RIDERLESS HORSE

I was in Brother Malachy's English class at La Salle High School in Miami. Some time after lunch, I was probably thinking of the upcoming weekend when the first word came. That weekend would start a bit earlier as my school let us go home upon hearing of President Kennedy's death. So began that weekend that extended through Monday as my school somehow obtained enough TVs so that we could all see and hear the events of the funeral that culminated at Arlington Cemetery. And with that, we were focused on one presidential role that is often glossed over or downright ignored. That is the role of head of state – our ceremonial representative who personifies us as a people. When our head of state dies, probably more so when he is willfully killed, we all become somehow less; we all grieve over our loss.

There were many issues that vied for this space today. Probably the change in the Senate's rule concerning the filibuster would have won out. But I could not let this posting pass without commenting on the 50^th anniversary of the assassination. That is all you need to say, the assassination, to know the reference even though there have been others of notable importance since then. Perhaps its importance lies in the fact that our lives as Americans seem to have begun to so drastically change since then. I will not go on about it – who am I? For all of you who were alive back on that fall day in 1963, I'm sure you have your own memories and emotions as valid as any expressed in any media. I have nothing to add of note. But one cannot just go through today as if that day, this date, is like any other – it's not. So a moment of reflection, of recollection, of respect, is well in order. As you go about your business today, look around at your fellow citizens and know that today is one of those days for collective recognition of our common fate. We are a people, after all.

PHILANTHROPY ON STERIODS

This blog has dedicated quite a bit of space to the concentration of wealth and income that has characterized our national economy. The reason for this attention is that as a federalist – at least in terms of that construct's philosophic commitments – I am concerned with the level of inequality in our society. To remind you, federalism is a belief construct that perceives an ideal national polity as being formulated by the consent of citizens who come together and formulate, first, a society, and second, a government. That, I have argued, is what our founders believed in and it is reflected in not just our Constitution but in a long line of founding documents that can be traced all the way back to the Mayflower Compact.¹ Implicit in such societal arrangements is the belief in the equality of those adults that agree to either form the basic arrangements or are involved in maintaining them; that is, you and I. And, due to the realities of economic and political life, the level of equality a nation enjoys can only be considered meaningful if the variance of wealth within the nation is not so vast so as to allow any group or class to wrestle political control. Given this foundational context, I have argued that we are presently coming awfully close to a ruling class whose control is made possible by their overwhelming wealth and income.

I have, in way of supporting this claim, offered, over the history of the blog, some statistical data. In this posting, let me add to this data: the gap between the average compensation for corporate CEOs and the typical worker is 200 to 1. This has been expanded since the financial crisis hit in 2008. But the developing expansion predates the crisis all the way back to the seventies. A quarter of century ago, the gap was 30 to 1. And when we compare our disparity today to that of some other advanced countries, we have further reasons to question the necessity or advisability for our current gap. Japan, for example, has a gap between corporate CEOs and the typical worker of 16 to 1. On the other hand, there are other advanced countries that seem to be taking up our trend as a model. For example, Great Britain now has the type of disparity in wealth and income that resembles their wealth distribution of the Victorian age – a time known for its exploitative practices. And yet, as Joseph E. Stiglitz asks: have our current CEOs increased their productivity so much so as to justify such increases in their compensation both in relative and absolute terms? Not only is this not the case, but there have been those instances, well documented in the press, where corporate leaders have received additional compensation though their businesses have suffered serious hits during our recent recession.²

What brought all this to mind is the report on the CBS show, 60 Minutes.³ The report was on how there now exists a billionaires' group whose members are committing to donate at least 50% of their wealth to charitable organizations or other socially demanding endeavors such as efforts in advancing education, attacking poverty, limiting or eliminating disease, and the like. Members commit to make their donations now, over time, or upon their deaths by willing the money to charitable or non profit organizations. The initiative has gained enough steam that Forbes magazine is going to dedicate an issue to the group's efforts.

The question was asked during the 60 Minutes report: do these donations result, either through design or as the natural result of their efforts, in these rich individuals controlling and/or exerting undue influence over policy that relate to these areas of need. At the risk of being cynical, do some of these efforts really mask strategies in which the donors will lend up creating markets for the products they produce and sell? Given the examples of those involved, I would find such cynicism unfounded, but in some cases I can see the potential for such a connection. Be that as it may, the Forbes representative, Randall Lane, addressed this question concerning influence. He said, governments are proving unable to address these areas of need, where as, these private individuals can act to address them without the “baggage” that hamper governments. One cannot argue with the claim that our government, at least, is getting to a place where little to nothing is being initiated that really addresses many of these desperate needs. Politics is the apparently stifling obstacle that is preventing anything from getting done or even being addressed.

