Fukuyama: Identity (2018)

Preface

The result of history remains the liberal state linked to a market economy as he claimed in 1992.

Yet liberal democracies face 3 inherent threats to their legitimacy.  Thymos, the need for individuals to feel that their dignity is respected.  Isothymia, the demand to be respected on an equal basis.  Megalothymia, the desire to be recognized as superior.  These demands don’t melt away with progress or modernity.  They can be interpreted at the individual or group level.  Individuals, especially those in less successful groups, can deeply feel their lack of respect by the government, economy, institutions, media, and culture.  The superiority craving folks can reach their desires through accomplishments but can also lead populist political movements.  Relatively equal treatment of citizens is a strength of many modern liberal states.

Liberal democracies with market economies surged during the last quarter of the 20th century, but have struggled in the 21st century due to economic crises, China’s rise and consolidation into an authoritarian state, resurgent nationalist and religious demands, and the difficulties of building and sustaining a  liberal democracy aligned with the modern international order.

“Demand for recognition of one’s identity is a master concept that unifies much of what is going on in world politics today”.  Universal recognition of human dignity is challenged by partial recognition based on nation, religion, sect, race, ethnicity, and gender.  Threats arise from the left and right.

1. The Politics of Dignity

Twentieth century politics was largely a left (equality) versus right (freedom) battle.  Politics today is more often based on identity.  The left focuses more on protecting the group rights of marginal communities: blacks, immigrants, women, Hispanics, LGBTQ, refugees, and workers.  The right focuses more on protecting the group rights of other traditional, rural, religious, national, racial and ethnic communities.  The “classic liberal” emphasis on abstract, universal, individual human rights supported by both the center-left and the center-right has been overshadowed.

Strength of the Soviet and Chinese models, weak Western response to 9/11, growth of terrorist groups, inherent EU tensions, the Great Recession and Euro crisis (Greece), growing inequality and the disruptions caused by rapid globalization have all contributed to a reassessment of the former consensus on the best way to organize politics and economics.

Underlying these changes is the concept of “identity”.   An individual’s “identity” is his perception of his true inner self, often in contrast with the rules and norms of society.  Starting with Jean-Jacques Rousseau, individuals and intellectuals have largely embraced a view of human nature as being intrinsically good, fighting against the constraints of society.  Modern individuals seek to become aware of and develop their true identity based upon introspection and feelings.  Making this identity central to their lives, individuals also demand respect for the inherent dignity of their individual and group identities from society. 

Fukuyama describes Putin, Jinping, Trump, Brexit, Terrorists, Orban, Black Lives Matter and Me Too within this framework of respecting identities.  Respect for identity can be a tool for constructive change or for victimization, populism, and authoritarianism.

2. The Third Part of the Soul

Humans are not driven by utility maximization as proposed by economists.  Fukuyama prefers Plato’s view in The Republic.  Individuals are driven by desire and reason, but also by thymos/spirit, the seat of judgement about worth.  Individuals want to feel good about themselves.  They care about their inner worth and dignity.  They want to be respected by society.  Hence, many social and cultural issues become hotly debated political wedge issues.  Abortion is not about minor public policy opinion differences or varied religious perspectives or framing communications as pro-life versus pro-choice, but a judgment about me and my perspective, my community, my essential values that must not be challenged!  It is a personal issue that demands respect.  Individuals who do not receive respect naturally become resentful.

3. Inside and Outside

Martin Luther developed the insight of an inner self distinct from an outer or social self.  Faith takes place only in the inner self, independent of the roles and influences of society, priests, and the Church.  With this shift in perspective began “a whole series of social changes in which the individual believer was prioritized over prevailing social structures”.  In traditional human societies social roles were fully defined.  No individual choice was required.  No conflict between “the individual” and society could be imagined. [Fukuyama does not explore the earlier steps towards awareness of individual identity seen in the Renaissance].

Jean-Jacques Rousseau expanded this gap between the individual and society.  The individual is inherently good and largely misshaped by society.  Religious faith was only one dimension of the choices that need to be made.  The depth of the individual’s true nature was hidden and required significant work to explore.  “Original sin” was incorrect.  Most “sins” were created by the demands of society.  Individualism existed before communities.  The real individual could be created.  The “individual” was now deeper, broader, and evolving.  He quotes Charles Taylor, “This is part of the massive subjective turn of modern culture, a new form of inwardness in which we come to think of ourselves as beings with inner depths.”

4. From Dignity to Democracy

Christianity emphasizes the central role of humans as agents capable of making moral choices, despite being hindered by original sin.  Hence, there is universal dignity for men.  Immanuel Kant also argued that humans can make moral choices and that human will is worthy of respect.  GWF Hegel agreed that this capacity for moral choice was praiseworthy.  He argued that human history was shaped by the struggle for recognition and that it was natural that political structures that recognized this need would evolve and be passionately adopted.  The stage was set for liberal democracies, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution.

5. Revolutions of Dignity

The Arab Spring and color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine reflect the strong desire of ordinary people for the basics of liberal democracy.  Not a duplication of Europe and the U.S., but a state that recognizes “human agency, the ability to exercise a share of power through active participation in self-government”.  Voting, free speech, free assembly, equal dignity, moral agency as a member of a democratic political community. 

 “Successful democracy depends not on optimization of its ideals, but balance: a balance between individual freedom and political equality, and between a capable state exercising legitimate power and the institutions of law and accountability that seek to constrain it.  Authoritarian governments, by contrast, fail to recognize the equal dignity of their citizens.”

6. Expressive Individualism

The “classic liberal” tradition of individualistic identity has 3 sources.  Luther broke the individual free from the collective in order to better relate to God and follow his law.  Kant located the individual as a free moral agent capable of making choices following abstract laws of reason like the categorical imperative or logical golden rule.  Hobbes, Locke, and Mill expanded the universe of freedoms and placed them within a social contract system of political rights such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

Rousseau changed the game completely.  The individual is now clearly first, ahead of society and the traditional God.  The individual is inherently good, but often corrupted by society.  The individual can find that good self by looking inward, deeply and with feeling.  The individual has a moral obligation to find and express that good inner self.  This autonomy applies in all dimensions.  Creative powers become more important.  The garden of Eden story is directly challenged.

The shared moral view of the Christian church was challenged from many other directions: religious wars following the reformation and counter-reformation, the rise of the artist’s creative powers, romanticism and naturalism, the conflicts with the enlightenment and scientific revolution, and Friedrich Nietzsche who declared “God is dead” and that the individualistic superman can now define his own moral values.  The individual expanded to consider faith, rights, politics, values, religion, science, facts, meaning and reality.

“The problem with this understanding of autonomy is that shared values serve the important function of making social life possible.  If we do not agree on a minimum common culture, we cannot cooperate on shared tasks and will not regard the same institutions as legitimate; indeed, we will not even be able to communicate with each other absent a common language with mutually understood meanings”.    Many individuals don’t hear or respond to the call for in-depth exploration, creative expression, and superiority.  They honestly prefer to conform to social norms and interact with their neighbors based on the existing society.

Individual rights were much more widely recognized across the nineteenth century.  Collective identity, in the form of nationalism and politicized religion also began to grow with unfortunate consequences.

