- Campaign
Literature « 1992
Democratic Presidential Primary «
The Tsongas Committee - A Call
to Economic Arms « Chapter VI The Culture of America
1992 Democratic Presidential Primary
The Tsongas Committee
 |
|
| Chapter
VI |
|
A CALL TO ECONOMIC ARMS
Forging A New American Mandate
PAUL E. TSONGAS
VI. The Culture of America - The Essential Need
Much of what has been written herein deals with policies and rationalities. I have attempted to analyze issues as objectively as possible and to put forth real world solutions. The effort has been to cast off excessive dogma and to confront what is coldly before us. For some, this paper should now end at Chapter V.
What follows will seem somewhat ephemeral compared to the previous chapters. It will deal in matters less concrete but, to me, at least as relevant. It is the realm that has been mostly ignored just because it doesn't lend itself to hard data or legislative initiatives or regulatory changes.
But there is more to America's renewal than policies and programs and realities. There is also the wondrous matter of human will. And there is the wondrous matter of societal cohesion.
There is no rational explanation for excellence and achievement if one depends only upon predictions based on quantitative data. Potential is not performance. Capacity is not output. There is a much deeper dimension. That dimension is the will of particular human beings to excel. It is their unrelenting drive to reach beyond. That dimension is also the capacity of a people to act in united purpose and to achieve greatness by reasons of their cohesion.
Where do these characteristics come from? Why do some individuals and some peoples have them despite serious shortcomings and others not have them despite every advantage? How do you foster them? How do you extend them throughout a society? How do you cause a society to properly value them? I believe that the single greatest determinant of human will and societal cohesion is the culture that embraces and sustains a people. Culture is what gives us lift and what, in its absence, can render us pitiable.
To be part of a culture is to be truly blessed. It provides a sense of lineage - a knowing that one is part of something that reaches far into the past, a reassurance that one is part of a continuum, a strength that comes from bonding with one's ancestors as well as with one's contemporaries. One is never alone because one is woven into a larger fabric with other people and with shared values.
Not to be part of a culture is a curse. There is only the present, only the temporal. Values and morals are ad hoe, a sorting out on a day-today basis. There is no spiritual frame of reference. One floats through life in search of a sense of a larger belonging that, if found, is merely grafted on, not brought up from within.
The great nations of history have many differences. But they have one commonality - strong, vibrant, inclusive cultures.
So it is with any human grouping. It is true for families, providing its members with a capacity to begin to answer the inevitable inquiry ''Who am l?"
The mere grouping of individuals does not, by itself, make a family. There must be a strong sense of mutual concern and a common purpose. Correspondingly, the mere grouping of multitudes does not, by itself, make a nation. There must be the glue that holds these multitudes firmly in a common embrace. There must be a culture that speaks to the people.
Occasionally individuals not blessed with a coherent culture will rise above their circumstances and achieve greatness.
Nations never do.
A nation's fate is inescapably a function of the strength of its culture. History certainly shows us that. Coherent binding cultures create great nations for good or for ill. Centrifugal national cultures create dissolution and disarray, always for ill.
Why does history record great advances by a people in a particular era and no advances by a different people in precisely the same era? Why do a people advance in one time period and then seem to regress in another?
The answer does not lie in factors like natural resources, geography or political systems alone.
Often, the difference is culture.
Will, discipline, dedication, commitment, patriotism, togetherness, caring, reaching out - these are the manifestations of a culture.
How one defines culture is, of course, an endless debate. For me, it involves the values that emerge in the person. It de.fines what constitutes a life of worth and what constitutes one's obligations beyond self. It involves the sense of being part of a clearly defined society which readily accepts you and whose mores you honor deeply. It demands that we view our fellow countrymen as brothers and sisters whose condition and fate is of true importance to us. It is the fusion of scores of different ethnic lineages into a vibrant continental nation. It is E Pluribus Unum.
Not only in legal and constitutional terms but in the truest sense of a people bonded together.
The role of the New American Mandate is to strengthen our commonality. We have to mold our many diverse cultures here in America into a more cohesive "national family" where the emphasis is put on such intangibles as self-esteem, inclusion, work ethic, education, pride in quality products, commitment to learning, caring for each other. We have to talk about and debate and ponder how we can reinforce the cohesiveness that connects us to each other and reinforces our sense of attachment. We must understand the constant need to nurture community. For it is this community which allows us to share goals. And it enables us to sense collective danger and to respond to that danger as a whole people. To compete with societies with strong cultures requires an equally strong culture. It's that simple. This is not commonality for the sake of commonality. It's knowing that while commonality is critical in creating a noble society, it is, more importantly, the sine qua non of having a viable economic future. It is the necessary prerequisite.
There are many parts to this discussion. What follows are examples of an attitude. The fundamental point here, however, is straightforward. Our leaders, both public and private, must, above all, commit to strengthening our national culture and to make mighty the spiritual bonds that make us a people.
Minorities - Racial, Ethnic, Religious, Economic.
Whose country is this anyway? Whose history is it? Are the founding fathers the ancestors of all of us? Or just some of us? When a young black child sees a picture of George Washington, what are the feelings compared to when he sees a picture of Martin Luther King? Does a child of Greek immigrants feel more connected to Thomas Paine or to Aristotle? Do Cambodian refugees from the killing fields feel true kinship with 18th century Yankee farmers? Does an American Jew at worship feel more linked to the Puritans or to those who suffered in the Holocaust? How does a Mexican-American sort out his feelings about the Alamo? And do Native Americans really think that the history of America began with Christopher Columbus?
We are a diverse people. Unlike many other countries, our national history and most of our family histories do not coincide. Some Americans are descendents of those who crossed the Bering land mass. Others arrived yesterday by jet from Bulgaria. As we trace our national history most of us come to a time when our families were not here. They were part of the history of another place. So which history is rele vant? Both? Only one? If only one, which one?
The magical bond created by hundreds, even thousands, of years of one people in one place is not available to us. Our history is much shorter. Our family roots spread out all over the world. We must work resolutely at nurturing cultural cohesiveness because it is not given to us in the same fashion that it has been given to some others.
The absence of such cohesiveness is alienation.
Many of our people sense an otherness. They sense that there is an inner circle in America and they are not part of it.
