those lacking all these strengths.”)rnOf greater moral concern to ProfessorrnKennedy than the relative standing ofrnnations belonging to the First World isrnthe relationship between them and thern”developing” components of the ThirdrnWorld, whose future he (rightly) arguesrnlooks dismal indeed when one considersrnthe appalling demographic and environmentalrnproblems confronting LatinrnAmerica, Africa, the Near East, the Indianrnsubcontinent, China, and SoutheastrnAsia. Kennedy’s perception that therndeveloped world continues to widen, almostrnexponentially and year by year, therngap between itself and the Third Worldrncountries amounts to the assertion of arnlaw that the convoy moves only as fast asrnthe swiftest ship, while laggards are leftrnbehind to catch torpedoes—an accurate,rnif regrettable, description of modernrnworld history. His further argument,rnthat the law must somehow be abrogatedrnto permit the slowest vessels to catchrnup and then keep pace with the vanguard,rnis impractical, no matter howrnsoundly based on moral and prudentialrnterms. It is certainly true, as Kennedy insists,rnthat “the environmental threat, likernthe threat of mass migration, meansrnthat—perhaps for the first time—whatrnthe South does can hurt the North.” It isrnalso true that the professor from Oxfordrn(today on the faculty of Yale) has, likerneveryone else concerned about the imbalancernof wealth between North andrnSouth, no idea what might realisticallyrnbe done to “solve” the “problem”—if inrnfact it is a problem. (As the late JamesrnBurnham used to say, “If there’s no solution,rnthere’s no problem.”) The mostrnlikely conclusion to the current crisis inrnthe Third Wodd is mass starvation andrnendemic warfare, including the invasionrnof the Western and Northern countriesrnby hordes of desperate, envious, and angryrnpeople from the Eastern and Southernrnones. But who can say? And howrncan more of the maximization thinkingrncharacteristic of the modern and postmodernrnWest rescue them—and us—rnfrom our shared cul-de-sac? It isn’t simplyrna matter of problem-solving.rnFinally, Preparing for the Twenty-FirstrnCentury is only the most recent of thosernmany naive and rather silly books producedrnby a naive and shallow age. “Inrnview of the speed and complexity ofrnthese changes, is any social group reallyrn’prepared’ for the 21st century?” ProfessorrnKennedy wonders. Well, of coursernnot. What social group was prepared forrnthe 19th, the 13th, or—most importantlyrn—the first? (And what historical significancernought a professional historianrnassign to the arbitrary concept of centuriesrnanyway?) Similarly, he complainsrnthat politicians today are incapable ofrnsolving even short-term problems; yetrnwhen were they ever so capable? ForrnKennedy, any human or historical situationrnthat is something less than thernimaginable ideal is a “problem” aboutrnwhich we should all be worrying, and onrnwhich the bureaucrats who staff ourrnmodern macrogovernmental entitiesrnought to be at work. Kennedy stressesrnthe discrepancy between an integratedrnworld economy and an unintegrated arrangementrnof national and regional governments,rnas well as of ethnic groups andrncultures, without bothering to considerrnhow surprising this differentiation shouldrnbe. Yet history has never proceeded byrnplan and logic, only economics has (oftenrnenough to our great detriment).rnNeed one be a philosopher to speculaternwhether the end of history might be thernexposure of fundamental contradictionsrnin human nature, by which man is forcedrnat last to admit that he is not as a god, anrnomniscient and omnipotent being, finalrnarchitect and arbiter of his fate?rnCertainly the division between thernFirst and Third Worlds suggests a radical,rnunmediated split between abstractionrnand nature, brains and genitalia.rnProfessor Kennedy, echoing Wells andrnToynbee, suggests that “global society isrnin a race between education and catastrophe,”rnand goes on to advocate thern”reeducation of mankind” as the properrnfocus for global change. In fact, thatrnreeducation began 2,000 years ago inrnwhat today is one of the most violentrnand crisis-ridden places on earth. Is itrnjust possible that globally society is actuallyrnin a race between the Word andrncatastrophe? Such an hypothesis is notrngermane to Professor Kennedy’s book,rnthe true message of which is the relentlessrnsecularization of Christian universalism.rnWhile the nation-state has beenrnhistorically compromised byrnboth nationalism and statism, ProfessorrnKennedy’s idea of it as an essentially reactionaryrnand clumsy relic that has (almost)rnoutlived its time seems extreme,rnto say the least. In particular, his observationrn—arresting on first reading—thatrnnational entities are either too large orrntoo small to handle the problems of therncontemporary world is vitiated by thernenormous diversity in size, strength, andrnreach among the 170-odd members ofrnthe United Nations. Surely many ofrnthose are comfortably in scale with theirrnpresent functions and responsibilities?rnIf nationalism has in fact been the sourcernof great evil in this and earlier centuries,rnthe result of appalling use and abuse ofrnthe nationalist idea, surely the answer inrnthe next century and probably in thernforeseeable future of mankind is not tornattempt to replace the nation-state withrnsome other (perhaps worse) institution,rnbut to redefine our expectations for it inrnthe interest of curbing its more tyrannicalrnand aggressive tendencies.rnThe theme of The Passionate Attachment:rnAmerica’s Involvement With Israel,rnJ 947 to the Present is the abuse of nationalismrnby over-assertion on the onernhand and, on the other, by under-assertiveness.rnGeorge W. Ball, an undersecretaryrnof state in the Kennedy andrnJohnson administrations, and his sonrnDouglas have written a book responsiblyrncritical of the ruthlessness with whichrnIsrael has operated from its inceptionrnand also of the supineness characteristicrnof the United States in its willingness tornsupport ruthlessness in disregard ofrnmoral principle and of its own nationalrninterest. The Balls’ text is Washington’srnFarewell Address of 1796, in which therndeparting President warned against “passionaternattachments” to other nations,rnresulting in an illusion of common interestrnwhere there is none; participation inrnquarrels not one’s own; concession ofrnprivileges not granted to others; domesticrnfactionalism leading to the practice ofrn”the arts of seduction,” public deceit,rnand unwarranted influence in the “publicrncouncils”; and the stigmatization ofrnthose unwilling to serve as “tools andrndupes” of a foreign power. In the opinionrnof the authors, Israel since 1947 hasrnqualified as the object of such an attachment,rnfrom which every one of thernconsequences foreseen by PresidentrnWashington has subsequently flowed.rnWhile the United States of course isrnno more responsible for the holocaustrnthan 19th-century European Jewry wasrnfor the slaughter of the American WarrnBetween the States, its support of thernnew state of Israel was essentially an expressionrnof compassion for Jewish sufferingrnat the hands of the Nazis and theirrncollaborators. However, the American-rnIsraeli lobby has never felt entirely securernwith a policy based on mere emotion.rnAUGUST 1993/35rnrnrn