National unity during crisis? Look to lessons from WWII. (video)

Health care workers clashing with anti-lockdown protesters. Members of Congress arguing over safety measures. And debates around public health that map out over racial, socioeconomic, and ideological lines.

In today's age of hyperpartisanship, it seems not even a worldwide pandemic can bring Americans together. If anything, the crisis appears to be intensifying existing divides.

But this isn’t the first time the U.S. has faced a global emergency while wrestling with deep internal divisions. We often remember the World War II era as a period of fervent patriotism and national unity, but the country back then was also confronting serious social and political rifts around race, the economy, and America’s role in the world.

Why We Wrote This

We may remember World War II as a period of patriotism and solidarity. But the years leading up to the war were marked by deep social and political rifts that may sound familiar today. As we again face the threat of a deadly – if faceless – enemy, what can we learn from the last time Americans banded together to confront a crisis? Here’s the fourth installment of “Precedented,” a video series about how history can help us understand today’s issues.

There are some important differences: World War II supplied clear enemies to rally against in Nazi Germany and Japan, while the coronavirus is “faceless and invisible,” says American University historian Allan Lichtman. We are also more divided along partisan lines today, and trust less in government and institutions than we did under President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Still, “we didn’t go into World War II a united nation,” Professor Lichtman says. “The recognition, in a bipartisan way, of a dangerous common enemy brought us together.”

In this episode, we explore the fissures that existed leading up to the war years, how they compare with what we’re dealing with now, and what we can learn about our nation’s ability to come together during a crisis.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.