The problem is not statutory. We have passed the appropriate laws. The obstacles are not institutional. Most companies and institutions actively seek diversity in the work force. The obstacles are less tangible. They exist in the minds of both the established and the disestablished. It is very powerful for something so subtle.
The laws and the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution opened the gates to a glorious land of equal opportunity. But nirvana remains elusive.
Equal opportunity, we have learned, is more than an open gate. It is the appropriate complement of skills and fundamental self-esteem that makes the open gate meaningful. To just open the gate is to engage in cruel gesture no matter how innocently it is done.
The nation must address the non-statutory needs of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen. It's not just money. It's creating a culture of true inclusivity. It's sending out the message that we will go out of our way to make sure that skills and self-esteem are part of the package. Not just government programs. It's one-on-one, human being to human being, volunteerism and private institutional outreach.
Mentoring in the public schools as described earlier is an example but it's more than that. It is a way of thinking. It's white, male America truly pondering what its like to be a woman or a person of color and trying to break through to acceptance. It's recognizing that the presumptions of equal opportunity taken for granted by well-educated and affluent white males are not possible for those who every day cannot rest in the assurance that they are automatically esteemed.
That esteem must be established.
If it is not, we will always have a lesser society. We will also always have an underclass. And it will be increasingly alienated. It will be an unending source of violence to itself and to others. And it will serve as a monstrously heavy burden on our society as we seek to compete with societies free of such inner turmoil. Indeed, it will preclude any hope of competing successfully.
Diversity - The Wonders and The Limits
There is no more perfect American portrait than a schoolyard of children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. It is the vision, the inspiration of what America can be. A diverse America in harmony with itself is equipped to be the greatest social and economic nation on this multicultural planet.
The national discussion about diversity has included its glorification and its damnation. Some see it as a Godsend, some see it as the devil's work.
The challenge here is to understand that diversity gives us composite strength, but that strength can only exist within a commonality that holds us together. I believe there are unavoidable components to that commonality.
First is language. An America with scores of different languages is truly rich in its texture. In a multilingual world such fluency is not only charming, it is also an enormous advantage. The appreciation of other languages, particularly those spoken by significant numbers of immigrants in the locality should be part of the curriculum at the earliest grades in our schools.
All this, however, must rest upon one, and only one, foundation - English. As the language of the vast majority of our citizens, as the language of assimilation for millions of our immigrants, as the language of our government and commerce, English is, and must remain, the core language of America. Had history been different there might have been a different language that would have united us. But our history is our history. And English is the only possible common tongue at this point of our national life. This is not to argue for the superiority of English but for the reality of it. Well-intentioned efforts to provide pockets of other language existence is to doom those pockets to be forever outside the commonality of America. A nation based on more than one language will always be inherently in tension. This is obviously true around the world where language differences that coincide with ethnic or racial differences are breeding grounds for never ending violence. But it is also true where language divides societies which seem on the surface to be rock solid. Witness today's non-violent but separatist debate by the Province of Quebec in Canada. It poses great risk to an otherwise very cohesive nation.
Children who do not speak English at home must be brought to English proficiency as rapidly as possible. Due respect should be paid to their native tongue. Efforts should be made to provide adequate transition time. But the message must be unmistakable that in order to make American culture cohesive and all-inclusive America must be Englishspeaking at its core. We want you to join us in that commonality and we will help you achieve proficiency.
Linguistic diversity is a strength. A Tower of Babel is a crippling weakness. We must know where the former ends and the latter begins.
The second component of our commonality is education. As stated earlier, it has always been America's great equalizer. But this road to opportunity has not been uniformly embraced by various groups. Education is truly honored in some groups - from the early Yankee settlers to the Jewish immigrants at the turn of the century to today's Asian newcomers. The pursuit of knowledge and intellect was and is seen as the source of genuine esteem and respect. Many immigrant groups have had the same attitude in the first and second generations and some seem to lose it subsequently. There is a latent anti-intellectualism in America that seems to overcome this early appreciation of learning. Pride in being a top student sometimes gives way to fear of being thought a bookworm - or even worse, a "geek."
Here is where some serious soul searching must be done by community leaders and the media. What are we honestly saying to our young? What values are we really conveying? Does becoming an educated person truly mean anything in the last analysis?
The objective here involves the simple truth that the desire to learn is fundamentally as critical as the opportunity to learn. Desire flows from children believing that learning matters. As a volunteer in the Peace Corps I taught students who were desperately poor by our standards. We used outdated or inappropriate textbooks and the "facilities" were de minimus. The students were 9th and 10th graders almost all living away from home and thus removed from the support of parents and family.
But they learned. And learned very well despite every conceivable disadvantage. Because they wanted to. Because they valued it. And because it was truly valued in their culture.
No American classroom I ever entered was as resource poor as my classrooms in Ethiopia. But as I began to appreciate how the will to be educated conquered all these obstacles, I would recall the stories of Abraham Lincoln reading by candlelight. I would also remember how driven my father and his siblings were to learn despite their immigrant backgrounds.
These experiences left me a firm believer that society creates learning by simply valuing it. No amount of money, no accumulation of technological equipment, can overcome a child's sense that learning really doesn't matter that much. We have sent those signals and we have to change them.
The conveying of values occurs every day. The conveyors are the leaders of America, the leaders of its subgroups and the lords of the media. Each must commit to sending a pro-learning, pro-intellect, proeducation message. How? The best example in my mind is Bill Cosby. The Huxtable family, whatever the criticisms of it, promotes a set of values with respect for learning (and family) at the .core. It demonstrates how to retain one's identity within a context that maximizes opportunity. A second example is Cosby himself. He gave $20 million to Spelman College, a powerful message of deep commitment to education - in this case the education of blacks. This is how people convey a value system. This is how learning is elevated to its rightful and necessary status. American philanthropists, foundations, corporations, and everyday citizens would do well to see this as a worthy road to travel.
The same centrality of education must be promoted by the local press. A student who can throw an accurate forward pass is certain in his mind that press adulation will follow. A student with very high scores in the SATs never thinks that it will be worthy of press coverage. Yet, which is more important? The print media, radio and television should have education reporters that systematically and regularly report on what is happening in the classroom as well as what is happening on the athletic fields. Some are already moving in this direction. It must become a stampede.
The third component is equality of opportunity.