But, as far as these business people getting involved, be assured, the answers these entrepreneurs will develop or support will reflect the business biases that made them successful. I know that in education, these approaches are proving deficient. Why? They are lacking because business views of problems are excessively reliant on positivist thinking. That is, they tend to be behavioral, mechanistic, and reductionist. For example, the most recent push in education, led by Bill and Malinda Gates, has been for a core curriculum – in the extreme, a one size fits all approach designating what teachers need in order to do their jobs and how they should do them. This I have pointed out is a silver bullet approach that reduces the complex craft of teaching and curricular content to a fixed set of materials and processes for the vast array of conditions and populations that make up our educational institution. While I am not against promoting a set of minimal standards that is aimed at guaranteeing a floor of expectations – a limited goal – a serious effort to instill a unified curriculum won't work as an overall solution.⁴ Yet standardization has been a hallmark of American business.

Don't get me wrong; I welcome the contributions. Philanthropy should be encouraged from all sectors. It is possible: they can give, fail, learn from their mistakes, and try again. They might hit upon workable solutions. I wonder though, do they really have the resources to solve some of these problem areas. According to the telecast, combined, these wealthy individuals can pony up two trillion dollars. Even if this were to be an immediate payment, is that enough to solve hunger, disease, ignorance and the rest? I doubt it. But let them try. I just hope that the ultimate results are not the lose of a very important element of our republican polity and us becoming closer to a full fledged plutocracy, albeit, a generous one.

1See the work of Donald S. Lutz, for example Lutz, D. S. (1988). The origins of American constitutionalism. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.

2Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today's divided society endangers our future. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.

3Rose, C. (reporter). (2013). The giving pledge: A new club for billionaires. 60 Minutes, aired on November 17.

4For an interesting take on the core curriculum proposal see what a young man had to say about it. For access go to http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/15/this-could-be-one-of-the-best-cases-ever-made-against-common-core-no-one-expected-it-to-come-from-a-high-school-student/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=story&utm_campaign=ShareButtons to gain access to the cite.

AN UN(c)ONSTITUTIONAL RULE

There is now a “rule” in the House of Representatives that I believe to be unconstitutional. No, it does not violate the formal provisions of the US Constitution, but it does violate the rationale that our Founding Fathers expressed for the way they set up our central government. A little background context will help us understand why the Hastert Rule offends our constitutional architecture.

Let's start with Aristotle. He pointed out that there are three types of constitutions: the rule of the one (monarchy or dictatorship), the rule of the few (aristocracy or oligarchy), and the rule of the many (democracy). Each, according to the great philosopher, has its advantages and its deficiencies. Skipping what those are, let me just point out that the Founding Fathers decided that we needed a mixed constitution comprised of a president (rule of the one), a Senate (rule of the few), and a House of Representatives (rule of the many); that is, by having each of these elements we can benefit from the respective advantages each type of constitution provides.

One of the advantages is that representatives could congregate in the Congress, talk to their colleagues and share the wishes of their constituents, their hometowns, neighbors, and friends back home, and by doing so, provide a voice for these constituents at the seat of power. From this process, policy emerges. But the process needs to reflect the will of the majority, at least in the House of Representatives – so as to be that portion of the government in which the “many” are heard. The majority will more than likely reflect the will of like-minded individuals and the institution of political parties facilitates this kind of melding of the minds and the formulation of majority positions, but not always. Actually, there are times when majorities are formulated by groups of factions and from representatives who usually disagree on most issues. For example, right now there is an initial impetus to oppose the death penalty between what we call liberal or progressive politicians and libertarians. Usually, these two groups of politicians are known for their antagonism toward each others' positions, but here is one area in which they agree. Now, I don't know whether there are enough liberals and libertarians to form a majority, but there is the possibility that if not today, maybe eventually. This potential is exactly what the Founding Fathers foresaw and I believe hoped for. But the Hastert Rule makes such an eventuality almost impossible.