7. Nationalism and Religion

Luther, Rousseau, Kant, Locke, and Hegel set the stage for an individualistic and universal form of identity.  The equal dignity of all human beings was obvious, worthy of political protection and the basis for individual moral development (at a minimum).  Together with the scientific revolution, Adam Smith, urbanization, and industrialization, it promoted the modern capitalist market economy.  Free trade, free exchange, private property, limited government interference.  More growth, trade, investment, urbanization, profit, industrialization, government support, secularization, experimentation, and science.  Rinse, repeat.  Rinse, repeat.  The growing economy created pressure for standardized education, languages, units of measures and national laws to make trade and investment more effective.  The growing capitalist, trade, citizen, bureaucrat and bourgeoise powers competed against the traditional religious, economic, political, and social powers.

Johann Herder in the late 18th century began a movement against these universalizing views.  The individual local nation, region, city-state, culture, geography, traditions, customs, food, festivals, saints, music, and religion have a role to play.  Humans mostly live in their smaller communities.  They provide individual and social values which should not be discarded.  They are as real, authentic, and valuable as any newly discovered rights, science, trade, or philosophy.  In a world of overlapping dimensions, nationalism was born.  Nationalism emphasizes a collective identity, a set of rights and demands for respect.  It fights against smaller (US states rights) and larger political groups (EU).  It inspires passion and loyalty.  It often focuses on the collective, organic “will of the people” rather than arbitrary political results.  Nations are subject to capture by business, military, church, and political elites. 

The migration from traditional, agricultural societies with integrated community, social, political, economic, and religious norms, values, and beliefs to secular, urbanized, industrialized, multicultural, individual, separated values societies has played out for 500 years.  Rural to urban in Europe for centuries.  Rural to urban in the US for 150 years.  Immigrants to the US for 150 years.  Immigrants to Europe for 75 years.  Rural to urban migration across the world for 75 years.  In each case, there are strong conflicts between the integrated set of community oriented traditional values and the more diverse set of individual oriented values.  Sociologists decry the breakdown of traditional societies and the anomie or anxiety created.  Some individuals and families make the transition into the new world, while others struggle to adapt.

Passionate and sometimes violent nationalist, religious and populist reactions take place.  Individuals and groups who feel that they, their groups, and identities are out of place, react negatively towards the society that does not embrace them.  “Deplorables”.  “The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres”.  “Hang on to their guns and religion”.  “You didn’t build that”.  Nationalism, radical Islam, and U.S. populism share these roots.  “Radical Islam by contrast offers them community, acceptance and dignity”.  Fukuyama closes the chapter with the proviso that these groups clearly also represent other dimensions of political, social, economic, and religious life.   

‘8. The Wrong Address

The 20th century was dominated by a single left versus right political spectrum.  The far left (communism) and far right (fascism) were discredited by the end of the cold war and the results of WW II.  The center-left and center-right mostly competed on the same left versus right dimension focused on economic issues.  Equality, redistribution, fairness, labor, safety nets, and the welfare state versus economic opportunity, growth, property rights, innovation, entrepreneurship, capital, and freedom. 

In the US and Europe, income and wealth inequality have risen back to 1875 robber baron/laissez faire levels after contracting in the post-WW II era.  Yet, the center-left and populist economic left politicians have not benefitted from the reduced relative status of the working and middle classes.  The global financial crisis in 2007-10 sparked by the reckonings of unconstrained greed throughout the US banking and mortgage system did not benefit the political left, which was seen as complicit in globalization and “the third way”. 

Fukuyama doesn’t delve into the political details.  Instead, he simply refers to the growing political dimension of “identity”.  Nationalist, populist leaders have been able to position these situations and others as part of the disenfranchisement of “the people” by unelected, self-appointed elites.  Nationalist leaders in India, Japan, Hungary, Turkey, Poland, and the US have capitalized on these concerns.  [Fukuyama fails to highlight either the “traditional to secular transition conflict” outlined above or the bewildering complexity of modern life described by Robert Kegan in “In Over Our Heads”]

9. Invisible Man

It’s not “the economy, stupid” as claimed by James Carville.  It’s my dignity. [Fukuyama does not emphasize the possibility that once a society reaches a certain level of economic success, that it might then turn to non-economic dimensions as being much more important].  Relative status, qualitatively, matters to everyone.  No one wants to be Ralph Ellison’s “invisible man”.  The loss of status, like the loss on investments, has a strong negative emotional effect.  This matters to the middle class and the working class.  The loss of relative status is very painful.  Immigration becomes a major issue because immigrants can be viewed as the cause of a loss in status/economic position.

“The nationalist can translate loss of relative economic position into loss of identity and status; you have always been a core member of our great nation, but foreigners, immigrants, and your own elite compatriots have been conspiring to hold you down; your country is no longer your own, and you are not respected in your own land.  Similarly, the religious partisan can say something almost identical:  You are a member of a great community of believers who have been traduced by nonbelievers; this betrayal has led not just to your impoverishment but is a crime against God himself.  You may be invisible to your fellow citizens, but you are not invisible to God”.

’10. The Democratization of Dignity

Modern liberal democracies in North America and Europe were founded on the individualist view of identity.  Through time they expanded the set of citizens whose rights would be honored, thereby fulfilling their early idealistic promises about universal rights.

In the second half of the 20th century, the “therapeutic society” emerged in the West, championing Rousseau’s ideas.  “Philip Rieff  … argued that the decline of a shared moral horizon defined by religion had left a huge void that was being filled by psychologists preaching a new religion of psychotherapy.  Traditional culture, according to Rief, ‘is another name for a design of motive directing the self outward, toward those whose communal purposes in which alone the self can be satisfied’.  As such it played a therapeutic role, giving purpose to individuals, connecting them to others, and teaching them their place in the universe.  But that outer culture had been denounced as an iron cage imprisoning the inner self; people were told to liberate their inner selves, to be ‘authentic’ and ‘committed’, but without being told to what they should be committed.”

“The affirmation of the inner identity depended, in the final analysis, on the truth of Rousseau’s assertion that human beings were fundamentally good; that their inner selves were sources of limitless potential.”  “Ideas that ultimately trace back to Rousseau: that each of us has an inner self buried deep within; that it is unique and a source of creativity; that the self residing in each individual has an equal value to that of others; that the self is expressed not through reason but through feelings; and finally that this inner self is the basis of … human dignity”.

The author shares the work of the 1990 California Task Force to Promote Self-Esteem and Personal Social Responsibility, noting the inherent contradictions.  “The effort to raise everyone’s self-esteem without being able to define what is estimable, and without being able to discriminate between better and worse forms of behavior, appeared to many people to be an impossible – indeed, an absurd – task”.

The author notes some results of the adoption of a “therapeutic society” worldview:  rise of narcissism described by Christopher Lasch, growth of counseling industry at large and in schools, successful therapeutic versions of religion catering to those seeking personal growth, an expansion of the desired role of government from managing the infrastructure to directly ensuring the growth of self-esteem and recognition for all citizens,  a diminished role for personal responsibility since many personal outcomes are primarily driven by social structures, and universities embracing the individualistic ethos.

“The therapeutic model arose directly from modern understandings of identity.  It held that we have deep interior spaces whose potentials are not being realized, and that external society through its rules, roles, and expectations is responsible for holding us back … The therapist was not particularly interested in the substantive content of what was inside us, nor in the abstract question of whether the surrounding society was just or unjust.  The therapist is simply interested in making his or her patient feel better about themselves, which required raising their sense of self-worth … The rise of the therapeutic model midwifed the birth of modern identity politics … everywhere a struggle for the recognition of dignity”.

