![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Musings on Americanism
Eventually the Trump era will end, and people of all political beliefs will need to restore the United States to its former status as a representative democracy whose citizens, for the most part, actually believe in representative democracy. We all know Trump's behavior is un-American, but how is it un-American, and what would constitute "American" behavior in its place? Just complaining about or blocking aspects of Trumpism won't serve us well when he's gone; we need positive unifying beliefs, and the Fourth of July seems like a good time to try to identify some.
The European colonists who settled the Americas came for a variety of reasons: they were poor and looking for land and opportunity, they were religious minorities looking for freedom to worship, they were businesspeople looking for investment opportunities and natural resources, they were religious zealots who wanted (often out of sincere humanitarianism) to save the souls of the heathen natives, they were bored and looking for adventure, etc. What they were not is hereditary nobles, inheritors of land going back hundreds of years on which serfs did the manual labor in exchange for the use of some land, military protection, and justice handed out by their lord. In the feudal society from which the first colonists fled, there was a clear stratification into better and worse classes of people; individuals were expected to stay in their inherited place and behave according to their inherited status. The colonists, a self-selected sample of people who hadn't benefited from that system, tended to want anything but that.
So among the guiding principles of the generation who conducted the Revolution and wrote the Constitution were individual meritocracy, individual opportunity, and a lack of respect for inherited privilege. "I don't care who your great-grandfather was; show me what you can do." Another was representative democracy: most of the colonists in the original 13 colonies were from either Great Britain or the Netherlands, both areas that had already been electing political leaders for hundreds of years; the new country's government could be seen as just omitting the hereditary nobles from an already-familiar system.
The Revolution-and-Constitution generation had also seen (or read about, in fairly-recent history) bloody coups and violent overthrowing of governments, and they wanted to avoid more of the same. Their solution was to make it relatively easy to transfer power from one faction to another without bloodshed: we hold elections on a predictable schedule, and if you lose the election, you leave office peacefully shortly thereafter, no matter how strongly you disagree with the person who won the election. In order for this to work, there has to be a widespread belief in the legitimacy of elections.
Of course, a lot of the details of representative democracy were open to debate. Should national legislators be apportioned by state, or by population? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by state legislators? Should the President be elected directly by the people, or by electors? Should people without property be allowed to vote? What about Negroes? What about women? But throughout all this, there's been a fixed assumption that government works best when it hears and heeds (within reason) the will of the people. Again, the fixed star here is the belief, in an almost religious sense, in the legitimacy of elections: ballots and the counting thereof are sacrosanct. In this sense, the American religion is democracy; cheating on an election is universally condemned, rather than (as in many countries) accepted as the way of the world.
The founders had a horror of concentrating too much power in one or a few people, and they hit upon a novel solution: several coequal branches of government, each with its prescribed area of authority, each of which out of self-interest would prevent the others from overstepping their bounds. The result would predictably be unwieldy, but could reasonably be hoped to prevent a would-be dictator from taking over. Obviously, this requires that the members of each branch are subject to the authority of the other two; nobody is above the law.
Many of the "Founding Fathers" had a solid Classical education, and their revulsion to autocracy had Classical roots, going back to Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, with its system of two equal consuls and a Senate, as well as a tribune representing the interests of the common people. Republican Rome had an escape clause from this unwieldy system for times of dire need, allowing the Senate to appoint a dictator for a specified period. The favorite myth associated with this practice is that of Cincinnatus, who according to legend was plowing his field when he got the word that he had been named dictator: he left his plow where it was, went and commanded the armies to victory, then promptly resigned and resumed plowing his field. He thus became a symbol of humble, selfless public service, and one must assume George Washington had Cincinnatus in mind when he refused to run for a third term as President.
Which brings up the issue of public service. American political leaders are fallible human beings, of course, but the ideal expected of them has always been that they are in office to serve the public, not themselves. We've always been suspicious and resentful when somebody left office substantially richer than he (or rarely she) entered it. Before Watergate, the biggest political scandal in U.S. history was Teapot Dome, a case of government officials making themselves and their friends rich at taxpayer expense; the Secretary of the Interior served a year in jail for accepting bribes. An equally infamous example at the local level was Boss Tweed, who (with other Tammany Hall notables) used his political offices to funnel New York City taxpayer dollars and monopoly rents into his own businesses. Tweed died in prison. We really don't like our politicians getting rich off us.
