Among America’s most cherished ideas is the notion that, despite all our differences, we are one nation. It is embodied in the Pledge of Allegiance: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” E Pluribus Unum - out of many, one, - appears in all our coins and in the Great Seal of the United States.
But, watching the heated political and social debates taking place all around us causes one to wonder what it means to be one nation in our fractious times. The ideological polarization of our political parties reflects the deep divisions in the country as a whole. It is more likely than not that the political volatility of the past decade will continue, barring some rare, high impact black swan event like a severe economic depression or 9/11-like terrorist attack.
What are the implications of living through an extended period of deep social divisions? How will our idea of one nation evolve over such times? Has the country ever gone through similar politically volatile times in the past? Given that the future is so unpredictable, can we at least look at our history for some guidance?
“Explanations for our current political volatility abound: toxic partisanship, the ever more fragmented and strident news media, high unemployment, economic upheaval and the clamorous upwelling of inchoate populist angst.”
“But the political instability of our own time pales when compared with the late 19th century. In the Gilded Age the American ship of state pitched and yawed on a howling sea of electoral turbulence. For decades on end, “divided government” was the norm. In only 12 of the 30 years after 1870 did the same party control the House, the Senate and the White House.”
The Gilded Age is the name given to the era of rapid economic and population growth following the Civil War. It was a time of major industrial and technological advances, including railroads, steel and factories of all sorts. The telephone and electricity were both invented and initially deployed during this period.
In his essay, Professor Kennedy discusses the challenges the country faced during these times. Foremost among them was navigating the transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy, and from a rural to an increasingly urban society; managing the labor unrest in this new industrialized, urban economy, as workers worried about their jobs, pay and working conditions; absorbing millions of immigrants; and recovering from the wounds of the Civil War.
Some of the major challenges we face today are similar, some are new. Among our most critical challenges are once more navigating an economic transition, this time to a post-industrial information and knowledge-based economy; dealing with the high unemployment resulting from the structural changes the economy is going through; and coming up with a reasonable immigration policy. Other challenges are more unique to our times, such as increased global competition; high healthcare costs; and energy, sustainability and climate issues.
Perhaps there is nothing so new here. Political and social divisions have been with us since the birth of the Republic. Lest we forget, 150 years ago, our divisions over slavery led to the Civil War which resulted in the deaths of over 600,000 soldiers and an undetermined number of civilians. More recently, the Sixties is well remembered as an era of heated cultural and social battles, including civil rights, feminism and the sexual revolution. These battles were fought in the shadows of the Vietnam War, with one side shouting, “Make love, not war,” and the other, “America, love it or leave it.”
Watching democracy in action has long been compared to sausage making - a messy, ugly process. So, are our present times similar to those that we have often experienced over the past two and a half centuries, or are there new forces pulling us apart at this time. As I think about it, three such very strong forces come to mind.
The first is the structural changes and employment challenges our economy is going through. Significant advances in technology-based productivity has meant that companies are able to get the same work done with significantly fewer people. Moreover, our increased globalization means that companies are now able to get whatever skills they need all over the world. In addition, they are cutting jobs in the US and other countries where demand is weak, while adding jobs in the booming emerging markets.
These economic changes have resulted in an increased demand for highly skilled, educated workers to deal with the continuous stream of advanced, disruptive technologies and with the demands of managing a global business. Conversely, employment opportunities have been declining for middle-skill blue collar and white collar workers, whose jobs are those most likely to have been replaced by automation or moved off-shore. The result has been a sharp rise in the inequality of wages.
The second major force driving us apart is our changing demographics, which is leading to the emergence of a new establishment in US society.
US population is growing fastest among minorities as a whole. “Immigrants and their U.S.-born descendants are expected to provide most of the U.S. population gains in the decades ahead. Since the liberalization of immigration policy in 1965, the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled, from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007. Almost 97% of residents of the 10 largest American cities in 1900 were non-Hispanic whites. In 2006, non-Hispanic whites were the minority in thirty-five of the fifty largest cities.”
