; increasingly, business and political leaders understand the necessity of meeting the demands of both.

Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama, and religious leaders from many other faiths have been espousing ecumenism as they seek a peaceful foundation for mutual respect among the world's great spiritual traditions. Emerging, strong, and enlightened grassroots citizen movements, like the civil rights movement and the women's movement, have continued to expand the rights of all Americans and help make the 20th century a source of inspiration.

A Mad, Mad World
During the 20th century, America assumed -- at times reluctantly -- global leadership. Fortunately, following the dissolution of the Soviet empire and communist domination of Eastern Europe, we no longer are caught up in the life-or-death struggle of the Cold War. Thus we find ourselves in a position to redefine the international arms race.

Mutually Assured Destruction, the American and Soviet nuclear policy during the Cold War, required both sides to possess sufficient retaliatory capability to dissuade the other from launching a first strike. Frankly, we were lucky the policy worked as well as it did. On more than one occasion, we came perilously close to a third world war that would almost inevitably have broken out the nuclear arms.

Today, this MAD policy is dangerously outdated. While the MAD policy did provide some stability in a bipolar nuclear standoff between America and the Soviet Union, one of the greatest threats to global stability today is the proliferation of nuclear weapons in rival developing nations, such as India, Pakistan, China, and the Middle Eastern nations.

What if, instead of weapons production, America encouraged the development and proliferation of defense strategies that render offensive systems ineffective?  In other words, why not replace the MAD policy with a saner policy of Mutually Assured Survival Strategy? While technological and political difficulties must be overcome for such a MASS policy to work, surely this is preferable to having America maintain its influence over potential global hot spots by acting as chief supplier of weapons technologies that might, sadly, be used.

Actually, we already have a MASS antiballistic missile defensive system of sorts, although it hardly provides assurance of survival. The present treaty between America and the former Soviet Union allows the mid-course interception of intercontinental ballistic missiles. The concept, which was tested with only a modicum of success during the Clinton administration, presents near-impossible technical problems.  Indeed, the political difficulties are minor in comparison. For one, the system has to discriminate between a decoy, or many decoys, and a live missile. And once you identify the real target, how do you hit it? It's like trying to shoot down a speeding bullet a mile away with another bullet.

A much more tractable MASS system is one that focuses on the launch-phase. In this approach, the intercontinental ballistic missiles would be intercepted as close to launch as possible. It is easiest to detect and destroy missiles in this phase, so the technical problems are not so tough. This approach is fraught with political difficulties, however, since a nation launching rockets for nonmilitary purposes would have to give advance notice so that their missiles would not be damaged. While nations might balk at having to seek permission to launch, this little loss of sovereignty seems a small price to pay for peace. Undoubtedly, global support for such a MASS policy would necessitate a new global mindset.  The bleak alternative might be a nuclear war in which the earth's atmosphere is blasted into the solar system. The consequences of this make "nuclear winter" seem mild in comparison.

International cooperation and military defense could become the cornerstones of our military and foreign policy. By moving away from weapons acquisition and military alliances, and toward a new emphasis on MASS, America could help free other nations from the old paradigm of military might and conquest. Control by might only feeds into territorial disputes that all too frequently erupt in tragic conflicts, engulfing entire regions and often sucking America into the military quagmire.

Domestic Marshall Plan
As America stands ready to help shape the landscape of the new millennium, she is better positioned than ever before to be a beacon of human rights. Culturally, spiritually, and economically, she can help lead the world into a more humane, globally civilized, interconnected future. In this new century, America must continue to balance the sometimes conflicting social policy goals of optimizing individual social, political, artistic, and economic freedom while minimizing human suffering.

We should set our sights on an America that is better educated, healthier, and environmentally cleaner; one that is racially and sexually nondiscriminatory; one that is on continued sound economic footing while being stronger militarily. Of course, to address the common enemies of humanity -- war, poverty, illness, and, ignorance -- would entail a mammoth agenda. To even begin to meet many of our pressing needs at home would require a domestic Marshall Plan.

After World War II, President Truman invested $13 billion in rebuilding Europe -- at a cost of about $87 per American -- because he believed that it was in our national self-interest to have a strong, vibrant, healthy Europe rather than a devastated continent. A comparable effort today would cost $93 billion, or about $325 for each of us.

The budget surplus for 1999 exceeded this amount by $31 billion. We could have paid for a Marshall Plan in a single year. Suppose we came up with a domestic Marshall Plan over the next few years. We wouldn't have to pay for it all at once. We could sock a little away each year while our finest minds -- the best economists, planners, visionaries, scientists, sociologists, and engineers -- marshaled a plan to rebuild America's most economically deprived areas. By the time a bipartisan, ambitious, economically sound plan was in place, the fund would be large enough that the plan could be implemented without fear of running deficits or overheating the economy.