11. From Identity to Identities

Social movements in support of various “rights” exploded in the 1960’s: civil, feminist, sexual, environmental, disability, indigenous, immigrant and gender identity.  They began as new waves in the expansion of individual rights within the “classic liberal” political model.  In each case there were activists who promoted the importance of group rights as being even more important than equal individual rights.  “Equal individual rights” was deemed an inadequate goal.  Previously invisible and disrespected groups needed to be respected as groups specifically because of their differences.  The “lived experiences” of exploited group members were to be relished even though the majority population might not be able to understand their experience and perspective. 

Multiculturalism evolved from a high level political need to protect the basic rights of large minority populations to the goal of uplifting the superior distinctive cultures of previously disenfranchised groups.  The number of identity groups and intersectionality’s grew exponentially.  Much of this change in viewpoint was driven by a relatively small number of intellectuals and activists within the broad “new left” umbrella, but within a therapeutic society, support for this kind of identity-based perspective grew over time. 

Fukuyama argues that left-leaning political parties shifted their focus from the working class and economic issues to identity groups for several reasons.  Marxism and communism were discredited.  The center-left pursuit of a growing social welfare state had lost popular support due to its fiscal costs.  Some activists argued that the historical center-left approaches were too closely aligned with the “power structure” of politics, economics, patriarchy, science, religion, objectivity, elites, Western values and globalization and ought to be abandoned.  A cultural transformation could be done more easily through the educational, information and entertainment industries than via the difficult work of practical politics.  Postmodernism and deconstruction slowly increased their influence on Western societies after 1968.

The author notes the advantages of narrowly focusing on the “lived experience” of oppressed groups to make their suffering real and press for meaningful legal and cultural changes.  He also outlines some disadvantages.  Minority groups are not uniformly morally superior in principle or in all their actions.  Identity politics draws attention away from rising inequality of income and wealth.  The white working class loses support from the political left since it is not as obviously oppressed as other groups.  Attempts to address the common concerns of the broad working and middle classes are undercut.  Identity politics can conflict with historical views of a strong right of free speech, even when it offends the feelings of others.  The assembly, coordination, and maintenance of a coalition of identity groups is inherently difficult.  Identity group politics can clash with historic center-left views.

Identity politics on the left has since led to identity politics on the right.  Once groups decided that their rights, feelings, insights, and experiences were sacred and not subject to criticism from the outside, they adopted beliefs, norms and communications standards that can rightly be called “politically correct”.  We are right because we know we are right.  Everyone else is wrong and looked down upon.  The general population, members of majority groups, individualists, traditionalists, and others soon took offense. 

Politicians on the right have leveraged both polarization and populist feelings and then used the left’s framing and language to construct new coalitions that realign politics from a primarily economic to a primarily cultural axis.  My religion is right.  My race is right.  My traditional view is right.  My America is right.  American isolationism is right.  American nativism is right.  As many commentators have indicated, Trump took advantage of pre-existing concerns within the American public to redefine the Republican Party based on identity first.

Fukuyama highlights several issues with identity politics.  The number of groups proliferates.  Identity claims are often nonnegotiable, so trade-offs and negotiations are blocked.  Identity politics works against the need to achieve common goals via deliberation and consensus.  Communication and collective action are more difficult.

’12. We the People

“Political order both at home and internationally will depend on the continuing existence of liberal democracies with the right kind of inclusive national identities”.

Countries without a clear national identity, such as Syria, tend to fall apart.  Nations can be formed based on geography, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, language, or ideas.  “National identity begins with a shared belief in the legitimacy of the country’s political system.”  Identity can be reinforced through institutions, education, culture, and values.  Diversity provides benefits to nations but can also bring challenges.  National identity can be misused for political and military purposes.

“National identity can be built around liberal and democratic political values, and the common experiences that provide the connective tissue around which diverse communities can thrive.”  An effective national identity helps to provide security, good government, economic development, trust and social capital, social security, and the basis for liberal democracy.

“A liberal democracy is an implicit contract between citizens and their government, and among the citizens themselves, under which they give up certain rights in order that the government protects other rights that are more basic and important.”  Democracies also require a supportive culture, deliberation and debate, acceptance of outcomes, tolerance, and some degree of mutual respect.  Democracies require broad and deep support for constitutional government and human equality.

International governments cannot replace national governments.  They require shared norms, perspectives and cultures that are simply too varied at the global level.

’13. Stories of Peoplehood

National identities are insecure.  Regional and global institutions make conflicting claims upon citizen loyalties at a higher level.  Group identities in multicultural societies pull against the national forces.  Immigration and refugees add group identities, which often contrast with traditional national cultures, and raise issues of citizenship, loyalty, and nationhood. 

“The policies that do the most to shape national identity are rules regarding citizenship and residency, laws on immigration and refugees, and the curricula used in the public education system to teach children about the nation’s past.”  Stories of peoplehood have a large impact as well.

The European Union created a supra-national government without investing in citizenship, symbols, or political legitimacy.  Even though the EU has added functions and members through time and lightly shaped common values and institutions, it has not prepared well for any true common nationhood.  Brexit should not have been such a big surprise.  Anti-EU populism should not be a surprise either.

Immigration and refugees became a large real and political problem because the EU has complicated matters through its open borders agreements, the volume increased, many immigrants were from Muslim, Arab and African origins, many countries maintain descendant based rules and many countries had little experience building multicultural societies.  The rise of group identity politics changed the pressures for and against successful integration. 

’14. What is to be Done?

Address the real issues that trigger the need for a deep-felt group identity to demand special rights.  Promote greater appreciation for the multiple identities that each person holds.  Promote the creedal national identities that can effectively include many groups.  Invest in integrating immigrants into society.  Re-emphasize common economic, cultural, and political interests of the broad working and middle classes.  Revise the EU citizenship, immigration, and political structures to make them a more effective and politically legitimate body.  Eliminate laws that discourage naturalization of non-descendants.  Share the long-term progress in extending rights to a broader set of people within classic liberal democracies despite the history of slavery, colonialism, and inequality.  Adopt compromise laws on immigration that secure borders and enforce state control over who becomes a citizen on what basis.  Clarify dual citizenship and citizen versus resident rights to promote the benefits of citizenship.  Increase service requirements to boost national loyalty.

The Very Best Music Index Ever: The 1960’s

343 songs in total. Enjoy!

50 Greatest Technical Inventions of All Time

15/50 Started 2 Millennia Ago

Beer and wine.

Brass, iron, nails, steel; steel alloys, Bessemer process.

Bricks, cement, concrete, asphalt; reinforced concrete.

Compass; marine chronometer.

Domesticated horses and animals.

Farming.

Fire; fire extinguishers.

Language, writing, alphabet.

Paper.

Plow; steel plow.

Ships, sailboats.

Swords, weapons, gunpowder, matches; gatling gun.

Tools.

Waterpower, water control, indoor plumbing, toilets, drainage, aqueducts.

Wheel, chariot, water wheel; pneumatic tires.

Circa 1000 – 1500

Mechanical clocks and watches.

Paper currency; ATM (1950).

Printing press, movable type, linotype, typewriter.

Lenses, mirror, microscope, telescope, magnifying glass.

