Column: We could use another Marshall Plan
Why do we honor George C. Marshall for his Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II, but rarely use his model in dealing with nations around the world. Whatever we may say, do we buy into might-makes-right just almost as surely as nations like China and authoritiarians like Vladimir Putin?
George C. Marshall was not completely altruistic when he created the Marshall Plan. The specter of communism was hanging in the air. The Soviet Union was our rival. What was to be our strategy? Vengeance unleashed on a Western Europe reduced to rubble? Occupying forces to beat back any hint of opposition? That had been tried many times. Teach your enemies a lesson. Make them pay. Grind them into the earth.
Marshall came up with another plan.
What if the United States used our wealth and power to rebuild Europe? What if we reconstructed their economies? What if we made life better for our former enemies?
Stalin took the opposite route. That should not be surprising. It had a track record of “success.” But he could have made a more interesting, and, you might say, bolder choice. He could have responded to the Marshall Plan by joining it and put the energy and resources of the Soviet Union to work rebuilding Eastern Europe as well as the U.S.S.R.
To be fair, he did do some of that. Housing was built. People were put to work, but his main strategy was the time-honored way of authoritarians down through history: fear, repression, and death. And how many people died under Stalin? Anywhere from 20 to 60 million. Maybe even more.
And what ultimately happened? The unraveling of the Soviet Union. And the rise of yet another murderous authoritarian.
Let’s imagine for a moment that instead of Stalin there was some George C. Marshall in the Soviet Union who was elevated to power. Maybe a Russian Abraham Lincoln. Or Nelson Mandela. Someone who could inspire hope instead of fear, whose tools of governance included leading people to cooperate to build a nation that could provide prosperity and a sense of purpose and security for the vast majority of its citizens. How would history be different? Could there still today be a Soviet Union that maybe has a somewhat different culture and economy but in which its citizens have freedom and prosperity? I don’t know but I do know that the authoritarian route never works in the long run.
What if White Southerners had seen the Black population not as people to be controlled and kept in their place and feared but as the key to the success and prosperity of the entire region and even nation? What if we had fully grasped that we did better when they did better?
What if we had understood that together we had this powerful, rich culture that could enhance all of our lives as well as the nation and the world? No Jim Crow? No lynchings? Greater prosperity for all?
Stalin the authoritarian, the one promising “I am your retribution,” vs. Marshall, the one who eschews revenge and brutality for the admittedly less traveled and harder route by building democratically.
Which strategy worked better? The U.S.S.R. no longer exists. So why do people continue to believe in Stalinesque models? Is it because even though the model is destructive, it feeds into the desire for revenge? It fulfills a fantasy of being able to control others completely, to take what you want when you want it?
The Heritage Foundation has laid out a brutally repressive blueprint for this country called Project 2025. It is the old model of authoritarianism and hierarchy. It is bankrupt, but for many, still attractive. This is what its designers want for this country. Why?
There are better, more organic models: I do better when you do better; we do better when they do better.
A body is only as healthy as its weakest organ. If you have a weak heart, it isn’t going to matter much that your kidneys are in great shape and your hearing is perfect.
If we in the United States want to be a strong country, all of the different groups and individuals need to be thriving. We are all connected. Any weak, damaged part damages the whole.
It will never be easy for human beings to live together. But if we are looking for the most effective paths to follow, isn’t Marshall’s superior to all of the might-makes-right, vengeance-is-ours schemes?
This article originally appeared on Staunton News Leader: Column: We could use another Marshall Plan