In the great economic global competition, a nation's team must be made up of all its diverse members. As we face the challenges of this global economy and as we face the challenges of a threatened environment, every American contributes to our response. Positively or negatively.
We will not become a society at peace with its natural environment if whole sections of the population feel that they have no stake in that society.
By its sheer composition, America must be resolutely inclusive. Every person is part of the solution or, if not, will be part of the problem. Everyone will either be a rower or an anchor. We can have some effect on which they will be.
We will not become a world economic competitor using only some of America.
The laws for the most part are in place.
The task is the emotional acceptance, indeed, the emotional embrace of the founding principle "All Men Are Created Equal." This basic belief has to empower people in all the modern forms. Those forms include race, sex, age and sexual orientation.
The battles of the past have been bitter. We must put them behind us and not tolerate the continued attempts to undermine the progress we have made.
This guarding against encroachments is a constant struggle in the area of civil rights, women's rights and affirmative action. It's not just the laws but the messages those laws send that are important.
Human rights has to do with how we regard each other. Diminution of that regard lessens all of us. And as a nation we are made less viable if part of our human potential goes unrealized.
America is where "Be all you can be" was chosen as a slogan for its armed forces. For good reason. Because in America more than anywhere else, those five words are the cornerstone of what we believe.
The role of the President here is the constant and unrelenting reaffirmation of that cornerstone. We have to arrive at the day when we truly look at each other as family. Not just because it would be nice. But because the cohesiveness it will provide will ensure our sustainability.
Giving
'Tis more blessed to give than to receive. Now there's a shopworn bromide if there ever was one. Just the kind of homily intended to lull the innocent into patterns of behavior that the more worldly know to avoid.
Except that it's true. It is better to give. Giving takes time and it takes money. But look at givers, and then look at takers. Who is really happier?
Giving is Americana. Thousands of colleges, hospitals, museums and theatres exist because of the philanthropy of individuals. Tithing is an honored - and expected - part of some religious traditions.
Yet giving in America is very uneven. Some people of wealth recognize their responsibility back to society and are quite generous. Others feel no such responsibility and lavish upon themselves and their friends every conceivable indulgence. The latter are hailed by the media which eagerly covers every last gaudy detail. The former will never have a program to compete with "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."
So it is with corporate America. Some companies are extremely committed to being a good corporate neighbor. They recognize the need to give back to the community and seek to lend personnel and financial resources to aid local and national causes. Other companies have a culture which, frankly, doesn't give a damn about what's happening outside its office window or factory gate.
There is little to no public recognition of the good corporate citizen. There is absolutely no incentive, beyond their own personal values, for company presidents and boards of directors to engage in corporate giving.
The President can change this. There should be a Blue Ribbon Committee of prominent individuals created to establish voluntary guidelines for corporate giving. Standards can be set. It has been done in Minneapolis. Companies can choose to honor them, ignore them, or something in between. And every year a list should be compiled as to who gave what, and that listing should be made public. Finally, the media should consider this listing as important news and report on it extensively.
Companies that care should be publicly acknowledged. Companies that don't should be open to scrutiny and criticism. The President should establish Presidential Medals for Corporate and Individual Philanthropy. The point here is to establish a culture of giving, an embrace of giving, as an esteemed - and expected - value for corporate America. This notion, hopefully, will then create an environment wherein Americans of all economic means will find themselves more open to the same principle. If this were to happen the bonds between us all would be strengthened. Now, tell the truth. If Donald Trump had endowed chairs at Howard University instead of buying that yacht, wouldn't Howard be better off? Wouldn't the country be better off? And truly, wouldn't Donald Trump be better off?
Let's deglorify indulgence and return giving to the place it enjoyed when great people made this country.
Culture as part of a Culture.
Civilizations are measured by their art and cultural achievements. Sometimes it's architecture, sometimes it's music, sometimes it's paintings and sometimes it's literature.
These storehouses of human creativity and inspiration mark the high water marks of what we are. They are the places and events which can uplift the soul - especially the soul of the young. How do you measure the impact on a young child of being exposed to a performance of the Nutcracker Suite or the Messiah in December? Or the impact on an adolescent being taken to a matinee performance of "Les Miserables?" Or a summers night listening to a local orchestra perform? Or a periodic visit to a sculptor as she works on a piece of public art? Or the chance to see live theatre instead of just another movie?
We would all acknowledge these occurrences as valuable. But whose children have these experiences? Generally, it is the children of the already educated or appreciative. That's fine, but the impact would be greater upon children of modest circumstances who otherwise would not be so exposed. These children need a spiritual booster shot. Some of them need it desperately. They need one spark, one glimmer to light the way or to suggest a new direction. This is where you change lives.
In the absence of this, they will receive their values only from the street and from the spiritual emptiness of television programming.
Investing in community cultural events is part of creating a society that is intact and vibrant. During budget crises, government funds for the arts and humanities are always a first-cut priority. The reverse should be true. During economic crises the need is greater.
The United States government must undertake to prioritize funding of the arts and humanities, particularly for communities outside the major urban centers. The amounts here are de minimus in the overall budgetary scheme of things. It should be seen as an investment in the personal horizons of its citizens, particularly the young. Not simply for the sake of supporting cultural activities although that alone should be enough. But also in the understanding that we are competing with nations that already value such activities. Our increased embrace of them will strengthen our people and help establish an increasingly viable and functional American culture.
Spirituality.
Separation of church and state is fundamental to freedom in America. This principle was adamantly proclaimed by the Founding Fathers.
They did not, however, dismiss spirituality. Indeed, belief in a higher order was part and parcel of the early Americans - both the first Indian nations and the early European settlers.
That spirituality is not unique to America, of course. There never was a great sustaining nation that was aspiritual. In our modem technological age with its impersonalness, the search for larger purpose is no less felt. That search for a deeper meaning can exhibit itself in destructive ways, such as drug and alcohol abuse, as well as other behavioral asymmetry. It need not be.
The overt quest for spirituality has been seen politically as a valuable electoral advantage by some on the right and a bit too unsophisticated by some on the left. Neither is appropriate. We all seek God in our own way. We are all engaged in the search for understanding of our place in the great order of things. A public acknowledgement of that search and a stated respect for wherever that search may lead are not improper activities for the political leadership of this nation.