Circa 1800

Electricity generation, turbines, batteries, electric motors.

Steam engine, turbine.

Internal combustion engine, automobile, tractor.

Railroad, locomotive.

Anesthesia.

Distilled oil products, diesel, kerosene and gasoline.

Telephone.

Circa 1900

Airplane

Automobile

Camera; digital camera

Electric light bulb; fluorescent, LCD, LED

Moving pictures

Phonograph

Radio

Refrigeration

Vaccines

Medical diagnostics: X-Ray; MRI, CT scan

Antibiotics, penicillin

Circa 1950

Electronic computer, Turing machine, personal computer; after arithmetical machines, abacus and slide rule.

Contraceptives

Geographical positioning system, (GPS) and mapping.

Vacuum tubes, integrated circuits, semiconductors and microprocessors.

Nuclear fission, fusion, power and bombs.

Television.

Circa 2000

Genetics, gene editing, DNA.

Mobile phone networks, infrastructure and personal devices.

Internet communications network.

World wide web addressing structure.

Artificial intelligence.

Smartphones.

Summary

The greatest technical innovations of humanity cover a broad range of life: food/cooking, construction, travel, transport, household, finance, science, power, medicine, entertainment and calculation.

We have a dozen major inventions in both of the 19th and 20th centuries. Change appears to be accelerating…

https://ehistory.osu.edu/articles/greatest-inventions-past-1000-years

https://startupguide.com/the-40-greatest-innovations-of-all-time

https://www.livescience.com/33749-top-10-inventions-changed-world.html

https://bigthink.com/the-present/inventions/

https://www.cadcrowd.com/blog/top-100-famous-inventions-and-greatest-ideas-of-all-time/

https://www.history.com/news/11-innovations-that-changed-history

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/inventions-what-are-the-10-greatest-of-our-time/

https://interestingengineering.com/lists/19-great-inventions-that-revolutionized-history

https://interestingengineering.com/lists/35-inventions-that-changed-the-world

https://pickvisa.com/blog/best-inventions-in-the-world

https://www.inc.com/paul-grossinger/what-are-the-25-greatest-inventions-of-all-time.html

https://techengage.com/top-tech-innovations-in-history/#2-pascaline-1642

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/worlds-greatest-inventions.html

https://creativepool.com/magazine/inspiration/top-25-most-inspiring-creative-inventions-and-products-of-all-time.25588

Popular Culture Index

Popular Music Index

One Page: Why We’re Polarized – Klein (2020)

Trump’s 2016 election win was unremarkable statistically. He won the usual share of Republican voters in most demographic sectors and attracted extra non-college graduate white voters. Our political system has built an increasingly polarized electorate based on appeals to identity politics (red versus blue). We vote for our team or against the “other” team, setting aside our other concerns.

Both political parties contained liberals, conservatives and moderates in the 1950’s. The Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of the 1960’s broke the Democrats’ grip on the “solid South”. Regional, local, character, ideology and other factors mattered more to voters, politicians and parties through the 1990’s. By 2016 even self-identified independents were polarized, views of the “other” party dropped from 45 to 29 degrees and 43% of partisans saw their opponents as a “threat to the nation’s well-being”.

Voters and political parties are increasingly aligned by a single conservative to liberal dimension, with other dimensions of identity running in parallel: race, religion, region, urban/rural, and gender. This builds on the personality trait of openness, fluidity, and tolerance of threats.

Individuals are inherently attracted to group membership, like sports teams and easily oppose other teams and seek to win. As the two major political parties began to clearly sort on the “left versus right” dimension by the 1980’s wise political actors clarified the differences between the two parties in extreme terms. Political messaging is simpler, more extreme and more effective in this environment. Group identity and membership trumps facts, science, beliefs, thinking, policies, and detailed ideologies.

Rational individuals outsource politics to parties and politicians. Individuals adjust their views to match the views of the parties and politicians. More politically engaged individuals are more easily influenced. Higher knowledge and skilled individuals use their talents to challenge the opposition but not their own party’s views.

The decline of cultural and political power held by White Christians due to demographic changes has encouraged conservatives to emphasize traditional values and liberals to emphasize diversity. President Obama’s presidency punctured the “post-racial myth”, as the country became much more divided on racial issues. The cultural power of media, university and corporate elites and institutions threatens some conservatives while increasing Republican political power and actions threaten some liberals.

Modern journalists and media compete for attention. They are biased towards “loud, outrageous, colorful, inspirational and confrontational”. They reinforce the cycles of polarization, mostly leaving behind historical norms of objectivity and balance. More information and choices have not helped media consumers to better evaluate parties, politicians, messages or issues.

Polarized voters and media outlets have combined to make elections be based on national parties and wedge issues. Political candidates focus on these issues and raise more money from small donors, independent of the wishes and interests of political parties which tend to be more moderate, optimizing their chances of winning competitive districts. Gerrymandering, rural/urban political sorting, direct primaries and fundraising have undercut the power of political parties.

A polarized country, roughly evenly split politically, leads political actors to focus more than ever on “winning”, decreasing the role of norms, tradition, civility, pragmatism, patriotism and institutional preservation. The emphasis on national issues reduces the incentive and scope for transactional, local based politics, log-rolling, earmarks, and compromise. By 2012 the radicalization of the Republican Party was complete with Democrats not far behind. Klein uses former Attorney General William Barr’s words to highlight the increasingly expressed Republican view that they are fighting a war to preserve their culture from extinction by the secular elites of the other party. He doesn’t describe the coastal Democrats complementary view of a Trump-led nation.

Solutions

Agree to move some issues beyond politics: debt ceiling approval, longer-term budget program approval. Improve political system legitimacy: cut bias of electoral college overrepresenting rural voters through changes or the Popular Vote Compact. Use independent commissions to draw election districts. Eliminate the Senate filibuster. Award DC and Puerto Rico congressional representation. Consider a multi-party-political system and multiple seat districts and ranked choice voting. Increase the size of Supreme Court and make some appointments outside of politics. Reduce the Speaker of the House’s total control of the legislative agenda. Make everyone aware of their “political identity” and how media and politicians use this to persuade or control. Proactively choose, evaluate and challenge media sources. Invest time in politics, especially state and local politics.

Our American Community

https://librarytechnology.org/library/1642

In his 1999 “Bowling Alone”, Robert Putnam documented the widespread decline of “community” in America since the second world war. In his 2015 “Our Kids” he breaks down the data showing that the “professional class” has mostly survived, maintaining the institutions and benefits of community, while the “working class” has lost community attachment, support and equal opportunity. He recommends that we invest in child-care and pre-K services to support “our kids”.

Francis Fukuyama shot to fame in the 1990’s when he proclaimed the “end of history”.  Mixed capitalism and representative democracy had permanently won the global war of ideologies against fascism, communism and totalitarianism!  His most recent book outlines the history and core content of “classic liberal” representative democracy and the threats to our political community from the left and right. 

Political commentator and social media entrepreneur Ezra Klein outlines the history of our two main political parties and their 1960-80 ideological realignment and polarization.  He describes the role that social media has played in separating citizens from each other and the unfortunate melding of our various identities into overly simplistic singular “red versus blue” categories. 
Next, consider Johnathan Haidt’s book “The Righteous Mind”; subtitled “why good people are divided by politics and religion”.  This 2012 book argues that there are 6 foundations for morality: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity and liberty/oppression.  Like personality traits, individuals weigh them differently and rationalize accordingly.  Politicians use this knowledge to divide or unify our communities. 