Back to George Washington, who also warned of the dangers of partisanship. At least in theory, we expect our elected leaders to put nation ahead of party. We expect parties to often disagree on what would be in the nation's best interest, but we expect all our elected leaders, whatever their party affiliations, to choose as a guiding star [their opinion of] the nation's best interest, not their own. And at least in theory, we want our elected leaders to be willing and able to work across party lines and find compromises, not optimal for anyone but acceptable to most, in order to actually get things done. A solution that everyone can live with is usually preferable to a solution in which one side "wins" and the other "loses", because (as Washington points out) the latter is likely to lead to revenge the next time the political winds shift.
The Revolution-and-Constitution generation were keenly aware of the religious wars that had afflicted Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and the domestic religious persecution of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. They were overwhelmingly Protestant, interpreting that faith to mean that each person had an individual relationship with God, in which government had no right to meddle. It might even be hoped that if governments had no religions, and religions had no armies, there would be no religious wars or official persecution at all.
In 1657, the residents of Flushing (now part of Queens, New York City) had written to their Governor, Peter Stuyvesant:
(Several of the signers were promptly jailed for their insubordination, and released only when they recanted the sin of tolerating Quakers.)
130 years later, the framers of the new nation still held religious tolerance and pluralism as vital aspects of their new society.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of the colonists were some flavor of Christian, and many of them seem to have taken seriously the New Testament virtues of mercy and charity. The stranger is a human being too, formed in God's image like yourself, and whatever misfortune has befallen hir could equally well have befallen you, so treat the stranger as you would wish to be treated.
The Revolution-and-Constitution generation had also seen people imprisoned, exiled, and even executed for stating the wrong political views. In keeping with their desire to make peaceful transfers of power possible, they decided that stating an unpopular political view should be no more criminal than adhering to an unpopular religion. After all, every one of them had publicly stated unpopular political views, and arguably committed treason thereby; they wanted to ensure that the next change of government was carried out with ballots rather than bullets.
In short, what makes America distinctive and, yes, "great" are
* respect for individual merit over inheritance
* the separation and balance of powers in government, so no one part can become a tyrant
* political leaders chosen by the people, from among the people, subject to the same laws as the people
* widespread faith in the legitimacy and desirability of elections
* public office as an opportunity to serve the public, not to enrich yourself
* mercy and charity towards the unfortunate
* tolerance of diverse religious and political views
I'm sure I'm forgetting some important points, but to a first approximation, that's America to me.
The European colonists who settled the Americas came for a variety of reasons: they were poor and looking for land and opportunity, they were religious minorities looking for freedom to worship, they were businesspeople looking for investment opportunities and natural resources, they were religious zealots who wanted (often out of sincere humanitarianism) to save the souls of the heathen natives, they were bored and looking for adventure, etc. What they were not is hereditary nobles, inheritors of land going back hundreds of years on which serfs did the manual labor in exchange for the use of some land, military protection, and justice handed out by their lord. In the feudal society from which the first colonists fled, there was a clear stratification into better and worse classes of people; individuals were expected to stay in their inherited place and behave according to their inherited status. The colonists, a self-selected sample of people who hadn't benefited from that system, tended to want anything but that.
So among the guiding principles of the generation who conducted the Revolution and wrote the Constitution were individual meritocracy, individual opportunity, and a lack of respect for inherited privilege. "I don't care who your great-grandfather was; show me what you can do." Another was representative democracy: most of the colonists in the original 13 colonies were from either Great Britain or the Netherlands, both areas that had already been electing political leaders for hundreds of years; the new country's government could be seen as just omitting the hereditary nobles from an already-familiar system.
The Revolution-and-Constitution generation had also seen (or read about, in fairly-recent history) bloody coups and violent overthrowing of governments, and they wanted to avoid more of the same. Their solution was to make it relatively easy to transfer power from one faction to another without bloodshed: we hold elections on a predictable schedule, and if you lose the election, you leave office peacefully shortly thereafter, no matter how strongly you disagree with the person who won the election. In order for this to work, there has to be a widespread belief in the legitimacy of elections.
Of course, a lot of the details of representative democracy were open to debate. Should national legislators be apportioned by state, or by population? Should they be elected directly by the people, or by state legislators? Should the President be elected directly by the people, or by electors? Should people without property be allowed to vote? What about Negroes? What about women? But throughout all this, there's been a fixed assumption that government works best when it hears and heeds (within reason) the will of the people. Again, the fixed star here is the belief, in an almost religious sense, in the legitimacy of elections: ballots and the counting thereof are sacrosanct. In this sense, the American religion is democracy; cheating on an election is universally condemned, rather than (as in many countries) accepted as the way of the world.
The founders had a horror of concentrating too much power in one or a few people, and they hit upon a novel solution: several coequal branches of government, each with its prescribed area of authority, each of which out of self-interest would prevent the others from overstepping their bounds. The result would predictably be unwieldy, but could reasonably be hoped to prevent a would-be dictator from taking over. Obviously, this requires that the members of each branch are subject to the authority of the other two; nobody is above the law.