The Land and the Buildings.
The culture of a people is not separable from the physical surroundings of that people. We are of the earth.
The preservation of the beauty of open spaces should be pursued not only for the environmental reasons stated earlier, it should be pursued for its capacity to renew the spirit and to lend harmony to our culture.
The same is true within the land that we occupy. There is a character to a place. That character is defining. Too often in America the inhabited land all begins to look alike. What is unique about a locale is lost under the onslaught of sameness.
A mall is a mall is a mall. A commercial strip is a commercial strip is a commercial strip. A highway is a highway is a highway.
Care and attention should be paid to preserving the character of the different parts of America. The President is uniquely positioned to encourage Americans to contemplate these matters. Although it is a predominately local matter, there are federal roles such as historic preservation grants and UDAG-like programs to keep urban centers viable.
Many of these cities are already well on their way to implosion. But beyond that, there is the bully pulpit as Prince Charles has so aptly demonstrated in Great Britain. He cares about how his country resonates with its surroundings. Our leaders should do so as well.
Public Order.
There is no way to talk about American culture in 1991 without addressing the issue of crime and public order. There is a darker side to the way we interact with each other. Sadly, the rise in crime in our country has been a constant theme for decades. This is especially true in our cities.
It is impossible to achieve a viable American culture in the midst of uncontrolled violence. Citizens will simply not value their membership in a society where they lack a sense of reasonable physical security. The fear of crime erodes the bond between the citizen and the society. Many of our inner cities are cauldrons of acultural behavior. Innocent people are unable to escape the downdraft of this activity.
How do we address this issue? For years we have had a great deal of law and order rhetoric from Richard Nixon's unleashing of Spiro Agnew to the Willie Horton issue in 1988. Congress has passed tougher crime legislation and the death penalty has become an all-too-common occurrence.
But the goal of "safe streets" remains elusive. We now have a greater percentage of our citizenry behind bars than any nation on earth. That must be a sobering realization since it has not significantly affected the citizenry's perception of physical security.
There are approaches to crime that deal with prevention. Obviously education, a sense of community, self-esteem - all these are ingredients essential to minimizing the likelihood that someone would engage in criminal behavior. These matters have been addressed earlier in this paper and are worthy of reemphasis.
There are other approaches that deal with punishment and the certainty of that punishment. These are equally important and, as referenced above, the Congress has passed laws to accomplish this.
So what else can be done?
There are two areas that I believe are left unaddressed. Neither is new. Neither is easy. The first involves getting guns off our streets and the second involves recognizing that wholesale drug trafficking should qualify for capital punishment.
Gun Control
There is no greater hypocrisy than the prototypical Republican position of tough on crime and easy on AK-47's. The rationale for this is pure politics. Appeal to the millions who worry about their safety but don't antagonize the National Rifle Association.
The availability of all kinds of weapons in America is no accident. The right to bear arms is seen by some as the only absolute right granted by the constitution. We have freedom of speech but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theatre. We have freedom of the press but go too far and you'll be sued for libel.
The two-facedness of the Republican posture is reflected in the bizarre dilemma faced by many police, particularly urban police. Whom do you support? The candidate who has the tougher posture on crime but protects the rights of criminals to have assault weapons? Or the candidate who would ban assault weapons?
I would suggest that our times requires a toughness in dealing with crime, but combined with aggressive commitment to get guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
This extends beyond AK-47's. The right to bear arms is not a blanket purchase order for anyone to buy anything. The ease of killing with a gun stands in sharp contrast to the difficulty of accomplishing the same end with a knife or other such weapon.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. True. But people without guns have a harder time doing it. Guns should be available for self-protection by those who choose to have them. They should not be available, however, for those whose motives are injurious to social stability. The Brady bill to finally bring about effective gun control should be passed immediately. It is tragic that George Bush has chosen not to endorse it.
A serious, non-ideological commitment to return to a sustainable sense of public order is needed. Too many Americans perceive a kind of anarchy in the streets and that cannot be tolerated. These guns must be taken off the streets.
Capital Crimes Against Society.
Crime in America today falls into two categories in my mind. The first is the level of crime inherent in any society. There will always be a criminal element and there will always be crimes of passion.
The second is crime that is drug-related. And this is not a level of criminal activity that should be acceptable. It is a threat to our very being.
This threat does not result from guns or bombs or knives. This threat results from commerce. It is entrepreneurial. Yet it kills. It kills in massive numbers. Some of the people it kills die. Others live but in a larger sense they die as well. This is not your every day one-on-one street crime. Or your crime of passion. This is a methodical, planned, knowing slaughter of the many in pursuit of money. Massive amounts of money. And this slaughter is today the greatest threat to our domestic common security.
It is the threat of big-time drug dealing.
How can we tolerate this dissipation of our collective strength? Drugs are overwhelming us. No society ravaged by drugs is going to compete with anybody. Yet those who engage in and profit from this trade are considered lesser criminals by the criminal code. I kill one person in a fit of passion and I am a murderer. I kill thousands of people by methodical drug trafficking and I am not a murderer. By what standard of logic? By what definition of true threat?
Who truly kills the drug user found in an alley with a needle in his arm? Who truly kills the store owner murdered by a drug user in search of quick money for a drug purchase? Who truly kills the intravenous drug user who contracts AIDS? Who truly kills the victim of an automobile crash caused by drug use? Who truly kills the newborn cocaine dependent baby?
The major drug trafficker does. Yet in states that impose the death penalty he is immune. I repeat. By what definition of real threat? By what recognition of actual damage to our societal core?
If the death penalty is society's way of identifying the greatest threat, it must look past the one-on-one crime of passion or criminal intent. It must concentrate on those who would destroy all of us. It must focus on the trafficker and, once and for all, declare a war on drugs that is a war on drugs. Billions upon billions for defense against fading foreign threats embodied by the Soviets and only hesitance in addressing the true angels of death within our borders. Unless drug dealing is significantly reduced, we will never be a viable nation. We will never compete. We will be dragged down by our fellow citizens lost in the demonic caverns of drug dependence.
Index
Forging A New American Mandate
PAUL E. TSONGAS
VI. The Culture of America - The Essential Need
Much of what has been written herein deals with policies and rationalities. I have attempted to analyze issues as objectively as possible and to put forth real world solutions. The effort has been to cast off excessive dogma and to confront what is coldly before us. For some, this paper should now end at Chapter V.