Why? The Hastert Rule calls for limiting the bills that come before the House for a vote to those that are supported by a “majority of the majority.” Let me explain. The Constitution calls on each chamber of Congress to form its own rules. The formal rules of the House state that the Speaker has the role of placing on the voting agenda those bills he or she feels should be considered by the membership. So, if the Speaker is against a bill, it will not come up for a vote unless 218 members sign a “discharge” petition – a very unlikely development. In effect, this role gives the Speaker a great deal of power. An informal rule – one not voted on by the membership – states that the Speaker will not call up a bill that is not supported by a majority of the members who make up the majority party in the House – presently, the Republican members. This, in effect, can give as little as one quarter of the members veto power over any considered policy option – a far cry from the rule of the many. That is what the Hastert Rule allows. The Democrats have never implemented the Hastert Rule when they held the majority, but Republicans have, although there have been a few occasions when the present Speaker has brought up a very limited number of bills that didn't have a majority of the majority's support. The Hastert Rule is named after a former Speaker, Dennis Hastert, but it was in effect under a previous Speaker to Hastert, Newt Gingrich.

Whatever its origins, the rule counters a constitutionally conceived quality: the possibility and, hopefully, the likelihood that Congress, particularly in the House, would have rolling coalitions that form over particular issues and policy considerations. These coalitions would form over one area, dissolve, and then other coalitions would form over other considerations. In each, there would be a different collection of members. This reflects a more congregational atmosphere in our Congress and would give meaning to its name: a congress, not a parliament. The Hastert Rule belies this entire conception and, as such, it is un-constitutional with a small “c.”

With the Hastert Rule, the result has been to stifle legislation and, when added to the rules in the Senate – where any one senator can hold up many of the Senate's procedures or a minority can easily “filibuster” pending legislation, – we are going through a time when our Congress seems not to be able to get anything done. Ironically, the party that calls for constitutional purity seems to be the party apt to engage in this “unconstitutional” practice.

HONOR OR INTEGRITY

In the somewhat classic film, Jezebel, a southern aristocrat challenges another character to a duel due to something said – a perceived affront to the aristocrat's reputation. This situation is common enough in old films about our early national history and then there is the very real duel we were all told about between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton – again, over some unsavory comments. Of course, such scenes, either in real life or as depictions in movies are pretty much things of the past. While I believe most of us are relieved by such a development – although we had a prominent politician refer to dueling when his good name came into question recently – I think it is still interesting to ask: what changed in our way of thinking that has made dueling no longer acceptable at any level? This question is relevant to civics in that the change(s) reflects basic belief shifts that affect our civic sensitivities.

In a word, the change has mostly to do with how we view reputation. It used to be that reputation was a product of how we were essentially seen by others. Our reputation had to do with the expected behaviors associated with our standing in society and that, in turn, was derived from the positions we held and the roles we fulfilled within the institutions of which we were a part. Today, this view of reputation has been degraded and in its stead we have a sense of reputation as being a derived function of our usefulness, often in terms of business activity. The first view spoke of honor; the second view speaks of integrity.¹

Words we associate with honor are goodness, glory, distinction. Words we associate with integrity are dependable, ethical, unimpaired. These are not mutually exclusive terms; a person can have both honor and integrity – perhaps the title of this posting should have used the word “and” instead of “or.” The issue arises when the terms are used interchangeably or when they are treated as synonyms. The first, honor, is linked to a person's intrinsic substance, an element that goes toward his or her character or lack of character. The second has more of a practical bent.

Honor is attained by holding and keeping in good standing the roles one has in relation to the institutions one is in such as family, vocation, church, gender, and the like. Honor is also more definitive in terms of expectations. For example, fathers and mothers have definite roles that are well-established within cultural norms and one's honor is unequivocally ensconced in expectations regarding the behaviors and dispositions within the context of those roles. That is why when one's honor was questioned, satisfaction called for an extreme response such as dueling.

As for integrity, while one can attach expected behaviors to people of integrity, they are more situational and apt to be less rigid. When assessing the costs of someone lacking integrity, the talk is not of the person's moral standing, but of the effect the damage has caused others. The question is not so much about the moral shortcomings, but the costs the affected parties will bear. I admit the difference can be very subtle, but I believe the distinction is real and is reflected in such civic realities as judicial reasoning.