Such a plan would be no less a challenge than those legislative reforms launched by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. This plan, however, would have a modern twist; it would incorporate a green motif. It would be grounded in a new environmentally sound paradigm, not in the old, ecologically unfriendly industrial mold.

One major foundation of such an investment, of course, must be education. Clearly, public schools are under assault not just from deranged students, but from opponents who would replace them with private and religious schools. Universal free education is a major underpinning of our form of society and government, however. Reform is badly needed. Our public schools must be safe and they should deliver the kind of education that our children deserve.

We need to return ethics and morality to the curriculum, beginning with the earliest grades. There is no need to violate our constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. We just can't play favorites. By including teachings from all quarters -- from great Western leaders such as Moses and Christ, to such Eastern teachers as Confucius, Krishna, Mohammed, and Buddha -- and by focusing on the ethical, not the religious, aspects of these teachings, we can heighten the awareness of morality among our youth.

While feeding the mind, we must not forget the body.  The world is finally recognizing that overpopulation is a prime cause of poverty. A decrease in hunger clearly decreases poverty and increases health. Interestingly, decreasing hunger also leads to a decline in population growth and to increased schooling.

A pilot program initiated by the Clinton administration provides free lunches in schools to 3 million of the world's needy children for as little as 11 cents a day. The U.S. Agency for International Development ships the food to needy countries, and the UN World Food Program distributes and monitors it. The UN notes that whenever and wherever they introduce a school feeding program, enrollment increases dramatically, and the payout is huge. As George McGovern pointed out, young girls in developing countries who get married instead of going to school have, on average, half a dozen kids, whereas girls who go to school and marry much later have less than half that many.

Even though children are considered an important source of wealth in poor countries, birthrates are declining in some. In Mexico, for instance, the number of children per family is decreasing as the education level is rising. Similar trends are seen in more affluent countries. The birthrate is down in France. In Italy, it is down so far that some of its political leaders even fear a population decline.

Other important areas for investment include universal health, prenatal and early childhood nutrition, and parenting support. America is one of the largest countries in the world and certainly the richest, yet we are far down the list when it comes to the well-being of our citizens. America is the only developed nation that doesn't have universal health care. Roughly 40 million American have no health care coverage at all. At best, these people receive far from optimal care.

To ultimately succeed with universal health care, we need to overcome inertia, ignorance, and superstition. Our steps should be gradual ones. We can't afford to fail, so the ultimate goal needs to be approached cautiously. The Children's Health Insurance Program is a good beginning. Assisting with the high cost of medications would be a good first step toward helping the elderly.

Our youth need goals and direction beyond the mass consumerism and self-centered entertainment they pick up from the malls and MTV. They could benefit enormously by participating in volunteer programs like the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Habitat for Humanity, and Teach for America. They should be rewarded both by recognition and by educational benefits similar to those that were previously given only to veterans.

Increasing the standard of living nationally and even globally may not be a panacea for solving the ills of civilization, but it is certainly a step forward. Throwing money at problems has historically proven to be an ineffective way of solving them. Usually, the money has not funneled down to the people that most need it. We should consider the model of Habitat for Humanity in our fight against poverty, where labor is donated in building homes for the needy. Not only does it ensure that the needy will be the beneficiaries, it also gives them a stake in society.

An American Renaissance
To end war, we must wage peace. What better way to wage peace than to lessen the ability of those who would initiate war, by fighting illness, poverty, and ignorance.

So, let us follow the example and instruction of our great political, philosophical, and spiritual teachers -- let us take the time and effort to reflect on what would be a good future for ourselves, our nation, and our planet. The actions of a nation and a culture are the outgrowth of the tone and condition of the collective consciousness of a people. The consciousness of American culture in the 1960s deserves much of the credit for many of the strides we made in that decade: the antiwar movement; the civil rights movement; the great human-helping scientific and technological advances. By creating such a consciousness in the transition to the new century, we increase the likelihood that the goals we long for will be accepted and embraced.

Undoubtedly, it will take all this and much more to ensure peace and prosperity during the coming century. Let us ground our hopes on the fundamental goodness of humanity. Let us focus our minds spiritually, philosophically, and politically. Let us go forward from here, with the aid of our collective good will, to gather a better society into the future. 

       Ben Fisher Rabinowitz, who succumbed to cancer in 2001, was a Truman Fellow and a journalist who specialized in articles about leading cultural figures. He divided his time between Seattle, Washington, and the California coast.