Let’s turn to history through John Meacham’s book “The Soul of America”.  The historian provides a half-dozen mini histories to place our current political and cultural conflicts into context and provide hope that “the better angels of our nature” can once again prevail.  Like Teddy Roosevelt, he emphasizes our need to make widespread political participation a top priority.

Finally, examine David Brooks’ book “The Road to Character”.  The leading columnist contrasts the “resume virtues” with the “eulogy virtues” and argues that we have lost the moral vocabulary needed to encourage our communities to participate in our moral journey.  He provides a half dozen biographical vignettes to illustrate this path in a manner that should appeal to all.  These individuals might inspire us personally and help us to identify what changes to our society, institutions and politics could help our society to encourage, or even demand, high character from us and our leaders.

Summary

Humans seem to have always contrasted the individual and the community, left and right. Today, in the United States, we lean too far towards the secular, scientific, materialistic, capitalist, individualistic end, in my view.

The Reagan/Thatcher revolution of neo-liberalism promoted individualistic, libertarian, liberty-obsessed capitalism as the supreme value and virtue, leaving other religious and community values behind. Many in the fundamentalist Christian wing of the party embraced the complementary individualist “prosperity gospel”. Other Christians; Pentecostals, Catholics, and main-line Protestants; struggled with a flat, thin, earthly, deterministic, commercial only world view.

The progressive world has largely embraced the misleading “science versus religion” perspective and mostly concluded that science has won, and religion is irrelevant. A purely scientific world has no room for non-scientific dimensions, objects or perspectives. Atheism, agnosticism and relativism reign supreme. Global community might be accepted or embraced.

The philosophical secular humanists moved on to socialism/Marxism and then to existentialism and then to postmodernism, adopting a “value free”, but community-based world view. Oppressed communities, (race, gender, disability, religion, feeling, ethnicity) are the fundamental components of a just world. Otherwise, there is no objective reality or values.

It seems to me that we have simply not found a good way to integrate the needs of the individual and the community. Community clearly exists at the local, state, nation and global level. Community clearly exists in the social, political and religious dimensions.

Jonathan Haidt contrasts traditional and “modern” societies. Stereotypical modern societies are WEIRD: western, educated, industrial, rich and democratic. They tend to subsist on a “thin” individualistic-only morality of care and fairness, leaving religion and community behind. This purely individualistic basis for morality is insufficient to support a good life, in my view.

Consider the purely “secular states” in Turkey, China or communist Russia. Too thin. The political state is insufficient as the only basis for community and the religious, eternal, infinite, natural, mystical, mythical, spiritual dimension.

Consider the modern “social welfare” states in Western Europe. Organized religion fills a small role, space and influence. It is replaced by community membership at the neighborhood level, in professions, in political, social and athletic groups, in voluntary cooperatives, in family societies, in local historical societies. Perhaps, minimally adequate.

Is a variety of voluntary, limited liability, communities adequate for the “good life”? Intuitively, I think not. We humans can tolerate some uncertainty, but we long for a “North Star”. Certainty would be best, of course, but clear direction would be “good enough”.

Moving back to current, practical terms. What do we do about the Trump based far-right, reactionary, populist, ruling wing of the Republican Party? It believes that it is right and worthy of imposing its own values on the rest of American society.

The Main Street, Wall Street, international, New England, WASP factions of the Republican Party could collaborate to retake control of their conservative party.

The Democrats could clarify their views, policies and practices to make clear that the remaining “independent” or “centrist” individuals would be welcomed and happy in a “center-left” Democratic Party that is not merely a front for socialism.

The politically interested class could actively campaign to change the rules of the game. New fundraising rules that survive Supreme Court challenges. Different voting rules that favor centrists. Filtering groups that restrict extremists. Neutral voting rules and district drawing groups. Increased power for political parties to emphasize central results.

I don’t have a “silver bullet” solution. But I know that our current political polarization is destructive and that we can do better.

The Soul of America – Jon Meachem (2018)

Introduction: To Hope Rather than to Fear

“Americans today have little trust in government; household income lags behind our usual middle-class expectations … the alienated are mobilized afresh by changing demography, by broadening conceptions of identity, and by an economy that prizes Information Age brains over manufacturing brawn.”

Gunnar Myrdal described the American Creed as “devotion to the principles of liberty, of self-government and of equal opportunity”. “The war between the ideal and the real, between what’s right and what’s convenient, between the larger good and personal interest is the contest that unfolds in the soul of every American”. “We cannot guarantee equal outcomes, but we must do all we can to ensure equal opportunity. Hence a love of fair play, of generosity of spirit, of reaping the rewards of hard work and faith in the future”. “The United States has long been shaped by the promise … of forward motion, of rising greatness, and of the expansion of knowledge, of wealth, of happiness”.

“Our greatest leaders have pointed toward the future – not at this group or sect.” “The president of the United States has not only administrative and legal but moral and cultural power”.

Fear: feeds anxiety and produces anger, about limits, points at others, assigning blame, pushes away, divides. Hope: breeds optimism, about growth, points ahead, working for a common good, pulls others closer, unifies.

One: The Confidence of the Whole People

America began with dreams of God and Gold. In 1630, John Winthrop said “For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill”. Meachem argues that we must understand the dynamic between the presidency and the people at large, between a powerful chief and a free, disputatious populace. The presidency was defined in the shadow of the ineffective Articles of Confederation and the hatred of monarchy. Walter Bagehot in 1867 contrasted the dignified and the efficient parts of British parliamentary system. We have no king, so the US president must fill the dignified, symbolic, honorary, universal, ideal, inspiring, cohering role. “Our past presidents have unified and inspired with conscious dignity and conscientious efficiency”.

LBJ: “the moral force of the Presidency is often stronger than the political force”. Jefferson sought “to unite himself with the confidence of the whole people”. “Jackson believed in the nation with his whole heart. To him, the nation was a sacred thing”. Jackson: “The president is the direct representative of the American people”. Lincoln moved from a compromising, tentative early tone to exerting moral leadership for the country in the Gettysburg address, defining America ever after in terms of democracy and equality, followed by appeals to the “better angels of our nature” and binding the wounds of war.

Teddy Roosevelt coined the term “bully pulpit” to describe the president’s unique opportunity for moral leadership. Woodrow Wilson wrote of the president: “His position takes the imagination of the country. He is the representative of no constituency, but of the whole people”. Character and temperament clearly matter in such a president. FDR perfected the “fireside chat”. Meacham notes “A leader’s balancing act, then, was the education and shaping of public opinion without becoming overly familiar or exhausting”.

The character of the country is as important as the character of the president. It’s inclinations, aspirations, customs, thought and the balance between the familiar and the new. The Declaration of Independence introduced “the pursuit of happiness” to the world stage, not as individual self-interest but the joint pursuit of private and public good, the good of the whole.

Even by 1750, commentators noted the strong American belief in progress. Reason, religion and capitalism all contributed to forming this hopeful view. Actual progress “does not usually begin at the top and among the few, but from the bottom and among the many”. Referring to civil rights and Womens’ rights, Meacham says, “It took presidential action to make things official … but without the voices from afar, there would have been no chorus of liberty”.

