[Note: From time to time, this blog issues a set of
postings that summarize what the blog has been emphasizing in its previous
postings. Of late, the blog has been
looking at various obstacles civics educators face in teaching their
subject. It’s time to post a series of
such summary accounts. The advantage of
such summaries is to introduce new readers to the blog and to provide a
different context by which to review the blog’s various claims and
arguments. This and upcoming summary
postings will be preceded by this message.]
They include a renewed spotlight on
civil rights (more specifically police mistreatment of primarily African
Americans), abortion, immigration, health policies (especially those relating
to the COVID crisis), tax policy, inequality, etc. And given how people faced with political weakness
– they seek out allies – most sense that that is their relative position in the
political arena. Hence, the nation’s
politics has evolved into two grand alliances:
that of the left of center and of the right of center.
But in so doing, within each,
compromising has had to take place to maintain those alliances intact. One area of concern where this amalgamation
of demands has taken place is within the left of center alliance in which two
major sets of opinions have an uneasy compromised position. That would be between those who espouse the
assimilationist position in the treatment of immigrants and those who hold a
critical multicultural position.
The first sees the nation best served by
the immigrant populations working toward knowing and accepting, at least in
terms of public action, the basic Western derived beliefs and values upon which
the nation is based. The other view
holds that immigrants should not give up on their cultural backgrounds and live
their lives within the dispositions they bring with them – possibly in
communities so populated.
The late historian, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,
wrote a warning adopting the multiculturalist position, especially if public
policy would be based on its belief.
This blogger mostly agrees with Schlesinger and adopted a set of
provisos the historian offers. They are:
· One, that the Western derived tradition is not a unitary orthodoxy but
relies on a cultural process. That process
would be a reflected way by which incoming traditions be incorporated into the
prevailing, dominant way of life. As
such, the nation would have an evolving philosophy; one that forms and fulfills
its beliefs and values through undiluted beliefs in debate, being self-critical,
being tolerant of disrespect, of protest, and even of irreverence. That is, there would be an acceptance of
people holding other than dominant sentiments and beliefs and retain their
rights to assert those beliefs.
· Two, that Americans, immigrants and non-immigrants alike, should
recognize the essentially European origins of this nation’s culture as both
historically true and in its proclivity to invite and accept accommodation of
other traditions (a sense not honored in most cultures). In short, it invites, through an evolutionary
process, an adaptation of non-European cultural traits within the basic
constitutional framework that the nation holds.
· Three, not to claim that the inherited “European” way is ideal for all
humans, but that it is better for Americans.
Why? Because it has provided for
the nation’s identity.
· Four, as opposed to the emphasis multiculturalist voice, one of group
rights, the prevailing espoused values express a foundational commitment to
guard and promote individual integrity.
It does this by its allegiance to its Bill of Rights, the rule of
law, and its democratic processes. The
federal take on these esteemed elements is that they should be defined and
exercised in a communal mode of application.
· And five, to allow the acceptance of this inherited tradition to function
so as to promote efficiencies. That is, economic
actors can more efficiently do their work if they can reasonably predict and
share general views with other economic actors (that being everyone) [1]
and, toward that end, a shared cultural tradition, within the nation, is essential.
In short, while recognizing the central
function that the Western derived culture plays in setting up cultural
guardrails to protect constitutional values, the nation can be very
accommodating to the various cultural traditions that find their way to these
shores.
Is this easy? Of course not. It calls for compromise – a federal requisite. In this case, one needs to find that middle
ground between nationalists and their proclivity to be against non-Western
immigration and multiculturalists and their bias against socializing immigrants
of Western based cultural norms and standards particularly those relating to its
constitutional/legal framework.
To repeat a previously quoted comment in
this blog, “Our task is to combine due appreciation of the splendid
diversity of the nation with due emphasis on the great unifying Western ideas
of individual freedom, political democracy, and human rights.”[2]
Or
as the Lincoln historian, Ted Widmer, puts it, “They [Americans of 1865] were
not naïve; they knew that the Declaration [of Independence] set a difficult
standard, one that they would often fail to reach. But to pretend it did not exist was to slowly
become a different kind of country, with no moral standard at all.”[3] That
equally goes for how the nation absorbs peoples from across this world.
Widmer’s observation reflects what is at stake with this issue.
[1]
See William K. Tabb, The Restructuring of
Capitalism in Our Time (New York, NY:
Columbia University Press, 2012).
[2] Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., The Disuniting of
America: Reflections on a Multicultural
Society (New York, NY: W. W. Norton
and Company, 1992), 138.
[3] Ted Widmer, Lincoln on the Verge: Thirteen Days to Washington (New York,
NY: Simon and Schuster, 2020), 461.
No comments:
Post a Comment