Multiculturalism and diversity apply not just to immigration and demographics, but to inclusion in the establishment or centers of power in the country. Continuing the civil rights and feminist trends of the sixties, previously disenfranchised groups are no longer willing to stand by while others make important decisions that affect their lives, and those of their families and communities. More than ever before, they now demand a seat at the table.
But not everyone is comfortable expanding the ruling groups and sharing power. It is not surprising that the start of the Tea Party movement coincides with the election of Barack Obama as US President. Surveys of Tea Party members show that they really don’t like President Obama. Eighty-eight percent disapprove of the way he is handling his job as President; 75 percent believe that he does not share the values most Americans are trying to live by; and 30 percent still believe that he was not born in the US, despite all the evidence to the contrary. They are committed to Take America Back.
Finally, our information and communication technologies are the third major force contributing to our increased balkanization into blue-red states and blue-red states of mind. We are exposed to more information and more points of view than ever before. With 24/7 cable news, talk radio, and social networks of all sorts, we have a ringside seat to just about every aspect of our messy, chaotic democratic process. Do these revolutionary information and communications technologies help bring us together as one nation or further sharpen our differences and tear us apart?
At a recent conference I attended on Digital Technologies for 21st Century Democracy, pretty much everyone agreed that the empowerment of citizens through digital technologies is a strong positive force for democracies, but serious questions were raised about the impact of such a cacophony of voices on governance. Do they lead to wiser decisions by better informed government leaders? Or do the highly diverse, contradictory opinions and angry attacks conveyed by these voices make it increasingly difficult to achieve political consensus and get anything done?
Empowered citizens and those who profess to speak for them express lots of different opinions. And, while airing out a wide variety of opinions is essential to a democracy and contributes to civic engagement, the ensuing debates can at times be far from civil. A lot of negative, shrill, attacking opinions are heard throughout our multitude of information channels, not at all conducive to constructive dialogues. It often appears that our new technology-amplified, free-for-all conversations are more aimed at polarizing the discussions than they are at bringing us together as one nation, to hopefully find common cause in addressing our tough problems.
Despite all the powerful forces pulling us apart, I don’t think that we are in danger of truly splintering as one nation, as has been happening in so many countries around the world. But, I believe that our national governance model will have to evolve to better adapt to the new technological, economic and social realities of the 21st century. I will discuss this potential evolution of our idea of one nation in next week’s blog.
It is obvious to me that we have moved from an era when arguments were fact based to a time when opinions are substituted for facts. We have reached a point where empirically provable facts can be countered with fact-less opinions. The media, once the champion of factual reporting, seems satisfied with reporting what people say. We, the public are prone to accept pseudo fact or outright lies (some might say spin) as a permissible replacement for opposing parties debating generally accepted and provable facts.
In today's media, it is common for two parties with opposing views to strenuously debate (on camera of course) the simplest to most complex issues with neither party ever introducing facts into the argument. While politicians, government officials, business people and other talking heads have these pointless debates, the press and the public stand-back and seem to enjoy the show. Seldom is a spokesman for any point of view pinned-down to using only factual (independently provable) statements rendered in words with established dictionary definitions.
Are the previous paragraphs examples of facts or opinions. Of course, both are opinion, but I suspect that each could be made into provable fact if only I would take the time and do the research.
A question that I have often considered: Are facts disputable? It would seem to me that facts are finite. In any argument, there cannot be your set of facts and my set of facts. Given the argument, there can only be one group of facts. To muddy-up the debate, many inject partial facts ...facts that pertain to some other solution, but for any given issue, there is only one set of facts. Facts are black and white. They do not come in shades of gray or in an array of colors.