Two: The Long Shadow of Appomattox

Robert E Lee’s surrender to Ulysses S Grant was a solemn, respectful, muted, balanced, even hopeful event, but it did not mark the end of America’s struggle with equality between the races. Grant fought against the Klan, but Andrew Johnson tried to prevent progress and Rutherford B. Hayes ended Reconstruction in 1877, allowing the Confederate States to return to “home rule”.

The decades before the Civil War had been intensely fought off the battlefield. The war killed one-fourth of the Rebel soldiers. The war resolved the question of union (sort of) and emancipation (sort of), but the path forward was uncertain and debated at the national and state levels. Northerners and Southerners debated the cause of the war (states rights or slavery) and the cause of the Union’s military victory (industrial and military capacity, leadership, tactics, bravery or God). Even the great American hero, Abraham Lincoln, held mixed, moderate, evolving, tactical and ideal values and positions about slavery and the equality of the races. He didn’t have a clear plan because he was not sure about actual equality, he recognized that a majority of citizens did not believe in true equality or intermixing, and he understood that social institutions don’t change quickly or easily.

Virginian Edward Pollard published the “Lost Cause” in 1866, outlining a defensive and proud Southern position that did not embrace defeat, but triggered a new war for the preservation of Southern culture. “The war has left the South with its own memories, its own heroes, its own tears, its own dead”. The war “did not decide negro equality; it did not decide negro suffrage; it did not decide states’ rights … the Southern people will still cling to, still claim, and still assert them in their rights and views”. This was couched as a holy war against the oppressors.

The Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1866. It terrorized blacks and “others”. It worked to undermine Reconstruction. It supported the political actions required to completely disenfranchise blacks from voting and to segregate all services and social relations.

The “voice of the people” initially drove the federal government to pass the historic constitutional amendments, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction legislation of 1867 despite President Johnson’s opposition. He was impeached but escaped removal by one vote.

President Grant leaned into further steps towards racial equality but found that northern support for significant change was weak and that Southern opposition to any legislation, or compromise discussions, was consistent and universal. He was able to pass the Enforcement Act of 1870 that gave the federal government powers to pursue the Klan. The Klan’s public face disappeared, and its private actions faltered for some time, but violence and the threat of violence were used to complement the Jim Crow laws and establish a one party, dictatorial state throughout the “solid South” for decades into the future.

Three: With Soul of Flame and Temper of Steel

Womens’ suffrage, immigration and labor protections joined civil rights as major issues by the turn of the 19th century, epitomized in modern, progressive, reformist politicians such as Teddy Roosevelt.

Israel Zangwill’s play “The Melting Pot” celebrated the positive interactions of various races, religions and ethnic groups in teeming New York City. Teddy Roosevelt approved of the message as he interpreted it. America welcomes foreign groups if they embrace their Americanness and downplay their roots. Roosevelt employed logic and morality to conclude that it is “a base outrage to oppose a man because of his religion or his birthplace”. On the other hand, Roosevelt held no such accommodating views regarding native Americans. Like his contemporaries, he was influenced by Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism, scientific eugenics and apologetics for Britain’s imperial rule (White Man’s Burden). He believed that the progress of the Anglo-Saxon nations in the last 100-300 years reflected some form of superior readiness for the modern world.

Teddy Roosevelt was born in New York City in 1858 to a prominent family and benefited from their wealth, perspective and social standing. Teddy decided at an early age to be a “muscular”, driven individual, embracing the outdoors, adventure and change, especially when driven by himself. His “Citizen in a Republic” or “Man in the Arena” speech summarizes his view of a fully engaged life well lived. Roosevelt said, “Like all Americans, I like big things; big prairies, big forests and mountains, big wheat fields, railroads and herds of cattle, too, big factories, steamboats and everything else”.

Roosevelt’s progressive politics were influenced by Jacob Riis’ 1890 illustrated book “How the Other Half Lives”, which showed real urban living and working conditions. They were also influenced by Jane Addams’ Hull House initiatives to support the acclimation of immigrants to the United States.

Roosevelt crusaded against machine politics, monopolies, poor working conditions, and for conservation, railroad regulation, food safety, Womens’ suffrage and political reform.

Roosevelt invited Book T. Washington to dinner at the White House, a small step forward, which was criticized by many and elevated by many Southern journalists and politicians as an unremovable stain.

In each Roosevelt situation, we see a heroic man of privilege making decisions and taking actions to move his country forward. In hindsight, he was shaped by the views of his society, for good and for bad. He believed in progress, rationality, betterment and action. He was a Republican, a representative of the powerful Northeastern region, interests and his social class. He was idealistic, confident in the ability of individuals and governments to make things better. “We have room for but one flag, the American flag, for but one language, the English language, for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people”.

Four: A New and Good Thing in the World

The teens and twenties provided the 19th amendment for Women’s suffrage, but also a rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan opposed to blacks, Catholics, Jews and foreigners. Meachem reviews Wilson, Harding and Coolidge on these issues and finds just lukewarm support for “equal rights” a century ago.

In 1918 Wilson reversed his long-standing opposition to Women’s suffrage as it had become politically more favorable in the 70 years since the movement’s founding in Seneca, New York. The leaders had adopted a strategy of civil disobedience: lectures, protests, marches, lobbying, arrests for trespassing, and starvation pledges.

Wilson maintained his Virginian view of the Civil War, Reconstruction and negro rights. He met with black leaders at the White House but did not listen or engage, emotionally walking them out the door. Wilson denounced lynching and purged two racist senators from the Democratic party in 1918. Seeking support for his progressive economic policies in a 50th anniversary Gettysburg speech, he spoke of “the people themselves, the great and the small, without class or difference of kind or race or origin”, but also indicated that the combatants were morally equal.

A North Carolinian, Thomas Dixon, published a series of three novels between 1902 and 1907 reviving support for the “Lost Cause” version of the Civil War. One of the novels was filmed by D. W. Griffith in 1914 as “The Birth of the Nation”. It celebrated white supremacy and attacked African Americans. Wilson showed the film at the White House but later distanced himself from any formal support. In 1915 the new Klan was re-founded near Atlanta based upon “unease about crime, worry about anarchists, fear of immigrants flooding in from Europe desolated by war, and … anxiety about Communism”. The Klan promised racial solidarity and cultural certitude as the transition from an agricultural to an industrial and urban world accelerated. Klan Imperial wizard Evans claimed, “we demand a return of power into the hands of the everyday, not highly cultured, not overly intellectualized, but entirely unspoiled and not de-Americanized average citizens of the old stock”.

The first world war led to the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918, restricting free speech. Dissident groups, including labor unions and socialists, were pursued, charged and imprisoned. Eugene Debs was imprisoned for his opposition to the war. The Postal Service was used to restrict the dissemination of publications. Anarchist bombs exploded in 1919, leading to greater federal investigation of “threatening” sectors. Socially, politically and journalistically Americans were pressured to become more patriotic and completely support American institutions.

The pendulum started to swing back after 1920 when the New York legislature tried to unseat 5 duly elected Socialist party members. Leading voices remembered the core principles of democracy, confident that the system could survive a small amount of dissent.

The Klan reached a peak of influence in 1925, with 2 million members and strong political representation and influence at the state and national levels. A Democratic Party plank criticizing “secret organizations” like the Klan failed to be adopted in 1924. The Klan’s 1925 march on Washington attracted 30,000 participants. The Klan’s extreme positions were later rejected in many states and by national politicians and the Supreme Court and its influence once again faded by the end of the 1920’s. Harding was a leader in opposing the extra-legal actions of the Klan. Coolidge also took steps in the mid-1920’s to oppose the Klan. Yet, the National Origins Act of 1924 greatly restricted immigration.