Consider cases relating to defamation. Michael Sandel points out that in cases when one party is found to libel or slander another, it is not enough to prove the libelous or slanderous statements were printed or said, not enough to prove the statement is untruthful, not even enough to prove maliciousness; rather, one needs to prove actual harm in concrete terms; what the lawyers call special damages. The terms most likely to be considered are those that are financial in nature or can otherwise be monetized. And while hitting the pocketbook can be painful, it is not the same as bringing into question our sense of value as a connected person within our community. In other words, having our integrity questioned is a far cry from hearing, “Meet you at sunrise; will it be pistols or rapiers?”

I am not advocating a return to dueling, but I do believe it would be good for our commonwealth that we find a way to reintroduce in a meaningful way a notion of honor, at least be able to give it more importance. Yes; honor is a term bandied about, but does its current meaning really affect behavior? My sense is that it does not, at least to any meaningful degree. I remember once saying to a business person on the phone who was treating my mother, then over 80 years old, in an unscrupulous way, “Shame on you.” The response was laughter. We should hold each other to expectations that certain institutional roles entail desired behaviors and that those among us who fail in meeting those expectations are, in proportional terms, dishonorable. They do deserve to feel shame, at the very minimum. I saw Anthony Weiner on a TV show recently and of course his escapades were brought up. Whether sincere or not, his body language communicated shame – I hope that was truly the emotion he was experiencing. It does not mean one cannot work toward redemption – it could be that was what Mr. Weiner was working toward. It does not mean we should change our legal perspectives regarding defamation and the like. But it does mean we can communicate, without embarrassment or hesitation – once the facts of a case are known – how disappointed we are when individuals don't live up to their responsibilities, and that communication should matter! It also behooves us to review what our institutional expectations are. Are they petty? Or perhaps they might be regarding immaterial or unsubstantial issues. We should reserve such judgments to important matters. Like what? How well are kids being taken care of? How honest are our business practices? Do we have a meaningful and useful safety net to help and provide opportunity for those who are running into hard times? Are those in power or with excessive wealth taking advantage of their position to further their interests at the expense of the common welfare? These are the types of issues that affect how well people live, how they can contribute to society, and how they can go about fulfilling their potential. Society depends on non-legalistic institutional processes to inhibit unwanted behaviors – such as infidelity in marriage or irresponsible parenting behavior or abusive practices in the workplace – and it also counts on them to promote those behaviors that are desired. As a social mechanism, we should reflect on what we say and do as we utilize these mechanisms. And while we are about that, we should see if we can develop a healthy sense of honor and recognize it in those who are worthy and withhold it from those who are not.

1The distinction made in this posting relies on the work of Michael J. Sandel. See Sandel, M. J. (1996). Democracy's discontent: America in search of a public philosophy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

“PLEASE PLEASE ME”

Does the title of this posting sound familiar? It has a special place in my memory; it was the title of the first Beatles song I ever heard. My limited research indicates that the song was released in the UK in 1963 – a year before Beatlemania hit the US – and reached number one there. In the US, the song was also released but did not do very well, but I remember hearing it and liking it. A friend of mine really liked it. I invoke the title not to go down memory lane – although there is nothing wrong with that – but to point out that its message succinctly summarizes how many of us feel about government policy. Most of us just want the governmental action to please us, individually, and we care little for what the effect has on the country. Some of us, myself included, think this is unfortunate, but that is the way it is. This self-centered sentiment is behind the famous quote of Ronald Reagan's when he was running for president against President Jimmy Carter: “[a]sk yourself, are you better off now than you were four years ago?” This is a far cry from asking: “are we, as a nation, better off than we were four years ago?” This latter question is just too collectivist for some; it is just too ethereal for many.

Which leads me to think: is all this talk about patriotism on the part of so many just so much hot air? Is it more accurate, when it comes down to brass tacks, to see our fellow citizens' views as mainly concerned with “us and ours.” Okay, this might just reflect human nature and one should not get high and mighty about it. Historically, Americans have sacrificed plenty – for whatever reason – and that sacrifice has resulted in great rewards for all of us. The sacrifices of the “Greatest Generation” come easily to mind. But in practical terms, when creating public policy, one needs to be very conscious of the limits and context in which we expect a public, and that includes the American public, to be willing to sustain sacrifice in order to arrive at the common good. Heck; we even have currently a public philosophy, stated proudly and boldly, that it is a virtue to be self-centered.