The media today, masquerading as News organizations, establish elaborate studio sets, marshal an array of expert hosts, analysts and commentators ostensibly to inform the public. Actually, the purpose of the shows is to entertain, to attract high ratings that meet their sponsors' need to advertise their products to as wide an audience as possible in exchange for advertising dollars spent. Successful shows are not the ones that dispense facts, but rather the ones that attract the largest audiences. Unfortunately, our resulting public knowledge and civic discourse becomes the material of the other media success formula ...the Reality Show.
The predominant formula for these 'news' hours of entertainment seems to have evolved to partisanship, controversy, strong opinions, glamour and a complete lack of factual debate. The formula works. Products sell. With the entertainment formula success, a susceptible and apathetic public buys into even more media broadcast and print garbage threatening the very basis of our democracy. Opinions prevail. We go our separate ways.
Given our recent track record, can we be pulled apart? I pray that we cannot.
Posted by: Bud Byrd | February 16, 2012 at 03:52 PM
The fundamental question that needs to be asked is "What is does it mean to be an American - one people?" Growing up in the mid/late 1970s, there was still the concept of a melting pot. What that meant (at least to me) was that diversity was good, but that people wanted to be Americans first. It was important to learn our common history of the United States, and identify with the uniquely American culture.
Since that time, it has become more important to carve out the hyphenated culture. That term before the hyphen is now the identifier, no longer being proud to be an American. The more people cling to the word before the hyphen, the harder it is to be seen as having anything in common with other hyphenated americans - making it virtually impossible to be one people.
From what I've observed, assimilation is no longer acceptable, which was seen as critical by previous generations. The current mindset is that of having the majority accommodate each hyphenated group - not that the hyphenated group needs to give up anything to be part of the whole.
As for the TEA Party's view of "Taking back America" and it being related to the fact that there is an African-American in the White House, I point that researcher to the campaign speeches during the 2004 election where the goal by the party out of power to was to "Take Back the Country" from someone they felt didn't represent their perspective, and claimed was lawless.
Can we survive? Sure, but there are too many people (both politicians and media) that survive only because of the divisions that they create. As long as everyone's a victim, everyone is entitled to be compensated - there is no pulling together to solve the big problems.
Posted by: Jerry Heyman | February 16, 2012 at 05:10 PM
Did I learn about these complicated matters (or perhaps not so) back in High School?
Take three very different towns, sheer insanity I know, and send them to the same high school. Make one come from an all black low to middle income community. Another from an all white low to middle income community. Now just for fun through in the third from a more affluent upper middle income community, you know, white collar dentists, lawyers, and corporate types. Add more than a hint of 60's and 70's prejudice and let's see how many full out riots and it was only a couple freshman trying to through each other off the balcony incidence happen on a routine basis. No common adversary, no higher calling. Come on, who can beat up whom and here's why 'you people' are so ignorant.
But, this is just when it got interesting for me.
The solution was as simple as the plot from any modern sensationalist action movie (insert the one you enjoy most). On the football, soccer or track field, it didn't matter, me or my new friends weren't going to let that other school kick dirt in our face. How can we value and leverage our differences [those weren't our exact words back then]...we can beat this common rival [also not the words from back then].
If an independent leader steps forward that can polarize the nation, like guidance from a simple compass; or Kennedy and the Space Race, or Lincoln and Slavery, we will all see what E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) really means. What America stands for and can accomplish.
Without a bigger problem or a more independent leader, I'm forecasting a lot more of the same. And here is an important and interesting thought. Is there a relationship between the problem or enemy and the degree of independence required from our leadership. Based on the size of the challenge, does the need for independence diminish? I can tell you first hand, debate about what town the best QB, goalie, pitcher, or center should come from dissipated quickly, everyone seemed to instinctively know. Strangely or not, it was based on the size and capabilities of our opponent. A bigger problem, no thanks, so I'm all for a more independent leadership.
Consider reading or rereading Kennedy's Profiles in Courage and Goodwin's Team of Rivals: The political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.
Posted by: Lou Masi | February 17, 2012 at 03:50 PM