Newspapers

The Falling Berlin Wall Matters (Or Should Matter) Today

The fall of the Berlin Wall was an early memory as a child, scarcely comprehended. Americans today don't seem to grasp its full import either. But they should.

On Nov. 9, 1989, a rattled functionary of an embattled Communist regime held a press conference and spoke about upcoming changes to East German travel policies. He’d only just been told about them and didn’t yet know all the details. In response to a question he couldn’t answer, he improvised and said East Germans were free to enter West Berlin, without restrictions, effective immediately. His answer was broadcast and the cat left the bag. It would not be got back in.

On Nov. 12, 1989—or somewhere thereabouts; historians have not yet settled an authoritative date—a young Alan Hurst visited his grandparents and looked at the TV, which showed some very happy people sitting on tall, spray-painted concrete. He asked his grandmother what was happening.

“The Berlin Wall is falling, dear.” She said it with a smile young Alan didn’t understand. And then I went back to playing with Legos or toy swords or whatever I played with back then.

I wouldn’t stay so ignorant forever. I couldn’t; my mission call sent me to Berlin. Later, in law school, I attended a speech by a former member of West Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court (basically, a Supreme Court Justice) who was sitting on that court when the Wall came down.

He said it wasn’t immediately certain the Germanies would reunite. At first, it seemed the German Democratic Republic might just become an actual democratic republic, with real elections and competing parties and everything. And so our distinguished speaker found himself meeting with judges from East Germany’s highest court, teaching them about the work of a judge in a free country.

After many hours’ talk, an East German judge put his hand on our speaker’s arm and said, “This is all very well, but let’s be frank for a moment. When you don’t know what the law means, you call the Justice Ministry, right?”

If you’re not a lawyer who believes in his profession, your guts might not twist quite the way they should when you read that sentence. Let me explain. Imagine you have a case; imagine the government is trying to take your home or put you in prison. Imagine you’ve hired a lawyer, given honest testimony and fought passionately for your rights. And then imagine your judge calls the very same government agency that’s persecuting you and asks it to tell him how to decide your case.

This is not a thought experiment; I am not making this up. This was daily life in the Soviet bloc. You had property or rights or freedoms only until someone powerful decided to take them, and the powerful people watched you ceaselessly for an excuse to do exactly that. In East Germany, you had to keep a log of everyone who visited your home, and the Stasi could inspect it without cause or warning to see whether you’d been consorting with the wrong sort of people. If you told a disloyal joke, your friends and family could be rewarded for telling the Stasi what you’d said. Imagine being a devoted wife of 30 years and finding out, when the evil empire fell and the Stasi opened its books, that your husband had been reporting on you all along.

I repeat, this is not a thought experiment. These things happened. They happened during my lifetime. They happened not in the “Third World” where we parochial Westerners expect lawlessness and violence, but in regimes that convinced millions they were the very definition of reason and modernity, the glittering end of history’s arc. They happened against the backdrop of an arms race that threatened literally—literally—to end human civilization. It stopped a hair’s breadth from Armageddon several times.

The mostly bloodless collapse of the Soviet empire was nothing less than an epoch-marking miracle—God clearing his throat, in Bill Buckley’s phrase, to remind a torn and bloodied world that he exists.

And yet maybe it’s a reminder that miracles don’t convert people, at least not for long. This miracle seems hardly to be remembered, much less celebrated the way it deserves. Certainly America doesn’t behave as if it remembered. Would people throw around names like “enemy of the people” and “fascist” if they remembered that, not long ago, not far away, those were names tyrants called people to justify murdering them? I sometimes feel America understands about as much about Nov. 9, 1989, as I understood, talking to Grandma, on Nov. 12.

I wasn’t 10 yet. What’s your excuse?

So forget for a moment, just for today, the disappointments we’ve suffered in the past 30 years; forget all the ways history failed to end like it was supposed to, and the ways our own country turned out to be less free and virtuous than we liked to believe. Definitely forget the partisan enmities that make our moment seem so unpleasant and precarious, or better, reach across the divide and try to overcome them. Shore up the institutions that protect us from the nightmare so much of the world suffered for so long. And if you don’t get what I’m making all this fuss about, go educate yourself until you do.

Nov. 9, 1989, was a day to remember. On Nov. 9, 2019, remember it.