Much of this blog has been dedicated to this apparent reality. I have never stated that the purpose of this blog has been to promote a belief in which people can be expected to or actually sacrifice their self interests in order to advance societal welfare. As Tocqueville pointed out, citizens should pursue their self interest, but it should be a self interest better understood. People should have an understanding that takes into account such factors as to how our social realities will in the short term or, more likely in the long term, affect how well we can live. It helps to have an active and robust ideal sense of what should be and that sense should take into account the welfare of others – both locally and nationally, if not globally. The ability to feel this way requires, if one gives credence to psychologist Lawrence Kholberg's theory on moral development, ever higher levels of maturity.

I have in the past indicated a dual mental approach to this tension between selfish tendencies and selfless needs. I have written about having a “real” perspective in which one acknowledges the need to be protective against the selfishness of others while maintaining an ideal disposition to seek out and promote a more communal reality around us. The first is an expectation; the second, when one is comfortable enough, is a hoped for – and willing to work toward – potential. Unfortunately, prevailing political perspective promotes the first and sees the second as merely sweet sentiments in which only young children can believe – such as believing in Mr. Roger's Neighborhood.

Of course, I am referring to the natural rights perspective and I want to particularly focus in this posting on that perspective's reliance on positivism as its main method in seeking the truth. In regard to this link, Philip Selznick¹ provides us with an important insight. To approach it, let me start with a question: what is the general welfare? I think this is an important question in that our constitution identifies promoting it as one of our purposes in forming a national government. So it seems that getting a handle on what that means is a fundamental civic responsibility. I will note that however you define it, the inclusion of this aim indicates that we are instructed by our founding fathers to think idealistically and not to limit our political pursuits to self interest – ill understood. But how are we to discuss this question? What language should we use? I am not asking whether we should use the English language. But each view of politics promotes a certain use of words, symbols, and phraseology – its own language. And the prevailing view, the natural rights perspective, is no exception. The language it utilizes is the language of positivism. So when we ask what general welfare is, we, without reflecting, tend to employ positivist language. When we do, we are, according to Selznick, limited. That is, that positivist language strives to be definitive and to exclusively see political and other social elements that are amenable to being measurable. “In the ethos of positivism, all the great moral ideals – love, justice, the common good – are remorselessly subjected to a nominalist solvent. No such idea has meaning, none has practical worth, save as it is reduced to some definite indicator.”² For example, Selznick provides the following progression: well-being becomes happiness which in turn becomes pleasure. The aim is to identify some associated factor that can be observed and measured – pleasure can be measured by asking people how pleasurable something is or whether it is more or less pleasurable than something else. And all of this leads to a further development in that the language of positivism blends nicely with utilitarian views of morality.

Of course, utilitarian views are grounded in self interest. Things are considered good or evil in terms of how people view those things: do they like them or not? And on that basis, morality is defined as being that state in which the most “good” for the most number is achieved. I have defended, in this blog, some elements of this line of thinking, but overall, its reliance on self interest ultimately dooms this view of morality, especially as it pertains to judging the individual actions of people. Governments, by necessity, have significantly more leeway when it comes to this type of moralizing – in the tradition of “render unto Caesar …” – but there are limits and one limit is the example government extends to citizens. So, for example, the practice of the death penalty, even if it can be proven that executing murderers does overall reduce the incidence of murder – which has not been proven – what of the example the state provides in killing some of its citizens? But I digress a bit; the issue here is that positivist language steers clear from the qualitative and that in order to reach a truer understanding of reality, in order to avoid approximations (well-being vs. pleasure) of the truth, our language has to discuss, describe, and analyze in the realm of the vague and speculative. Why? Because reality is that complex and “resists” the definitive. Perhaps when it comes to government, our mantra should not be “please, please me,” but instead be “do right by us.”

1Selznick, P. (1992). The moral commonwealth: Social theory and the promise of community. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

2Ibid., p. 51.

NEVER ENOUGH

Embarrassment reigned supreme lately when it was made known that our government, as a result of the work of the National Security Agency, spied on the private phones of our close allies' leaders. The case that has gotten the most attention was the eavesdropping on the German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cell phone. The common refrain has been that this revelation has put a serious breach in the levels of trust that have existed among the governments of many of our allies and ourselves including the personal trust among the leaders. This whole case provides an excellent opportunity to review with civics students the role and function of espionage.

