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