What follows will seem somewhat ephemeral compared to the previous chapters. It will deal in matters less concrete but, to me, at least as relevant. It is the realm that has been mostly ignored just because it doesn't lend itself to hard data or legislative initiatives or regulatory changes.
But there is more to America's renewal than policies and programs and realities. There is also the wondrous matter of human will. And there is the wondrous matter of societal cohesion.
There is no rational explanation for excellence and achievement if one depends only upon predictions based on quantitative data. Potential is not performance. Capacity is not output. There is a much deeper dimension. That dimension is the will of particular human beings to excel. It is their unrelenting drive to reach beyond. That dimension is also the capacity of a people to act in united purpose and to achieve greatness by reasons of their cohesion.
Where do these characteristics come from? Why do some individuals and some peoples have them despite serious shortcomings and others not have them despite every advantage? How do you foster them? How do you extend them throughout a society? How do you cause a society to properly value them? I believe that the single greatest determinant of human will and societal cohesion is the culture that embraces and sustains a people. Culture is what gives us lift and what, in its absence, can render us pitiable.
To be part of a culture is to be truly blessed. It provides a sense of lineage - a knowing that one is part of something that reaches far into the past, a reassurance that one is part of a continuum, a strength that comes from bonding with one's ancestors as well as with one's contemporaries. One is never alone because one is woven into a larger fabric with other people and with shared values.
Not to be part of a culture is a curse. There is only the present, only the temporal. Values and morals are ad hoe, a sorting out on a day-today basis. There is no spiritual frame of reference. One floats through life in search of a sense of a larger belonging that, if found, is merely grafted on, not brought up from within.
The great nations of history have many differences. But they have one commonality - strong, vibrant, inclusive cultures.
So it is with any human grouping. It is true for families, providing its members with a capacity to begin to answer the inevitable inquiry ''Who am l?"
The mere grouping of individuals does not, by itself, make a family. There must be a strong sense of mutual concern and a common purpose. Correspondingly, the mere grouping of multitudes does not, by itself, make a nation. There must be the glue that holds these multitudes firmly in a common embrace. There must be a culture that speaks to the people.
Occasionally individuals not blessed with a coherent culture will rise above their circumstances and achieve greatness.
Nations never do.
A nation's fate is inescapably a function of the strength of its culture. History certainly shows us that. Coherent binding cultures create great nations for good or for ill. Centrifugal national cultures create dissolution and disarray, always for ill.
Why does history record great advances by a people in a particular era and no advances by a different people in precisely the same era? Why do a people advance in one time period and then seem to regress in another?
The answer does not lie in factors like natural resources, geography or political systems alone.
Often, the difference is culture.
Will, discipline, dedication, commitment, patriotism, togetherness, caring, reaching out - these are the manifestations of a culture.
How one defines culture is, of course, an endless debate. For me, it involves the values that emerge in the person. It de.fines what constitutes a life of worth and what constitutes one's obligations beyond self. It involves the sense of being part of a clearly defined society which readily accepts you and whose mores you honor deeply. It demands that we view our fellow countrymen as brothers and sisters whose condition and fate is of true importance to us. It is the fusion of scores of different ethnic lineages into a vibrant continental nation. It is E Pluribus Unum.
Not only in legal and constitutional terms but in the truest sense of a people bonded together.
The role of the New American Mandate is to strengthen our commonality. We have to mold our many diverse cultures here in America into a more cohesive "national family" where the emphasis is put on such intangibles as self-esteem, inclusion, work ethic, education, pride in quality products, commitment to learning, caring for each other. We have to talk about and debate and ponder how we can reinforce the cohesiveness that connects us to each other and reinforces our sense of attachment. We must understand the constant need to nurture community. For it is this community which allows us to share goals. And it enables us to sense collective danger and to respond to that danger as a whole people. To compete with societies with strong cultures requires an equally strong culture. It's that simple. This is not commonality for the sake of commonality. It's knowing that while commonality is critical in creating a noble society, it is, more importantly, the sine qua non of having a viable economic future. It is the necessary prerequisite.
There are many parts to this discussion. What follows are examples of an attitude. The fundamental point here, however, is straightforward. Our leaders, both public and private, must, above all, commit to strengthening our national culture and to make mighty the spiritual bonds that make us a people.
Minorities - Racial, Ethnic, Religious, Economic.
Whose country is this anyway? Whose history is it? Are the founding fathers the ancestors of all of us? Or just some of us? When a young black child sees a picture of George Washington, what are the feelings compared to when he sees a picture of Martin Luther King? Does a child of Greek immigrants feel more connected to Thomas Paine or to Aristotle? Do Cambodian refugees from the killing fields feel true kinship with 18th century Yankee farmers? Does an American Jew at worship feel more linked to the Puritans or to those who suffered in the Holocaust? How does a Mexican-American sort out his feelings about the Alamo? And do Native Americans really think that the history of America began with Christopher Columbus?
We are a diverse people. Unlike many other countries, our national history and most of our family histories do not coincide. Some Americans are descendents of those who crossed the Bering land mass. Others arrived yesterday by jet from Bulgaria. As we trace our national history most of us come to a time when our families were not here. They were part of the history of another place. So which history is rele vant? Both? Only one? If only one, which one?
The magical bond created by hundreds, even thousands, of years of one people in one place is not available to us. Our history is much shorter. Our family roots spread out all over the world. We must work resolutely at nurturing cultural cohesiveness because it is not given to us in the same fashion that it has been given to some others.
The absence of such cohesiveness is alienation.
Many of our people sense an otherness. They sense that there is an inner circle in America and they are not part of it.
The problem is not statutory. We have passed the appropriate laws. The obstacles are not institutional. Most companies and institutions actively seek diversity in the work force. The obstacles are less tangible. They exist in the minds of both the established and the disestablished. It is very powerful for something so subtle.
The laws and the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution opened the gates to a glorious land of equal opportunity. But nirvana remains elusive.
Equal opportunity, we have learned, is more than an open gate. It is the appropriate complement of skills and fundamental self-esteem that makes the open gate meaningful. To just open the gate is to engage in cruel gesture no matter how innocently it is done.