Much goes into espionage including analysis of data on a massive scale. This analysis takes on the form of puzzle-solving which incorporates information from a variety of sources: sometimes information that is intentionally targeted, sometimes information gathered from unsuspected origins. One never knows for sure where that next nugget of data will appear. Not only will its source be surprising, but it can be information that on the surface seems unrelated, but when combined with other facts, becomes the key to some insight or location, or agent, or some other element that leads to lifesaving understanding. Spying is, of course, done by all governments. It is considered a necessary element of national defense. But, as we tell our kids, just because everyone does it doesn't make it right. What questions should we be asking our students when it comes to espionage? Here are a set of initial questions I think would be useful for students to consider as they inquire into the world of spying:

One, is spying essential in maintaining our security?

Two, how many resources do we dedicate to spying – at least as far as we can determine? How many resources should we dedicate to spying?

Three, should there be different rules or policies regarding spying on our adversaries as opposed to spying on our allies?

Four, in the actual act of spying, are there types of activities that should be prohibited or considered out of bounds?

Five, how should privacy issues be handled in our spying activities?

Six, what is at stake: consequences of having an aggressive spying program or the consequences of having reluctant or a non-existent spying program?

Seven, is there any such thing as too much spying? How would you measure that?

You can probably think of other questions, but I would want students to reflect on the ramifications of either conducting truly intrusive activities or activities that were shy about targeting certain or all agents, either domestic or foreign. For example, in the case of the German Chancellor, the opinion has been posed by some that if the leaders of our government wanted to know what the leader of an ally was thinking, saying, or doing, our government's agents could simply call and ask what they were going to do. But what a defender of our spying strategies might say is, first, you can never know enough about what leaders or other officials from countries – friendly or not – are thinking, saying, and doing. It is not that you don't trust them, but that what they might divulge when they believe they can be frank without worrying about repercussions could be information that would fit into a bigger picture of what is going on in the world. It could be a bit of innocent data that is the missing information needed to solve a vexing puzzle. You can never have enough information because you never know where any particular revelation might lead an investigation. At least, that is what a rationale might include in defending such espionage. Remember, the potential stakes can be another 9/11 attack.

On the other side of the debate is of course what such activities do to our rights, especially our right to privacy. I don't feel I need to add much here about privacy since I have dedicated more than one posting to the topic and will probably do so in the future. I want to instead make the case that while there are serious and legitimate concerns about our government spying on us and on foreign people, organizations, and governments, there are legitimate concerns over the dangers that are posed by those who want to do us harm. It is useful to figure out what their plans are to a degree of specificity that would allow us to take protective actions. Our students should be made aware of such dangers – both those emanating from foreign agents and those from our own government as it abuses our rights.

AN EXCEPTIONAL DECAY?

Are we Americans the beneficiaries of the healthiest form of democracy? I don't pretend to know the answer to that question, but a respected academic addressed that topic not so long ago and came to the conclusion that we are not; that is, according to her, the US's democracy is experiencing meaningful decay. She specifically calls attention to the less than ideal levels of certain vital virtues among us: courage, moderation, veracity, and social justice. In terms of each of these virtues or qualities, Shadia B. Drury¹ finds Americans, especially those who populate the upper classes, as seriously wanting.

I have written in this blog that I believe there are worrisome developments we have experienced as a nation, including some that negatively affect the quality of our democratic life. I have always hedged my bets by pointing out that the US is a nation that has a lot going for it and that such descriptions as decay or doomsday conditions are overstating the case. In Drury, we have someone who is putting things in a more dire state. For example, she flat-out accuses even the more laudatory politicians of being less than truthful in meaningful ways. For example, there was the case when President Obama, during his initial run for the White House, stated, “If you have a successful business, you haven't built it yourself.” When faced with criticism, he shied away from the comment instead of defending it as an obvious observation of the truth. When one considers all of our dependence on just the infrastructure that has been provided for us by not only our current fellow citizens – in the form of their tax dollars at work – but also as the result of generations of Americans who have added to our collective wealth, you cannot help being humbled by what little any one of us have added to the great scheme of things. Such an understanding makes clear how dependent we are on others. Yet many of us, Americans, have adopted to our collective perspective that somehow we are special and that we are so because we believe each can – and some have – been able to accomplish life ambitions singularly and independently. We have coined the term, American Exceptionalism, to describe this loaded notion.

