What Makes a "United" States?
They have become political cliches, promises to be "a uniter and not a divider," pledges to be a "representative of all the people," etc., etc. You know them all because you've heard them a thousand or more times. It comes from the left, it comes from the right and it comes from the squishy middle. But is there any substance to it? Is there any there, there? Just what is the glue that unites us as a country?
Fractionalization is not new by any stretch of the imagination. This country was born into it. Aristocratic Tories, New England rabble-rousers and Southern slave owners overcame greater odds to create a new nation than a more generous God would have allowed. Still, those divisions would become so heavy it would take a bloody civil war to bridge the chasm.
Now consider this: Those that stood on the decks of the USS Arizona on the evening of December 6, 1941 thought of the Civil War as their grandfather's war. They were just 76 years removed from Lee's surrender at Appomattox. For all of the divisions that remained in a segregated America, the wounds of that civil war still bound us as a nation. Had you taken a hardcore Democrat and a hardcore Republican from that day and locked them in a room and told them they weren't allowed to leave until they substantively agreed on five things they both truly believed in, how long do you think the discussion would have lasted? Maybe an hour tops?
Today, we are almost as far removed from the day we entered WWII as those men on the Arizona were to events of 1865. But are we as close as a nation? Are there really any true uniting principles we can agree on as a people? If any of us were locked in a room with a liberal Democrat, could we find that much common ground?
We probably could agree on problems, but I seriously doubt we could agree on solutions. And it's going to get worse.
Last year, the Pew Research Center surveyed Americans on their "culture confidence," that which we used to refer to as American Exceptionalism. While 80% said they believed in the concept, when pressed for more specifics the numbers tumbled, especially with this last generation that has received the full flower of a progressive education and the parentage of the "free love" crowd.
The younger you are and the more educated, or should I say "indoctrinated," the less likely you are to actually believe in America.
Consequently, words that used to have a cultural commonality now mean totally different things to each side. On one side, freedom is seen as being left alone to do as one pleases with minimal contact from government. On the other side, freedom means being cared for by the state so as to be "free" to pursue the lifestyle of extended adolescence, where sex has no consequence and all the responsibilities of adulthood can be avoided.
To the right, it makes no difference if one is rich or poor, powerful or ordinary; the law is to be applied in equal measure to all. This equality before the law is the lynchpin to the American concept of justice.
But to the left, equality and justice are not legal arguments, they are economic ones. "Social justice" demands wealth transfers from the productive class to anyone that can state a convincing case of grievances. Justice, therefore, must shed her blindfold and scales. The rule of law becomes the rule of men, where all laws and regulations are subject to waiver.
How long can this tear at the national fabric before the breach becomes too wide to repair? And is it even repairable now that one side has determined that their differences with their fellow countrymen can only be described in terms of mental illness? On the left it has become increasingly acceptable to dismiss the concerns of their opponents as psychiatric "phobias." Every disagreement is now attributed to an irrational fear, be it racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, xenophobia, or whatevergetsmewhatIwantaphobia. How long before it becomes acceptable to seek a "cure?"
Conservatives hold on to the belief that their fellow countrymen can be persuaded to maintain the pursuit of the American dream through sunny optimism, rational argument and the acts of the Happy Warrior. I fear there's not enough "United" in these United States to make that case.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Jun '10
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
"We probably could agree on problems..."
Uh....mebbe not. As far back as 1993, a friend was sandbagged in his English dissertation orals by the head of the department, who declared that he had inadequately addressed the race, class and gender issues of his chosen topic, an obscure poet. At the end of his verbal flogging, he inquired "What about the literary issues addressed?" He was instructed that "race, class and gender are the only issues worth addressing - there are no other issues..."
Well certainly there can be discussion about the constructs involved, and they would cover a pretty wide field. But if you were locked in a room with a modern liberal, I'm sure you could come up with 5 things the two of you thought were problems, as long as they arose out of the R-C-G Trinity. But I suspect there might be problems you see as important, that are outside the Trinity, but I doubt your lefty locked-in-roommate would be willing to even entertain them as valid problems.
May '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
EJ, I agree (and have written about very similar themes here on Ricochet). I think that we are increasingly seeing that the fundamental worldviews of conservatives and liberals are getting farther and farther apart. On the other hand, it is interesting to go back and read folks like Chesterton as they address the disagreements that existed in the earlier part of the 20th century. They seemed almost as far apart as I would describe today's conservatives and liberals. Seeing how little has changed can actually be kind of heartening.
Apr '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Democrats are no longer Americans except in the most narrow, legalistic sense; they disdain the principles of the Declaration and hate and disregard the structure of the Constitution because they get in the way of what the Democrats think needs to be done "in the name of the American people".