The nation must address the non-statutory needs of our fellow countrymen and countrywomen. It's not just money. It's creating a culture of true inclusivity. It's sending out the message that we will go out of our way to make sure that skills and self-esteem are part of the package. Not just government programs. It's one-on-one, human being to human being, volunteerism and private institutional outreach.
Mentoring in the public schools as described earlier is an example but it's more than that. It is a way of thinking. It's white, male America truly pondering what its like to be a woman or a person of color and trying to break through to acceptance. It's recognizing that the presumptions of equal opportunity taken for granted by well-educated and affluent white males are not possible for those who every day cannot rest in the assurance that they are automatically esteemed.
That esteem must be established.
If it is not, we will always have a lesser society. We will also always have an underclass. And it will be increasingly alienated. It will be an unending source of violence to itself and to others. And it will serve as a monstrously heavy burden on our society as we seek to compete with societies free of such inner turmoil. Indeed, it will preclude any hope of competing successfully.
Diversity - The Wonders and The Limits
There is no more perfect American portrait than a schoolyard of children of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. It is the vision, the inspiration of what America can be. A diverse America in harmony with itself is equipped to be the greatest social and economic nation on this multicultural planet.
The national discussion about diversity has included its glorification and its damnation. Some see it as a Godsend, some see it as the devil's work.
The challenge here is to understand that diversity gives us composite strength, but that strength can only exist within a commonality that holds us together. I believe there are unavoidable components to that commonality.
First is language. An America with scores of different languages is truly rich in its texture. In a multilingual world such fluency is not only charming, it is also an enormous advantage. The appreciation of other languages, particularly those spoken by significant numbers of immigrants in the locality should be part of the curriculum at the earliest grades in our schools.
All this, however, must rest upon one, and only one, foundation - English. As the language of the vast majority of our citizens, as the language of assimilation for millions of our immigrants, as the language of our government and commerce, English is, and must remain, the core language of America. Had history been different there might have been a different language that would have united us. But our history is our history. And English is the only possible common tongue at this point of our national life. This is not to argue for the superiority of English but for the reality of it. Well-intentioned efforts to provide pockets of other language existence is to doom those pockets to be forever outside the commonality of America. A nation based on more than one language will always be inherently in tension. This is obviously true around the world where language differences that coincide with ethnic or racial differences are breeding grounds for never ending violence. But it is also true where language divides societies which seem on the surface to be rock solid. Witness today's non-violent but separatist debate by the Province of Quebec in Canada. It poses great risk to an otherwise very cohesive nation.
Children who do not speak English at home must be brought to English proficiency as rapidly as possible. Due respect should be paid to their native tongue. Efforts should be made to provide adequate transition time. But the message must be unmistakable that in order to make American culture cohesive and all-inclusive America must be Englishspeaking at its core. We want you to join us in that commonality and we will help you achieve proficiency.
Linguistic diversity is a strength. A Tower of Babel is a crippling weakness. We must know where the former ends and the latter begins.
The second component of our commonality is education. As stated earlier, it has always been America's great equalizer. But this road to opportunity has not been uniformly embraced by various groups. Education is truly honored in some groups - from the early Yankee settlers to the Jewish immigrants at the turn of the century to today's Asian newcomers. The pursuit of knowledge and intellect was and is seen as the source of genuine esteem and respect. Many immigrant groups have had the same attitude in the first and second generations and some seem to lose it subsequently. There is a latent anti-intellectualism in America that seems to overcome this early appreciation of learning. Pride in being a top student sometimes gives way to fear of being thought a bookworm - or even worse, a "geek."
Here is where some serious soul searching must be done by community leaders and the media. What are we honestly saying to our young? What values are we really conveying? Does becoming an educated person truly mean anything in the last analysis?
The objective here involves the simple truth that the desire to learn is fundamentally as critical as the opportunity to learn. Desire flows from children believing that learning matters. As a volunteer in the Peace Corps I taught students who were desperately poor by our standards. We used outdated or inappropriate textbooks and the "facilities" were de minimus. The students were 9th and 10th graders almost all living away from home and thus removed from the support of parents and family.
But they learned. And learned very well despite every conceivable disadvantage. Because they wanted to. Because they valued it. And because it was truly valued in their culture.
No American classroom I ever entered was as resource poor as my classrooms in Ethiopia. But as I began to appreciate how the will to be educated conquered all these obstacles, I would recall the stories of Abraham Lincoln reading by candlelight. I would also remember how driven my father and his siblings were to learn despite their immigrant backgrounds.
These experiences left me a firm believer that society creates learning by simply valuing it. No amount of money, no accumulation of technological equipment, can overcome a child's sense that learning really doesn't matter that much. We have sent those signals and we have to change them.
The conveying of values occurs every day. The conveyors are the leaders of America, the leaders of its subgroups and the lords of the media. Each must commit to sending a pro-learning, pro-intellect, proeducation message. How? The best example in my mind is Bill Cosby. The Huxtable family, whatever the criticisms of it, promotes a set of values with respect for learning (and family) at the .core. It demonstrates how to retain one's identity within a context that maximizes opportunity. A second example is Cosby himself. He gave $20 million to Spelman College, a powerful message of deep commitment to education - in this case the education of blacks. This is how people convey a value system. This is how learning is elevated to its rightful and necessary status. American philanthropists, foundations, corporations, and everyday citizens would do well to see this as a worthy road to travel.
The same centrality of education must be promoted by the local press. A student who can throw an accurate forward pass is certain in his mind that press adulation will follow. A student with very high scores in the SATs never thinks that it will be worthy of press coverage. Yet, which is more important? The print media, radio and television should have education reporters that systematically and regularly report on what is happening in the classroom as well as what is happening on the athletic fields. Some are already moving in this direction. It must become a stampede.
The third component is equality of opportunity.
In the great economic global competition, a nation's team must be made up of all its diverse members. As we face the challenges of this global economy and as we face the challenges of a threatened environment, every American contributes to our response. Positively or negatively.
We will not become a society at peace with its natural environment if whole sections of the population feel that they have no stake in that society.
By its sheer composition, America must be resolutely inclusive. Every person is part of the solution or, if not, will be part of the problem. Everyone will either be a rower or an anchor. We can have some effect on which they will be.