The term gained currency initially through the work of the sociologist, Seymour Martin Lipset. He wrote:

[T]he nation's ideology can be described in five words: liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism, and laissez faire. The revolutionary ideology which became the American Creed is liberalism in its eighteenth- and nineteenth-century meanings, as distinct from conservative Toryism, statist communitarianism, mercantilism, and noblesse oblige dominant in monarchical, state-church-formed cultures.²

Some would criticize Lipset for placing these beliefs as central to the American ethos. While most of us would agree that the listed values or qualities Lipset identifies are supported by just about all Americans, they are also challenged by a set of values and qualities that promote more communal goals and aims. As a matter of fact, currently – as reflected by recent voting preferences – such adherence to laissez-faire policy, for example, has at least been questioned.

Our history since the 1930s bears out that we as a people have questioned our love for unrestricted business operations. We have in this nation brought pure capitalism under serious restraints, especially since the adoption of the New Deal, the War on Poverty, Medicare/Medicaid, and now, the Affordable Healthcare legislation. In all of these, the American public has had ample opportunity to eliminate them and with the exception of the War on Poverty effort, the others, when given time, have proven to be quite popular with the American public. Even in the case of the War on Poverty or the Great Society initiative, we still sustain meaningful elements of it such as Head Start, Volunteers in Service to America, and Job Corps. What has been proven to be the legacy of the term, American Exceptionalism, is its addition to the lexicon of conservative proponents. The use of the term has evolved to being a weapon of sorts. That is, its use suggests that policies that are less individualistic, more communal or that bring about more restrictions on the prerogatives of businesses are un-American. In short, this language reflects the lack of veracity that Drury points out.

My aim in this blog is not to promote anti laissez-faire policies, but to simply point out that the American consciousness cannot be summarily described as American Exceptionalism – at least not in the way Lipset defines it. Early in the history of this blog, I identified five different orientations Americans have shared when trying to define equality. Two of these orientations seem to me to be relevant to this topic of American Exceptionalism. The two are “equal opportunity, limited rewards” and “equal condition.” I have recently reedited my initial remarks and would like to share with you what I see these orientations to be.

• Equal Opportunity, Limited Rewards – General belief orientation which views persons who enjoy superior human assets (e. g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor, etc.) due to their personal efforts are entitled to above normal considerations in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc. These advantages, though, are limited only to areas associated with their earned accomplishments or contributions to society. Any entitlements acquired as a result of employing these assets are time limited as a recipient must continue to demonstrate his or her worthiness. Said rewards, other than status, must be purchased and are not distributed to beneficiaries due to membership in any class or family. Monetary reward payoffs for an individual’s contribution or for his or her status must be within limits. That is, they should not unreasonably exceed the person's contribution to the welfare of the society or provide such a level of financial standing so as to secure for him or her an ongoing, established source of benefits.
• Equal Condition – General belief orientation which views persons who enjoy superior human assets (e. g., intelligence, physical dexterity, humor, etc.) due to their personal efforts are entitled to above normal considerations in society in the form of status, wealth, material possessions, etc. There are no limits to that compensation other than as a result of the vagaries of the economic or political system. In capitalist societies, that would be the market. Other than status, all entitlements are to be purchased and monetary advantages do not entitle a person to unequal advantages under the law. The orientation extends to prohibit any restrictions on monetary or other types of rewards as long as the rewards reflect labor compensations, dividends, rents, or profits. Advantages are purchased and are not the product of membership in a family or class. The labor value of any person is based on its market value.

These descriptions are based on an ideal notion of each view and do not necessarily reflect the realities surrounding their implementation. For example, under equal condition, believing that unlimited compensation will not lead to unequal treatment under the law is unrealistic. The more realistic view is to acknowledge that those who benefit by extremely high income will use their excessive financial assets to gain unequal levels of access to governmental policy makers.

Be that as it may, the point here is that the nation, as I and many commentators see it, is divided almost equally between those who harbor the one orientation and those who hold onto the other. If anything, the movement in public opinion seems to be shifting toward the equal opportunity/limited reward view. At the same time, many who share the equal condition view are becoming more ideological in their perspective. In large part, this is what is causing our current standoff in Washington. If we believe Drury, a shift toward equal condition will further our path toward decay. While at the same time, those who favor equal condition castigate their opponents as un-American and despicable (i.e., they are takers, not makers). Tighten your seat belts; this ride ain't over yet.

1Drury, S. B. (2013). The decay of American democracy, part 2. Free Inquiry, 33 (3), April/May.

2This quote can be found in Lipset, S. M. (1996). American exceptionalism: A double-edged sword. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. This particular citation, though, was copied from website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/americanexceptionalism.htm