Yesterday, we explored “The Big Sort” of the
American electorate. Today, in Part II, we’ll examine ways to combat this
trend.
“Look,
men, let’s quit arguing and kidding ourselves. We’re all in the same boat. And
we’re all gonna sink unless we stick together.”
-- John Wayne, Three Faces West, 1940
Maintaining unity in a nation as diverse as America can sometimes seem impossible. As President John Adams wrote in 1818:
The colonies had grown up under constitutions of
government so different, there was so great a variety of religions, they were
composed of so many different nations, their customs, manners, and habits had
so little resemblance, and their intercourse had been so rare, and their
knowledge of each other so imperfect, that to unite them in the same principles
in theory and the same system of action, was certainly a very difficult
enterprise.
And yet,
against all odds, “Thirteen
clocks were made to strike together — a perfection of mechanism, which no
artist had ever before effected.”
In the
ensuing two centuries, the U.S. has welcomed millions of immigrants from every
corner of the globe. As we seek to
stitch together the fraying threads of common experience and values that are
central to the preservation of the Union, it is useful to look at what drew these immigrants to the Golden Door.
The American Dream is often cast in material terms, but its true nature
is much deeper. As James Truslow Adams wrote in 1931:
[The American Dream] is not a dream of motor
cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and
each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are
innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of
the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.
Waves of immigrants came to
America with different customs, languages, skills, beliefs, and histories.
However, their united purpose—a new life in a new land, one that offered
opportunity and liberty, was and is stronger than their differences.
That’s why the first step in maintaining a united America is to acknowledge and
honor our common ends.
Of course, it gets harder from
there; for while we understand that we share a common set of goals as
Americans, it is inescapable that we view distinct means as pathways to those
ends. Sometimes these
disagreements will be intractable. There is, after all, no daylight between
those who believe that LGBT Americans deserve equal protection of the laws and
those who believe that discrimination on account of sexual orientation should
be legal.
More often than not, however, there is room for experimentation, for
trial and error, for pragmatic (rater than ideological) efforts to change
policy. Most Americans agree
that a building block of society is that children receive a high quality
education. And while you may hear otherwise from various interest groups, the
truth is that nobody knows exactly
how to achieve that and no group has
a monopoly on good ideas.
Instead of bowing to vitriolic
attacks on the very character of
those who disagree with us about the means, we should remember the foundational commonality of purpose and seek to
further different ideas simultaneously in an effort to get at scalable
solutions to serious problems.
This
effort is made more difficult by our propensity to live, work, and socialize in
relatively homogenous bubbles. In fact, technology—which in many ways has
brought the world closer together than ever before—will continue to have the
paradoxical effect of dividing us,
unless we calibrate it to nudge people toward ideas/people different from
themselves (see generally, Cass Sunstein's Republic.com 2.0).
We ought not
assume, however, that technology can save us from ourselves. Rather, an
understanding of and respect for one another must go far deeper than the “newsfeed”
or promoted tweet of the day.
It starts early,
by bringing together children of different backgrounds in furtherance of common
goals. But it shouldn’t end there. My grandfather, Louis Airoldi, was one of
over 3 million young American men to participate in the Civilian Conservation
Corps—a program that not only built many of our cherished national treasures,
but also brought together people of very different backgrounds in furtherance
of a common goal.
As author
Jonathan Alter told PBS’ American
Experience, “The CCC Corps members…were thrust together, sent out from
whatever neighborhood they came from, out into the countryside, put in these
barracks. And they had to learn how to deal with each other. The only thing
they had in common was that they were poor. And they needed a job.”
The anecdotal experience of team-building from the CCC
camp has been reaffirmed by studies
suggesting that tasking individuals with a common goal or purpose leads them to
develop team-like relationships that otherwise may not have taken place.
While we lack the material urgency of the Depression, we are
experiencing signs of a different kind of malaise—declining social institutions,
a deep sense of “otherness”, and an inability to speak to, rather than beyond,
one another. We may not need a second CCC to put people
to work, but we could certainly use a second CCC (or equivalent public service
program) to bring women and men together
in furtherance of a common purpose greater than themselves.
But beyond
any big program or new initiative, what
is needed more than anything else is for leaders to set an example for the nation
by employing a dialogue of understanding and respect; embracing a self-effacing
modesty about the truth of one’s own values and beliefs and eschewing the
politics of party for the politics of the possible.
In the West Wing episode Lies, Damn
Lies, and Statistics, President Josiah Bartlet (a New Hampshire
liberal) approaches Senator Max Lobell (a conservative Republican) about an
issue of mural interest. The dialogue reads:
President Bartlet: We agree on nothing,
Max.
Senator Lobell: Yes, sir.
President Bartlet: Education, guns,
drugs, school prayer, gays, defense spending, taxes - you name it, we disagree.
Senator Lobell: You know why?
President Bartlet: Because I'm a
lily-livered, bleeding-heart, liberal, egghead communist.
Senator Lobell: Yes, sir. And I'm a
gun-toting, redneck son-of-a-bitch.
President Bartlet: Yes, you are.
Senator Lobell: We agree on that.
President Bartlet: We also agree on
campaign finance.
Senator Lobell: Yes, sir.
After
President Bartlet secures Lobell’s promise to support his nominees to the
Federal Election Commission, Lobell asks, “And what do I get in exchange?”
Bartlet responds, “The thanks of a grateful President.”
We may live
in a cynical age, where the no-holes-barred, backroom backstabbing of House of Cards reflects our current
belief (or lack thereof) in the state of politics. But the truth is that the
“better angels of our nature” are in line with the hope and aspiration of The West Wing—the type of hope that has
long embodied the American Experience; the type of hope that will ensure that
the Experience long endures.
No comments:
Post a Comment