We will not become a world economic competitor using only some of America.
The laws for the most part are in place.
The task is the emotional acceptance, indeed, the emotional embrace of the founding principle "All Men Are Created Equal." This basic belief has to empower people in all the modern forms. Those forms include race, sex, age and sexual orientation.
The battles of the past have been bitter. We must put them behind us and not tolerate the continued attempts to undermine the progress we have made.
This guarding against encroachments is a constant struggle in the area of civil rights, women's rights and affirmative action. It's not just the laws but the messages those laws send that are important.
Human rights has to do with how we regard each other. Diminution of that regard lessens all of us. And as a nation we are made less viable if part of our human potential goes unrealized.
America is where "Be all you can be" was chosen as a slogan for its armed forces. For good reason. Because in America more than anywhere else, those five words are the cornerstone of what we believe.
The role of the President here is the constant and unrelenting reaffirmation of that cornerstone. We have to arrive at the day when we truly look at each other as family. Not just because it would be nice. But because the cohesiveness it will provide will ensure our sustainability.
Giving
'Tis more blessed to give than to receive. Now there's a shopworn bromide if there ever was one. Just the kind of homily intended to lull the innocent into patterns of behavior that the more worldly know to avoid.
Except that it's true. It is better to give. Giving takes time and it takes money. But look at givers, and then look at takers. Who is really happier?
Giving is Americana. Thousands of colleges, hospitals, museums and theatres exist because of the philanthropy of individuals. Tithing is an honored - and expected - part of some religious traditions.
Yet giving in America is very uneven. Some people of wealth recognize their responsibility back to society and are quite generous. Others feel no such responsibility and lavish upon themselves and their friends every conceivable indulgence. The latter are hailed by the media which eagerly covers every last gaudy detail. The former will never have a program to compete with "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."
So it is with corporate America. Some companies are extremely committed to being a good corporate neighbor. They recognize the need to give back to the community and seek to lend personnel and financial resources to aid local and national causes. Other companies have a culture which, frankly, doesn't give a damn about what's happening outside its office window or factory gate.
There is little to no public recognition of the good corporate citizen. There is absolutely no incentive, beyond their own personal values, for company presidents and boards of directors to engage in corporate giving.
The President can change this. There should be a Blue Ribbon Committee of prominent individuals created to establish voluntary guidelines for corporate giving. Standards can be set. It has been done in Minneapolis. Companies can choose to honor them, ignore them, or something in between. And every year a list should be compiled as to who gave what, and that listing should be made public. Finally, the media should consider this listing as important news and report on it extensively.
Companies that care should be publicly acknowledged. Companies that don't should be open to scrutiny and criticism. The President should establish Presidential Medals for Corporate and Individual Philanthropy. The point here is to establish a culture of giving, an embrace of giving, as an esteemed - and expected - value for corporate America. This notion, hopefully, will then create an environment wherein Americans of all economic means will find themselves more open to the same principle. If this were to happen the bonds between us all would be strengthened. Now, tell the truth. If Donald Trump had endowed chairs at Howard University instead of buying that yacht, wouldn't Howard be better off? Wouldn't the country be better off? And truly, wouldn't Donald Trump be better off?
Let's deglorify indulgence and return giving to the place it enjoyed when great people made this country.
Culture as part of a Culture.
Civilizations are measured by their art and cultural achievements. Sometimes it's architecture, sometimes it's music, sometimes it's paintings and sometimes it's literature.
These storehouses of human creativity and inspiration mark the high water marks of what we are. They are the places and events which can uplift the soul - especially the soul of the young. How do you measure the impact on a young child of being exposed to a performance of the Nutcracker Suite or the Messiah in December? Or the impact on an adolescent being taken to a matinee performance of "Les Miserables?" Or a summers night listening to a local orchestra perform? Or a periodic visit to a sculptor as she works on a piece of public art? Or the chance to see live theatre instead of just another movie?
We would all acknowledge these occurrences as valuable. But whose children have these experiences? Generally, it is the children of the already educated or appreciative. That's fine, but the impact would be greater upon children of modest circumstances who otherwise would not be so exposed. These children need a spiritual booster shot. Some of them need it desperately. They need one spark, one glimmer to light the way or to suggest a new direction. This is where you change lives.
In the absence of this, they will receive their values only from the street and from the spiritual emptiness of television programming.
Investing in community cultural events is part of creating a society that is intact and vibrant. During budget crises, government funds for the arts and humanities are always a first-cut priority. The reverse should be true. During economic crises the need is greater.
The United States government must undertake to prioritize funding of the arts and humanities, particularly for communities outside the major urban centers. The amounts here are de minimus in the overall budgetary scheme of things. It should be seen as an investment in the personal horizons of its citizens, particularly the young. Not simply for the sake of supporting cultural activities although that alone should be enough. But also in the understanding that we are competing with nations that already value such activities. Our increased embrace of them will strengthen our people and help establish an increasingly viable and functional American culture.
Spirituality.
Separation of church and state is fundamental to freedom in America. This principle was adamantly proclaimed by the Founding Fathers.
They did not, however, dismiss spirituality. Indeed, belief in a higher order was part and parcel of the early Americans - both the first Indian nations and the early European settlers.
That spirituality is not unique to America, of course. There never was a great sustaining nation that was aspiritual. In our modem technological age with its impersonalness, the search for larger purpose is no less felt. That search for a deeper meaning can exhibit itself in destructive ways, such as drug and alcohol abuse, as well as other behavioral asymmetry. It need not be.
The overt quest for spirituality has been seen politically as a valuable electoral advantage by some on the right and a bit too unsophisticated by some on the left. Neither is appropriate. We all seek God in our own way. We are all engaged in the search for understanding of our place in the great order of things. A public acknowledgement of that search and a stated respect for wherever that search may lead are not improper activities for the political leadership of this nation.
The Land and the Buildings.
The culture of a people is not separable from the physical surroundings of that people. We are of the earth.
The preservation of the beauty of open spaces should be pursued not only for the environmental reasons stated earlier, it should be pursued for its capacity to renew the spirit and to lend harmony to our culture.
The same is true within the land that we occupy. There is a character to a place. That character is defining. Too often in America the inhabited land all begins to look alike. What is unique about a locale is lost under the onslaught of sameness.