The teens and twenties witnessed some progress for women, threats to free speech or nonconformity, and an expanded opposition to “others” by race, ethnicity or religion. Economic progress in the twenties softened the edges of opposition to “others”. The US, like most other nations, became more nationalistic or patriotic in the shadow of the Great War. The general positive attitude towards scientific, business and government progress continued, leading most politicians to reject extremist, irrational positions even if they were not quite ready to fully embrace the implications of “equality” expressed by Lincoln 50 years earlier.

Five: The Crisis of the Old Order

The Great Depression threatened the US as it threatened Europe. 20% unemployment. In 1932, FDR saw army chief of staff, Douglas MacArthur as a threat to democracy, leaning towards a military government. Louisiana governor and senator Huey Long posed a leftist populist threat. Father Charles Coughlin’s radio broadcasts stirred populist, nativist and anti-Jewish sentiments. Charles Lindbergh inspired the isolationists who wanted to leave Europe to its intramural squabbles. Novelists such as Nathanael West and Sinclair Lewis highlighted the attractions of fascism and populism to a suffering public. A group of Wall Street investors conspired to overthrow FDR in a military coup in 1933.

Business and political leaders understood the nation’s challenges. They were unsure about FDR’s policies, political judgements, character and ability. Columnist Walter Lippman wrote, “Franklin D. Roosevelt is no crusader. He is no tribune of the people. He is no enemy of entrenched privilege. He is a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president”.

Roosevelt exceeded expectations. His themes of “the salience of hope, the dangers of fear, and the need for open American hearts” were effective. He prioritized the most important topics and mostly won his battles. He used his communications skills to speak with the nation, each small town, neighborhood and person. He believed in idealism and pragmatism. He promoted plans but adapted and adjusted quickly. He moved quickly but didn’t preach revolution. He overreached and then reset. He courageously faced situations as they were, not how he wished them to be. He delayed decisions when he could. He played off advisors against each other. He used his wife for political advantage. He was self-aware, knowing that he was leading in an extraordinary time, that his decisions effected civilization and that he was surely making some mistakes. Yet, he maintained a sense of hope and a spirit of optimism.

Despite the country’s strong isolationist leanings, FDR prepared the nation for war. He found ways to support the UK, such as the lend-lease program. He fought against the isolationist views of many important political and banking leaders.

FDR took small steps to reduce racial discrimination. With A. Philip Randolph’s Pullman Car Union threatening a march on Washington, he opened up employment in the defense industries to African Americans. Eleanor Roosevelt promoted racial progress, including resigning from the DAR when it prohibited Marian Anderson from performing at their Constitution Hall. Anderson garnered national publicity with her concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. FDR signed the executive order that moved 120,000 Japanese Americans from their West Coast homes to internment camps further inland away from the potential war zone.

FDR took some early steps to promote greater emigration of Jews from Europe to the US and elsewhere. However, by 1940 he had concluded that preparing for war and winning the war was the best way to save the most Jews from Naziism.

As Allied troops were landing in northern France in 1944, FDR was at his idealistic best, praying for the world, “Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity. … Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace — a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men”.

Six: Have You No Sense of Decency?

The post-war world in the US offered a contrast between widespread prosperity plus political moderation and the emergence of a new strain of anti-establishment conservatism fueled by the power of the mass news media.

Harry Truman won a surprise presidential victory in 1948 on the coattails of FDR’s New Deal and war victory. Eisenhower cruised to victory in 1952 and 1956, nominally as a Republican, but truly as a moderate centrist eager to preserve the peace and gains of the last decades. The growing prosperity, baby boom and suburbanization prompted recognition of the wonders of a growing middle class.

Economists, journalists and politicians had all worried that the end of the war would lead to a recession or depression due to lack of aggregate demand, hiccups from war production transitions and Europe’s slow recovery. Instead, pent-up demand and increased American production capacity led to a boom period. The business cycle had not been tamed, but it was less threatening. Business and labor fought over contracts but settled their differences as the US increased its production for the world. Per capita income, birth rates, employment rates, college education, home ownership, women’s opportunities, farm incomes and life expectancy all grew rapidly.

Meachem notes that the “middle class” became a more recognized term and a larger group as many earned greater incomes, formed businesses and joined professions. There was a pride in the “bourgeois” class as the US competed with the USSR for world leadership. He also highlights the role that government has played in spurring economic success (despite the popular emphasis on individual effort), noting the earlier railroad, infrastructure, homestead and land-grant college investments; regulatory and labor changes of the progressive era; the various New Deal safety net programs and the continued post-war investments in highways, GI’s, aerospace, R&D, defense, etc.

With the economy humming and fascism defeated, politicians turned to the Cold War, excess government, socialism, welfare and liberty to win attention, votes and power. Eisenhower easily won elections, but his moderate positions did not help the Republican Party to distinguish itself from the Democrats or to greatly increase its state or national powers.

Robert Welch, a Massachusetts business owner, founded the John Birch Society in 1954 focused on a conspiracy among American elites, including Ike, to cooperate with the communists. Welch and his followers saw the world in “black and white” terms, contrasting secular communism with a Christian-style western civilization. The nuclear weapons race and threats of the Cold War provided an existential survival context for this world view. The “loss of China” to communism raised the specter of a global communist state. The US did have several high profile and damaging espionage cases. There were communist “fellow travelers” in the media, entertainment, university and international affairs worlds.

Wisconsin Senator Joseph R. McCarthy exploited these worries. Beginning in 1950 he promoted this “conflict of civilizations” view, pushed the limits in alleging conspiracies and traitorous acts and managed to attract and keep attention from the growing mass print, radio and TV media. Although the State Department had implemented a loyalty program and cleared out “marginal” staffers, McCarthy was able to use his alleged “list of 205 members of the Communist Party” for several years to build political power.

Most politicians ignored him. Eisenhower chose to not respond to his claims, even though they were addressed at him, George Marshal and John Foster Dulles in his cabinet. Eventually, in Spring, 1954, an Edward Morrow investigative report, Eisenhower speech and US Army counsel Joseph Welch’s congressional committee testimony undercut McCarthy. Morrow: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty”. Ike: “We are worried about Communist penetration of our country … the need that we look at them clearly, face to face, without fear, like honest, straightforward Americans, so that we do not develop the jitters or any kind of panic, that we do not fall prey to hysterical thinking.” Welch: “Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your restlessness. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you no sense of decency?”

Meachem contrasts the 1955 conservative revival of William F. Buckley with that of the John Birch Society and Joe McCarthy. He considers Buckley’s philosophy and media-based opposition to be more legitimate. Opposing the flow of power to the state following 20 years of New Deal and liberal orthodoxy is described as a valid perspective. On the other hand, Meachem shares Richard Hofstadter’s description of “pseudo-conservatism” as “incoherent about politics”, “largely appealing to the less educated members of the middle classes”, “feels that his liberties have been arbitrarily and outrageously invaded”, reflecting “status aspirations and frustrations”. Political philosophy and material interests are subordinated to personal views, feelings, loyalties, interests, status and projections in this form of political attraction.