The convention in Charlotte was the birth of the American Fascist Party. The Republican Party has factions that are little better, but at least it has space where people who believe in God-given rights and limited government to protect those rights can take effective action.
May '10
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
I think there is a common commitment to service EJ. What that means to people will differ wildly, but both sides believe in volunteering for the good of the whole.
I was flying home to SF from DC on a Saturday night a few weeks ago when the gate agent called for active military members to come to the front of the line. There were four young men dressed in civilian clothing and they received extended, rousing and heartfelt applause from everyone waiting to fly from one blue zone to another. It gave me hope.
I think there is still a heartfelt belief in equal opportunity and the ethic that says anyone regardless of social class or standing can rise to accomplish great things. I know the left believes there are still institutional obstacles that need to be removed by government, but they still celebrate alongside us when it is done well.
It makes me wonder that if Romney's message of competence cannot unite us, perhaps in four years, Marco Rubio, with his message of upward mobility can refocus us on a shared vision. After all, we still remain a more classless society than any other.
Mar '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Chalk me up as much less pessimistic.
I see a different divide in Americans: that between the conscious and subconscious. Many Americans on both sides talk a big game when it comes to their politics, but their actions both in life and in the ballot box betray many more similarities. Looking down from 35,00 feet, I find it difficult to discern many meaningful differences between Republican- or Democratic-controlled governments since the end of the Reagan administration.
Obviously lifestyle differences, such as urban vs. suburban vs. rural residents, lead people to differing worldviews. But this has always been the case.
The problem with America is not the differences between left and right, it is that most of the things we agree on make for horrible policy.
May '10
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
@Trace - There is no heartfelt belief in equal opportunity. There is a commitment to rewarding grievance groups and punishing successful opponents.
Mar '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
I agree. Despite what Charles Murray says, I think our current divides are more in line with the American norm than they are exceptional.
Conservatives tend to use the post-WWII period as their frame of reference to how American society should be structured. But that period was exceptional in many ways that cannot and should not be recreated. When we compare the divisions in society today to those in the pre-WWII or pre-WWI eras (or the 60s, for that matter), our current era seems downright harmonious.
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 1:11amFeb '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Mendel
Conservatives tend to use the post-WWII period as their frame of reference to how American society should be structured. But that period was exceptional in many ways that cannot and should not be recreated.
Wait- what?
I disagree, thoroughly. Despite plenty of problems back then the key is that things were actually improving.
Today? Nope.
That matters, obviously.
Mar '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Xennady
Mendel
But that period was exceptional in many ways thatcannot and should notbe recreated.
Wait-what?
I disagree, thoroughly. Despite plenty of problems back then the key is that things were actuallyimproving.
One reason things were improving was because most of the developed world outside the US lay in rubble, which gave our export-based economy an immense competitve advantage. Unity in society is easy to achieve when everyone can be paid off, but I don't think we want to replay WWII to get back to that state.
Plus, many of the policies (both public and private) which divide us today are a result of largesse in the 1950's that we thought would never end.
Oct '10
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
I think it's important to take a step back. Liberals have been aggressively dividing the nation this election cycle, which makes things look much worse than they probably are. We've survived contested elections before; we can survive this one.
Feb '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Mendel
One reason things were improving was because most of the developed world outside the US lay in rubble, which gave our export-based economy an immense competitive advantage. Unity in society is easy to achieve when everyone can be paid off, but I don't think we want to replay WWII (snip).
That's an interesting way to put things. I was thinking along the lines of how much better the country was governed back then, but no matter.
Allow me to restate your comment as the blue-collar ex-steelworker logic engine in my skull interpreted it: The greedy post-WWII American people got rich exploiting our worthy foreign friends, and then divvied up the loot, socialist-style, to keep people quiet.
I have trouble with this interpretation, obviously. I will admit that I see it often but when I hearken back to the early post-WWII era my first thought isn't about how we prospered because others didn't.
It's more about the hard work and ingenuity of the American people- and the enormous and generous commitment we made to the rest of the world- e. g. NATO and the Marshall Plan.
Jul '10
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Liberals have been aggressively dividing the nation for, lo, these last 50+ years. Their stock-in-trade is division - trying to turn one group against another.
There has certainly been division in the nation in the past. However, usually it was along tribal lines. Now it is along any line that the libs can draw, whether it be race, social standing, economic standing, religion, political belief.
Of course the other problem we have is the one that Dennis Prager mentioned in one of his panel speeches - we generally don't know what it means to BE an American. It was not handed down to us by the previous generation, who in large part were initially poisoned by FDR.
