The Hostage Release and the Power of Individual Greatness
“Trump and his associates have succeeded where international organizations and pundits have repeatedly failed.”
When I was a child, my favorite subjects at school were languages and history. Nevertheless, the Marxist dogma in teaching history was that events happened due to purely objective factors, such as economic conditions, and that individuals mattered little outside of their social groups.
I considered the obsession with objective and material factors a woefully deficient and uninspiring worldview. I was fascinated instead by stories of exceptional achievements and “mind over matter.” It is, of course, true that objective circumstances play a role to a certain extent — for example, the United States lies between two major oceans, which facilitates, though by no means fully accounts for, its position as a naval superpower. Yet, what matters most to the success of a civilization is its values and the greatness of individuals.
The significance of human greatness was powerfully illustrated by the events of several days ago, when the twenty living hostages were returned to their loved ones in Israel. I was deeply moved by the stories of their suffering and survival and by the overwhelming gratitude and joy of the Israeli people, regardless of political affiliation.
The attitude behind Trump’s actions regarding the hostages reminded me of the popular story of the brilliant American mathematician and statistician George Dantzig. While he was a doctoral student of mathematics at UC Berkeley in 1939, Dantzig arrived late to class one day. He saw two problems on the blackboard and diligently copied them, assuming this was the homework assigned by the professor. He had missed the first part of the class during which the professor had explained that these were deemed “unsolvable” problems.
Young Dantzig was determined to submit his homework and was surprised that it took him a bit longer than usual. Yet he solved the “unsolvable” problems by disregarding (albeit unknowingly) conventional wisdom and being determined to find a solution. Similarly, doctors have described numerous instances of “spontaneous healing,” which go against conventional expertise.
While Hamas cannot be trusted to comply with the 20-point peace plan, two achievements of Trump’s plan are nothing short of remarkable: the release of the living hostages and the broad international support for the plan, which should allow Israel to defend itself without the rabid, nearly universal criticism it is usually bombarded with.
There is a famous adage, often attributed to Churchill: “Attitude is a little thing that makes a big difference.” It is unclear how matters will develop regarding the rest of the peace plan provisions, but so far, Trump and his associates have succeeded where international organizations and pundits have repeatedly failed.
Nora D. Clinton is a Research Scholar at the Legal Insurrection Foundation. She was born and raised in Sofia, Bulgaria. She holds a PhD in Classics and has published extensively on ancient documents on stone. In 2020, she authored the popular memoir Quarantine Reflections Across Two Worlds. Nora is a co-founder of two partner charities dedicated to academic cooperation and American values. She lives in Northern Virginia with her husband and son.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
College was more than a half-century ago, but I recall that Hegel, who inspired Marxist dialectic theory, acknowledged that certain “world historical figures” (such as Napoleon) were an exception to his principles of history. I submit that Trump is such a figure.
Another example is Elon Musk, who was unaware that it was impossible to land a booster rocket on a barge in the middle of the ocean – so he did it.
Marxists cite Marx for Reagan and Trump, 2nd preface to the 18th Brumaire, for its excellent put-down (last line), particularly Bernard Harcourt at Columbia:
“Of the writings dealing with the same subject at approximately the same time as mine, only two deserve notice: Victor Hugo’s Napoleon le Petit and Proudhon’s Coup d’Etat. Victor Hugo confines himself to bitter and witty invective against the responsible producer of the coup d’etat. The event itself appears in his work like a bolt from the blue. He sees in it only the violent act of a single individual. He does not notice that he makes this individual great instead of little by ascribing to him a personal power of initiative unparalleled in world history. Proudhon, for his part, seeks to represent the coup dbetat as the result of an antecedent historical development. Inadvertently, however, his historical construction of the coup d’etat becomes a historical apologia for its hero. Thus he falls into the error of our so-called objective historians. I, on the contrary, demonstrate how the class struggle in France created circumstances and relationships that made it possible for a grotesque mediocrity to play a hero’s part.”
Marx today would out-troll Trump.
The difference being that Marx got high off his own supply — whereas Trump just leaves it on the sidewalk as sucker bait.
I’ve been fortunate enough to live in an era with two such groups.
The first group was comprised of Reagan, Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, and brought the Cold War to a close.
The current era is marked by Trump and Musk, although there is certainly room for more on the list.
Curiously (or perhaps not) the common foe in both eras is communism (including all its subspecies).