Seven: What the Hell is the Presidency For?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are widely seen as the most important steps in securing individual rights in the last century. Their passage relied upon prior political steps, Supreme Court decisions, JFK’s legacy, the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King’s actions and ideas, American ideals and the unique qualities of Lyndon Baines Johnson.

In 1948 Hubert Humphrey and other progressives urged Americans to “get out of the shadow of states’ rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights.” Strom Thurmond walked out of the Democratic convention to form the Dixiecrat Party, winning 4 states. Truman took steps to integrate the US military in 1948. The Civil Rights Commission and the Civil Rights section of the Department of Justice were created in 1957. The Civil Rights Act of 1960 strengthened the federal government’s ability to enforce voting rights and enforce judicial decisions. The Warren Court’s 1954-55 decisions rejected the “separate but equal” principle for public education.

President John F. Kennedy observed the civil rights movement. He protected the federal government’s rights. He enforced court rulings. He nationalized state troops. His Department of Justice monitored Civil Rights. Kennedy spoke with civil rights leaders. In June 1963 he addressed the nation and introduced legislation that became the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

The South fought against desegregation. In 1960, the South was 21% non-white while the rest of the country was 7% non-white. Georgia (29%), Alabama (30%), Louisiana (32%), South Carolina (35%) and Mississippi (42%) had the largest minority populations. Southern congressmen and Senators held the “swing vote” in the Democratic Party and used their seniority to block legislation. A leading public intellectual, Robert Penn Warren, wrote in 1956 about two curses on the nation. Southerners used the “Lost Cause” version of the Civil War as a “Great Alibi” to excuse any behavior. Northerners rejoiced in the “Treasury of Virtue” from their war victory, secure in their moral superiority for all time. Lynching and threats from the Klan were real. Blacks could not register or vote. Violence was a constant presence, especially in response to the civil rights actions.

George Wallace became governor of Alabama in January 1963 declaring “segregation now … segregation tomorrow … segregation forever” from the state capitol steps. Wallace was a gifted politician and populist. He lost the governor’s race in 1958 to a more racist Democratic candidate and vowed “never again”. He said “I’m gonna make race the basis of politics in this state … and I’m gonna make it the basis of politics in this country”. He blocked desegregation of the University of Alabama. Meachem emphasizes his personal style. “A visceral connection to crowds”. “Simply more alive than all the others”. “He made those people feel something real for once in their lives”. “He provoked devotion and rage”. Kennedy was able to desegregate the university. Meachem comments, “He [Wallace] savored the hour, however hopeless it was. The very hopelessness of it all was in fact part of the defiance, for Southerners loved tragic stands against the inevitable”. LBJ was able to pass civil rights legislation over Wallace’s opposition. Wallace won 5 states in the 1968 presidential election, providing Nixon with a victory over Humphrey.

The civil rights movement worked relentlessly from 1955 to 1965 to prepare the American public for this change. Non-violent, civil disobedience. Persistence. Strategic confrontations. Leveraging the media. Visual images. Dignity and discipline. Daily life. Buses, education, church, lunch counters, voting, jobs, soldiers, workers. Integrated partners. Patience. Courage. Numbers. Messaging. Patriotism. Rights. Citizens. Justice. Tired. The Founders. Persistence.

Martin Luther King supercharged this with his rhetoric. “Stand up for righteousness. Stand up for justice. Stand up for truth”. “I have a dream”. “Judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”. “Work and fight until justice runs down like water and righteousness as a mighty stream”. “I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and every mountain shall be made low”.

LBJ had a large view of himself, history and the presidency. Note the chapter title. “Now I represent the whole country and I can do what the country thinks is right”. “The president is the cannon”. “I want you guys to get off your asses and do everything possible to get everything passed as soon as possible”. “The job of the President is to set priorities for the nation, and he must set them according to his own judgment and his own conscience”.

Lady Bird Johnson said, “Lyndon acts as if there is never going to be a tomorrow.” “Lyndon is a good man to have in a crisis”. Despite the political risks of moving ahead with Kennedy’s progressive legislation, LBJ courageously decided to proceed quickly, leaving a legacy to the fallen leader. LBJ was a Texan, a southerner, a politician, a Democrat, a New Dealer, a deal maker and a bully. He became the “master of the Senate” by using his talents and being re-elected in a rural, conservative Texas district. He used all of these skills, especially his legislative skills, to buttonhole individual members of Congress and overcome the 33-vote filibuster.

LBJ, like JFK and other civil rights proponents of the last 30 years, mostly used relatively practical messages to appeal to the American public. “I’m going to fix it so everyone can vote, so everyone can get all of the education they can get.” “Who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place?” “Helen Williams, an employee of the vice-president … would squat in the road to pee. That’s just bad. That’s wrong”. “We’re all Americans. We got a Golden Rule”. Meachem wrote, “The key thing, LBJ believed, was to make the moral case for racial justice so self-evident that the country could not help but agree”. Johnson was mainly pragmatic. How to get preachers to help. How to get politicians to see their own interest in equal rights.

His speech in support of the Civil Rights Act was more elevated. “I speak tonight for the dignity of man and the destiny of democracy. Our lives have been marked with debate about great issues. Rarely in any time does an issue lay bare the secret heart of America itself … to the values and purposes and meaning of our beloved Nation. The issue of equal rights for American Negroes is such an issue. For with a country as with a person, ‘what has a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?’ It is the effort of American Negroes to secure for themselves the full blessings of American life. Their cause must be our cause too”.

LBJ knew that these Acts were historic but still just steps along the way. “It is difficult to fight for freedom. But I also know how difficult it can be to bend long years of habit and custom to grant it. There is no room for injustice anywhere in the American mansion. But there is always room for understanding toward those who see the old ways crumbling”.

Conclusion: The First Duty of an American Citizen

Teddy Roosevelt: “The first duty of an American citizen, then, is that he shall work in politics; his second duty is that he shall do that work in a practical manner; and his third is that it shall be done in accord with the highest principles of honor and justice.” The citizen should be like his “man in the arena”, fully engaged in important matters.

Eleanor Roosevelt: “Great leaders we have had, but we could not have had great leaders unless they had a great people to follow”.

Harry Truman: “I’m everybody’s president. Those – the Bill of Rights – apply to everybody in the country”. American scripture. Equal opportunity.

Meachem: “America of the twenty-first century is, for all its shortcomings, freer and more accepting than it has ever been.” Apply the historical perspective.

“Every advance must contend with the forces of reaction”. An eternal struggle. “The perfect should not be the enemy of the good”.

The better presidents do not cater to the reactionary forces. Reagan recalling the virtues of other presidents and outlining his shining city on the hill, “teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace”. Clinton healing the nation after the Oklahoma City bombings and Bush, Sr resigning from the NRA when they tried to fundraise from the disaster. Bush, Jr clearly distinguishing Muslims and Arabs from terrorists after 9//11. Obama eulogizing the Bible study victims of a white supremacist, invoking God’s freely given grace and its potential to heal individuals and countries.

Some “equal rights” changes happen quickly: LGBTQ.

Resist tribalism.

Respect facts and deploy reason.

Find a critical balance.

Maintain a free press.

Truman’s description of Lincoln: “He was the best kind of ordinary man … he’s one of the people and becomes distinguished in the service that he gives other people. I don’t know of any higher compliment you can pay a man than that.”