About the author

Alan Hurst

Alan Hurst is a Latter-day Saint, husband, father, lawyer, and recovering academic. He is an editorial advisor to Public Square.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Sean Astin & Ke Huy Quan Reunite, But “Love Hurts” Doesn’t Deliver

My son asked me what “Love Hurts” was about. I told him it was about how we can’t just move on from our past. “Oh,” he looked concerned, “That’s a bad movie.” Unlike my son concluded, “Love Hurts” isn’t a bad movie, but it’s not a Christian one. The theme repeated over and over is that we cannot move on from the past until we conquer it. Our main character desperately works for redemption, but the film keeps telling him he can’t have it. His aw-shucks charm in “Everything Everywhere All at Once,” combined with the nostalgia for his 80s career has combined to make Ke Huy Quan Hollywood’s “it” man of the moment. And “Love Hurts” is the star vehicle to determine if he can top the marquee of a nationwide opening.  It’s a bit of a mixed bag. The film is set over a Valentine’s Day weekend. Quan, plays Marvin Gable the regional realtor of the year. His upbeat attitude endears him to his clients and coworkers alike. Marvin used to be the enforcer for the local mob run by his brother. His brother ordered him to take out Rose, his unrequited crush, for stealing. But Marvin let her live and started a new life. Rose has decided to come back, delivering Valentine’s to the major players, dragging Marvin back into the life he tried to leave behind. The film, which runs a brisk 85 minutes, is mostly a series of choreographed fight scenes interspersed with just enough exposition to explain the plot and three love stories. So it’s worth mentioning that the fight choreography is very focused on creating tableaus showing off the imagination of the designer. And this does work to create some eye-popping visuals.  But I’m not sure if the trade-off to get those moments was worth it. To get to the visual moments it wants to show off the fights vacillate wildly between grounded brutal realism and physics so implausible it would make the Avengers blush, with no real explanation or meaning between the two. The pacing of the fights was often awkward and halting. And I never felt any stakes in the scenes because I never knew how much risk my protagonists were in.  The film uses a series of intermittent voice-overs from both Marvin and Rose to explain their attraction to one another. But the chemistry between the two never takes off. And while the film explains why Rose would be attracted to Marvin’s kindness and power, we never figure out why Marvin was willing to throw his entire life away twice at an outside chance with a woman who isn’t that interested in him.  The two grunts in the film played by André Eriksen and Marshawn Lynch, spend the time between their fights figuring out how to write a text to repair one of their marriages. The most amusing romance is between Raven, who breaks into Marvin’s office to fight him, and Ashley, the real estate assistant who finds his unconscious body and falls in love with him while reading his poetry in his notebook before he wakes up.  The movie is surprisingly funny. It leans into the cliches of the Asian mob film, and then juxtaposes it next to a bunch of odd things: suburban model homes, an all-American black belt, a poet, a pull-over sweater. It’s mostly just the one joke, but it’s enough for the film’s brisk run. My favorite part of the film was Sean Astin. Astin plays Marvin’s boss, and older brother figure who gave him the job when he escaped the mob. Astin and Quan famously shared the screen in “Goonies.” During the scene early in the film when Astin gives Quan the real estate award, you could feel the dialogue transcend the characters. It felt like Astin was so proud of the success of his old friend Quan, and this was his moment to tell him.  Quan, for his part, does everything right but doesn’t take the material to another level.  If you love fight choreography, there will certainly be some interesting things to look at here. And if you want a classic action romp with a few laughs and a Valentine’s twist this might be the film for you. But for most people, I don’t think it all comes together. It’s too gory without meaning. And while the movie seems to think it has a happy ending, I can’t imagine that most of the people watching will agree. It’s got R-rated content with no compensating uplift to make it worth the experience. Two out of five stars. “Love Hurts” opens nationwide on February 7, 2025.

