
Hello from the world of the unexpected daily events,
While many of us want to point the finger at the President, the Congress, the SCOTUS, the other party, the media, there is something significant in all of it. We are blamers. We want to incriminate the other while playing victim ourselves. However, in doing so we abdicate any sense of agency we have; we allow others to make decisions for us when we believe that somehow we have no say in what occurs. And that is fundamentally counterintuitive of what democracy is, and yet now, more than anytime in my life, I believe we are more troubled, more questioning, and perhaps the most mistrusting we been with Washington since tue Civil War. As a history student, as a student of argumentation, and as a person who loves politics, regardless of our present circumstances, I believe our actions, both individually and collectively, are more self-centered, are more greedy, and more monolithic than we often realize.
And yet what makes our country (and to some degree the world) as divided? What has happened in the last three-quarters of a century that America has seemed to evolve from the beacon (that lighted torch on the Statue of Liberty) to a country that is now being questioned from every corner concerning our allegiances, our alliances, to the very legality of our international actions? When I was a child, a Marine, and even into my 50s, in spite of my own partisan views, never did I believe the actions of our government, our leaders, or our diplomats would bring the level of embarrassment, that our allies could, maybe should, question who we are. Before you imagine I think all is lost, that nothing that is currently happening has no benefit, that is not the case. I believe the strengthening of the EU, the way that NATO is standing with our European allies stepping up is a positive thing. I would add that the seeming sense of bullying that occurred while effective, was not the way I imagined we would act as a country. To say the answer is complex is probably a profound understatement, but understanding some of the components is important. Extensive study from the Pew Center, which is highly respected, the Carnegie Endowment, and the University of Cambridge, all reputable, they assert that our divide is structural, ideological, and something that has happened over a significant period of time.
Certainly the Republican Party has moved more to the right as the Democratic Party moved more to the left. I am not arguing the two things are responsive, though I am not saying it’s not. Structurally that makes those who hope to work with a sense of bipartisan more unique, but it is also more difficult to find others in the same vein. And while political identity stood for a set of principles when I grew up, I do not see that in our current society. Instead of policy identification, it is now more socially oriented, from economics to education, from religion to race, and ultimately, the urban-rural divide (e.g. did you know 94% of the contiguous 48 states area is considered rural, but only 18% of the US population lives there? Think for a moment what that says.). What this means is we have a struggle with the very basics of who we are, and how we believe our government should act, not only toward its own citizens, but toward the world in general. Undoubtedly, while admitted the issues are complicated, I believe it is connected to a simple reality of who we become as a people, as a collective. I believe the big tent idea that I grew up with, regardless of our party identification changed fundamentally with the encouragement of liberal and conservative. That change has only widened in the last 40 years. The consequence is both an affective polarization as well as what can be deemed as negative partisanship. In both instances we have a distrust and fear of the other; we are motivated by fear and anger rather than policy. The result is to see the other as the enemy, and it’s necessary to replace them merely because of their party affiliation rather than believing in your own candidate. However, I would note currently there seems to be some level of returning to running good people.
I think this is where we see the consequences of our 24/7 news saturated world. No one is able to merely run a campaign without a level of scrutiny that makes every jot and tittle worthy of examination. I could never run for office! Additionally, while the founders of the country were consistently pushing against the use of monarchal type power, things like closed primaries, gerrymandering, which now is the order of the day, and our winner take all system leaves the ordinary voters seemingly disenfranchised. This brings me back to the title of this post. While our cultural history seems to point toward the opposite, our propensity for individual freedoms, or the speaking of one’s mind, how is it possible, and in spite of everything revealed in the last decade or earlier so many in Washington or the State Governors’ residences seem willing to offer our President a degree of fealty I do not believe has occurred in the last century and maybe not since George Washington? The sycophantic behavior that occurs within the beltway and the turn-a-blind-eye flattery or obey, or be primaried daily life in Congress is mind boggling. The notice that an execution of someone will be live-streamed and it’s a federal case, regardless where stand on the death penalty, pushes the reality of fear and power to an entirely different scope. And if you push it even further, with what is happening to the common people of the country as the result of tariffs, prices, Iran, or grifting, how is it that anyone can believe that the current administration actually cares about common people? It seems tantamount to someone being beat up by a bully, and then thanking them and ask to be beaten up again. It makes no sense.
I think one can easily make the argument that we have become more obsequious than we care to admit. However, the more important question is perhaps do we have the will to change? Perhaps two things: first, to believe in the power of our voice, our vote, and the foundational sense of self-determination. While some of this invokes a degree of idealism, there is the fact that voice and vote are necessary for democracy to function. Second, and this is perhaps more difficult; we must stop seeing the other, those with whom we disagree as the enemy. What does it mean to be a citizen, a member of collective, a society? John Locke, in his Second Treatise on Civil Government, states succinctly that we do give up individual freedoms for the benefit of the whole. During WWII, as we had been pulled into the war, albeit bejudgingly, – Pearl Harbor of course changed that – Aaron Copeland wrote his composition Fanfare for the Common Man. It was written to not only support those who answered duty’s call in uniform, but also those who stayed behind working in the factories, the common person who worked and paid the elevated war tax to support Americas military. In fact, the piece was released at tax time as a tribute all. If you ponder the thought behind that composing, its release and its subsequent use, it serve to remind of what happens when we work together, believing we are in this porridge, this pot of many ingredients, together. Without all of us, we lose out on just how wonderful it might be. The influence of Copeland’s piece has worked across genres, and perhaps that is instructive also. The version below is from Emerson, Lake, and Palmer.
Thank you as always for reading, and remember to vote.
Michael