Many of the "Founding Fathers" had a solid Classical education, and their revulsion to autocracy had Classical roots, going back to Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic, with its system of two equal consuls and a Senate, as well as a tribune representing the interests of the common people. Republican Rome had an escape clause from this unwieldy system for times of dire need, allowing the Senate to appoint a dictator for a specified period. The favorite myth associated with this practice is that of Cincinnatus, who according to legend was plowing his field when he got the word that he had been named dictator: he left his plow where it was, went and commanded the armies to victory, then promptly resigned and resumed plowing his field. He thus became a symbol of humble, selfless public service, and one must assume George Washington had Cincinnatus in mind when he refused to run for a third term as President.
Which brings up the issue of public service. American political leaders are fallible human beings, of course, but the ideal expected of them has always been that they are in office to serve the public, not themselves. We've always been suspicious and resentful when somebody left office substantially richer than he (or rarely she) entered it. Before Watergate, the biggest political scandal in U.S. history was Teapot Dome, a case of government officials making themselves and their friends rich at taxpayer expense; the Secretary of the Interior served a year in jail for accepting bribes. An equally infamous example at the local level was Boss Tweed, who (with other Tammany Hall notables) used his political offices to funnel New York City taxpayer dollars and monopoly rents into his own businesses. Tweed died in prison. We really don't like our politicians getting rich off us.
Back to George Washington, who also warned of the dangers of partisanship. At least in theory, we expect our elected leaders to put nation ahead of party. We expect parties to often disagree on what would be in the nation's best interest, but we expect all our elected leaders, whatever their party affiliations, to choose as a guiding star [their opinion of] the nation's best interest, not their own. And at least in theory, we want our elected leaders to be willing and able to work across party lines and find compromises, not optimal for anyone but acceptable to most, in order to actually get things done. A solution that everyone can live with is usually preferable to a solution in which one side "wins" and the other "loses", because (as Washington points out) the latter is likely to lead to revenge the next time the political winds shift.
The Revolution-and-Constitution generation were keenly aware of the religious wars that had afflicted Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries, and the domestic religious persecution of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. They were overwhelmingly Protestant, interpreting that faith to mean that each person had an individual relationship with God, in which government had no right to meddle. It might even be hoped that if governments had no religions, and religions had no armies, there would be no religious wars or official persecution at all.
In 1657, the residents of Flushing (now part of Queens, New York City) had written to their Governor, Peter Stuyvesant:
“Wee desire... not to judge least we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master. Wee are bounde by the law to do good unto all men, especially to those of the household of faith.... The law of love, peace and liberty in the states [of Holland] extending to Jews, Turks, and Egyptians, as they are considered sons of Adam ... soe love, peace and liberty, extending to all in Christ Jesus, condemns hatred, war and bondage. And because our Savioiur sayeth it is impossible but that offences will come, but woe unto him by whom they cometh, our desire is not to offend one of his little ones, in whatsoever form, name or title hee appears in, whether Presbyterian, Independent, Baptist or Quaker, but shall be glad to see anything of God in any of them, desiring to doe unto all men as we desire all men should doe unto us, which is the true law both of Church and State...."
(Several of the signers were promptly jailed for their insubordination, and released only when they recanted the sin of tolerating Quakers.)
130 years later, the framers of the new nation still held religious tolerance and pluralism as vital aspects of their new society.
At the same time, it must be acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of the colonists were some flavor of Christian, and many of them seem to have taken seriously the New Testament virtues of mercy and charity. The stranger is a human being too, formed in God's image like yourself, and whatever misfortune has befallen hir could equally well have befallen you, so treat the stranger as you would wish to be treated.
The Revolution-and-Constitution generation had also seen people imprisoned, exiled, and even executed for stating the wrong political views. In keeping with their desire to make peaceful transfers of power possible, they decided that stating an unpopular political view should be no more criminal than adhering to an unpopular religion. After all, every one of them had publicly stated unpopular political views, and arguably committed treason thereby; they wanted to ensure that the next change of government was carried out with ballots rather than bullets.
In short, what makes America distinctive and, yes, "great" are
* respect for individual merit over inheritance
* the separation and balance of powers in government, so no one part can become a tyrant
* political leaders chosen by the people, from among the people, subject to the same laws as the people
* widespread faith in the legitimacy and desirability of elections
* public office as an opportunity to serve the public, not to enrich yourself
* mercy and charity towards the unfortunate
* tolerance of diverse religious and political views
I'm sure I'm forgetting some important points, but to a first approximation, that's America to me.