A mall is a mall is a mall. A commercial strip is a commercial strip is a commercial strip. A highway is a highway is a highway.
Care and attention should be paid to preserving the character of the different parts of America. The President is uniquely positioned to encourage Americans to contemplate these matters. Although it is a predominately local matter, there are federal roles such as historic preservation grants and UDAG-like programs to keep urban centers viable.
Many of these cities are already well on their way to implosion. But beyond that, there is the bully pulpit as Prince Charles has so aptly demonstrated in Great Britain. He cares about how his country resonates with its surroundings. Our leaders should do so as well.
Public Order.
There is no way to talk about American culture in 1991 without addressing the issue of crime and public order. There is a darker side to the way we interact with each other. Sadly, the rise in crime in our country has been a constant theme for decades. This is especially true in our cities.
It is impossible to achieve a viable American culture in the midst of uncontrolled violence. Citizens will simply not value their membership in a society where they lack a sense of reasonable physical security. The fear of crime erodes the bond between the citizen and the society. Many of our inner cities are cauldrons of acultural behavior. Innocent people are unable to escape the downdraft of this activity.
How do we address this issue? For years we have had a great deal of law and order rhetoric from Richard Nixon's unleashing of Spiro Agnew to the Willie Horton issue in 1988. Congress has passed tougher crime legislation and the death penalty has become an all-too-common occurrence.
But the goal of "safe streets" remains elusive. We now have a greater percentage of our citizenry behind bars than any nation on earth. That must be a sobering realization since it has not significantly affected the citizenry's perception of physical security.
There are approaches to crime that deal with prevention. Obviously education, a sense of community, self-esteem - all these are ingredients essential to minimizing the likelihood that someone would engage in criminal behavior. These matters have been addressed earlier in this paper and are worthy of reemphasis.
There are other approaches that deal with punishment and the certainty of that punishment. These are equally important and, as referenced above, the Congress has passed laws to accomplish this.
So what else can be done?
There are two areas that I believe are left unaddressed. Neither is new. Neither is easy. The first involves getting guns off our streets and the second involves recognizing that wholesale drug trafficking should qualify for capital punishment.
Gun Control
There is no greater hypocrisy than the prototypical Republican position of tough on crime and easy on AK-47's. The rationale for this is pure politics. Appeal to the millions who worry about their safety but don't antagonize the National Rifle Association.
The availability of all kinds of weapons in America is no accident. The right to bear arms is seen by some as the only absolute right granted by the constitution. We have freedom of speech but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theatre. We have freedom of the press but go too far and you'll be sued for libel.
The two-facedness of the Republican posture is reflected in the bizarre dilemma faced by many police, particularly urban police. Whom do you support? The candidate who has the tougher posture on crime but protects the rights of criminals to have assault weapons? Or the candidate who would ban assault weapons?
I would suggest that our times requires a toughness in dealing with crime, but combined with aggressive commitment to get guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.
This extends beyond AK-47's. The right to bear arms is not a blanket purchase order for anyone to buy anything. The ease of killing with a gun stands in sharp contrast to the difficulty of accomplishing the same end with a knife or other such weapon.
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. True. But people without guns have a harder time doing it. Guns should be available for self-protection by those who choose to have them. They should not be available, however, for those whose motives are injurious to social stability. The Brady bill to finally bring about effective gun control should be passed immediately. It is tragic that George Bush has chosen not to endorse it.
A serious, non-ideological commitment to return to a sustainable sense of public order is needed. Too many Americans perceive a kind of anarchy in the streets and that cannot be tolerated. These guns must be taken off the streets.
Capital Crimes Against Society.
Crime in America today falls into two categories in my mind. The first is the level of crime inherent in any society. There will always be a criminal element and there will always be crimes of passion.
The second is crime that is drug-related. And this is not a level of criminal activity that should be acceptable. It is a threat to our very being.
This threat does not result from guns or bombs or knives. This threat results from commerce. It is entrepreneurial. Yet it kills. It kills in massive numbers. Some of the people it kills die. Others live but in a larger sense they die as well. This is not your every day one-on-one street crime. Or your crime of passion. This is a methodical, planned, knowing slaughter of the many in pursuit of money. Massive amounts of money. And this slaughter is today the greatest threat to our domestic common security.
It is the threat of big-time drug dealing.
How can we tolerate this dissipation of our collective strength? Drugs are overwhelming us. No society ravaged by drugs is going to compete with anybody. Yet those who engage in and profit from this trade are considered lesser criminals by the criminal code. I kill one person in a fit of passion and I am a murderer. I kill thousands of people by methodical drug trafficking and I am not a murderer. By what standard of logic? By what definition of true threat?
Who truly kills the drug user found in an alley with a needle in his arm? Who truly kills the store owner murdered by a drug user in search of quick money for a drug purchase? Who truly kills the intravenous drug user who contracts AIDS? Who truly kills the victim of an automobile crash caused by drug use? Who truly kills the newborn cocaine dependent baby?
The major drug trafficker does. Yet in states that impose the death penalty he is immune. I repeat. By what definition of real threat? By what recognition of actual damage to our societal core?
If the death penalty is society's way of identifying the greatest threat, it must look past the one-on-one crime of passion or criminal intent. It must concentrate on those who would destroy all of us. It must focus on the trafficker and, once and for all, declare a war on drugs that is a war on drugs. Billions upon billions for defense against fading foreign threats embodied by the Soviets and only hesitance in addressing the true angels of death within our borders. Unless drug dealing is significantly reduced, we will never be a viable nation. We will never compete. We will be dragged down by our fellow citizens lost in the demonic caverns of drug dependence.
Index
| Introduction |
1 |
||
| I. |
Economic Survival –
The Creation of National Wealth |
5 |
|
| II. |
Education –
The Meeting House of Our Society |
32 |
|
| III. |
The Environment —
Equilibrium With Earth |
38 |
|
| IV. |
Energy, Fossil
Fuels – Someday There Won't Be Any |
47 |
|
| V. |
Foreign Policy –
Time to Heal Thyself |
58 |
|
| VI. |
The Culture of
America – The Essential Need |
70 |
|
| VII. |
Return to Purpose |
85 |
|
| VIII. |
Biography |
86 |
Copyright © 2023 Eric M. Appleman/Democracy in
Action. 