The Ordinary Saint’s Guide to Under the Banner of Heaven: Episode 4, “Church and State”

Summary — The episode begins with the detectives checking in on Bishop Low’s home, which they find ransacked and deserted. Pyre finds a letter written by Ron’s wife to the Prophet expressing concern about her husband’s refusal to pay taxes. The detective contacts the Church about the letter and is told the letter was handed down to one of the bishop’s counselors, LeConte Bascom, who works at the bank. Brother Bascom says he had to turn Ron down for a loan because his brother’s refusal to pay taxes made him a liability, though it’s heavily implied that the real reason is that his wife’s letter was seen as an embarrassment to the Church. In flashbacks, we see Dan marching in a Pioneer Day parade, shouting about the government’s illegal taxes, as well as smoking and kissing a woman who isn’t his wife. Dan’s father says he’s ashamed of his immoral behavior and anti-tax nonsense and advises him to study the scriptures to set himself back on the right path. This unfortunately drives Dan into researching more obscure history of the Church, including information on polygamy.  He makes a business trip down to Colorado City to visit the breakaway polygamist sect there and manages to get the name of a pro-polygamy pamphlet called “The Peace Maker.” He reads this pamphlet and brings up the idea to his wife Matilda, telling her she’s limiting his spiritual power if she doesn’t let him marry a second wife.  During this conversation, Dan is pulled over for speeding and refuses to cooperate with the officer, leading them on a police chase that ends with his arrest. At the jail, Dan’s brothers try to convince him to stop his resistance to the government. Ron feels it’s his responsibility to show Dan the error of his ways, but instead, Dan runs circles around him, leaving him speechless and admitting that he’s going to lose his business and home. Dan somehow turns this fact into evidence that his views are correct and ends up winning over Ron to his side. In the present, Detective Pyre is being leaned on by the Laffertys’ stake president to release them into his custody but refuses. The detectives have identified the car the killers were probably using and plan to hold a press conference to ask for tips when the police chief returns from vacation and demands that all mentions of fundamentalism Mormonism be scrubbed from the press briefing. (It’s implied he’s being leaned on by the Church.) Pyre tries to toe the line at the conference but eventually caves to a persistent reporter and admits that he thinks that the murders may have something to do with fundamentalist beliefs. The next day at church, the ward is shunning the Pyres, and a specific couple is assigned to keep an eye on their faith. Meanwhile, a police officer has located Bishop Low fly fishing in the mountains and safe. Church History — During Dan’s explanation of polygamy, we get flashbacks to the infamous scene where Emma finds out about the doctrine of polygamy for the first time and throws the revelation in the fire. Though church members will be familiar with this story, the tone is portrayed very differently than we are used to. Emma is shown as being absolutely skeptical of Joseph’s translation of the Book of Mormon and other prophetic acts, even though she firmly testified of the truth of these things even after her break with the Church after Joseph was murdered. Joseph is portrayed as proclaiming the doctrine of polygamy only for his own physical gratification, which is a common anti-Mormon trope with little evidence behind it. While it is true that one of Joseph’s wives was only 14, the facts behind the situation are more complex than portrayed in the show. The pamphlet “The Peace Maker” is portrayed by Dan Lafferty as an “essential LDS tract” written by Joseph Smith, and no one in the show ever corrects this perception. In fact, the tract was not written by Joseph Smith, and he repudiated it during his lifetime. This episode presents a slanted view of church history, giving only one side of the conversation and showing the modern church as trying to hush it up rather than having its own interpretation of events. Shibboleths — Pyre claims that writing a letter to the prophet is like writing to “Heavenly Father himself,” which is absolutely wrong. While members of the Church do revere the prophet and listen to his teachings, he is not God, and this equivalency is not one Saints would make (though outsiders think we do). The idea that doing business with fundamentalists is like “doing business with the mafia” is totally alien to me. They are regarded as somewhat of an oddity in Utah, but not dangerous like organized crime. One unusual phrase occurs when the stake president claims that the Laffertys need to be released into his custody for “healing prayer.” I honestly have no idea what this phrase refers to and have never heard it in an LDS context. And the formal type of shunning portrayed happening to the Pyres is not something we do. Though obviously, wards vary in their culture, there is no formal instruction not to talk to those who have questions. Rather, we are encouraged to keep being friends with those who are struggling with faith and support them however we can. Changing History — It is interesting to note that in the actual chain of events, it was Sister Low, not Bishop Low, who was on the Lafferty hit list. Sister Low was a Relief Society President who supported Dan’s wife as she sought a divorce. Why does the show change this? Perhaps the idea that the Church has female leaders doesn’t fit well with the show’s depiction of the oppression of women in the LDS church. Brenda Lafferty’s sister has also expressed her disappointment with the way the show is misconstruing her sister’s murder in pursuit of an