May '10
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
One thing that has definitely changed is foreign policy. Containing communism was a bipartisan goal. Advancing American interests was a bipartisan goal. Now, one side is intent on taking their own country down a notch and America is wrong by default.
Mar '12
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Of course, another problem lies buried in the question "our culture is superior." EJ assumes that all those answering in the negative are on the Left; however, many might be conservatives, or simple realists.
To the extent the term "culture" includes the political/constitutional, we are witnessing the natural conclusion of the Progressive changes in our Constitution effected from 1913-37, with a politics of "free stuff" for interest groups constituting 51% of the electorate, crony capitalist loans and bailouts for the connected, all financed through taxes on the politically unconnected portion of the 49% and borrowing against future generations' income. But for the power of the dollar, is our constitution, our political culture, fundamentally different from that of the Eurozone?
But "culture" also includes the art and worldviews on display in our cinemas, TVs, and radios. Is any of this "superior" to other cultures' art and music in any sense other than production values and the purely commercial? And our educational values, whether at the parental or formal teaching level? Here, at least, the test results speak for themselves.
American Exceptionalism was once a reality, rather than a political slogan, or a mere attitude. Is it still?
Edited on October 3, 2012 at 3:40amMar '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Xennady
It's more about the hard work and ingenuity of the American people- and the enormous and generous commitment we made to the rest of the world- e. g. NATO and the Marshall Plan.
I agree that WWII and its aftermath were two of hour finest hours. But I'm not certain that type of unity is gone. After 9/11, the country was also incredibly unified given how bitter the Bush/Gore fight had been only a few months previous.
We seem to be a people who quickly find common cause when we sense our national security or that of our closest friends in jeopardy. But once that immediate danger has subsided, we always seem to regress back into bickering. I'm not convinced that's such a bad thing, either.
Mar '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Was it really, though? What about Vietnam War protests, which were much more divisive (and violent) than any anti-war protests under Bush? What about the huge Central Park "peace" rallies which were thinly-veiled calls for appeasement of the Soviet Union? Or the immense fear-mongering over Reagan and his hard line?
I know you lived through more of the Cold War than I did, EJ, but my impression is that the public was anything but unified over how to deal with Communism.
Feb '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Mendel
I agree that WWII and its aftermath were two of hour finest hours. But I'm not certain that type of unity is gone. After 9/11, the country was also incredibly unified given how bitter the Bush/Gore fight had been only a few months previous.
We seem to be a people who quickly find common cause when we sense our national security or that of our closest friends in jeopardy. But once that immediate danger has subsided, we always seem to regress back into bickering. I'm not convinced that's such a bad thing, either.
I agree. I beg pardon as I was going to continue on with the thought you inspired with another comment but I got distracted.
I think everyone likely to see this will agree that the real problem in this country is the political left. I consider them architects of an incipient tyranny which they strive to make manifest, culminating in our very own American Gulag. Call me crazy if you want but I really don't like those people- and I know they don't like me.
Absent their continual efforts to wreck the country our problem would vastly less.
May '10
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
The political class was pretty much on the same page on containment. Except Reagan. He just wanted to end it. You know, "We win, they lose."
May '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Xennady
I have trouble with this interpretation, obviously. I will admit that I see it often but when I hearken back to the early post-WWII era my first thought isn't about how we prospered because others didn't.
... I don't think that is what he was saying. We suffered major losses in WWII, and because the type of warfare allowed for it, we were pretty unified. What Mendel said (I think), and I would agree, is that that was an aberration due to extreme circumstances. It also led to post-war government planning, and conservatives seem to fall into something of a trap of glorifying those days. Why do you think liberals are always trying to make "moral equivalent(s) of war" and recreate crisis mode... because it forces people to be unified - and in their ideal - unified under centralized planning. While we might like to recreate the attitudes and patriotism that we saw in our grandparents, it would be foolish to want to recreate the actual circumstances.
As I said (and sorry to harp on this), go back and read Chesterton and you will be amazed at how little our ideological differences have changed.
Feb '11
Re: What Makes a "United" States?
Ryan M
What Mendel said (I think), and I would agree, is that that was an aberration due to extreme circumstances.
Point taken- and that's why I noted that I was going to continue my thought about what Mendel said in another comment. I'm sure no one waits with baited breath for what I say here, but I wanted to note that my statement was incomplete.
Since you called me on that I'll take it as an invitation to ramble onwards. I think Mendel was correct to note that we don't want to devastate the world so that we will be more prosperous.
But the US was vastly better governed back then. For example, the law that created the interstate highway system was a mere 26 pages long. Compare and contrast that with the thousands of pages of law, intended to generate myriad pages more of regulations with the force of law, spewed out by the government today.
This is not progress. And war had nothing to do with the writing of law, then or now, in the context of my argument.