Perspective on the decline of the United States

::::::::

“I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they charitably dispose of any thing, when blood is their argument?” – Shakespeare, Henry V  Act IV scene 1

 

I was (not entirely unpleasantly) surprised to see that my last posting here caused an array of passionate responses.  I should have guessed that such would be the case, and, furthermore, should have guessed that the bulk of the replies would be based on very personal and very narrow interpretations of what I said in that posting.

 

Before going any further, let me first say that I do not begrudge anyone for their opinions.  I heartily believe in the concept of freedom of thought and speech and have always been an emphatic supporter of First Amendment rights, even when they are abhorrent to me. 

I remember a discussion in one of my college classes on this subject.  The professor asked the class if it was permissible for Civil Rights demonstrators to march through the South.  Naturally enough, nearly everyone said it was.  Then the professor asked if it was acceptable that the American Nazi Party be allowed to march. 

This time, no one spoke up.

 

After a few seconds of waiting to see if anyone would speak, I stood and said, “It is precisely because I abhor Nazism that I would let them march.  If I deny them their right to speak, do I not become like them?”

 Because I promote freedom of thought and speech, and because I believe that only through discussion – and often conflict – can we progress (Newton’s First Law of Motion: "A body continues to maintain its state of rest or of uniform motion unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force."), I welcome the ideas and positions that are contrary to my own.  I have had long and close friendships based on just that foundation. 

But I saw a troubling current running through a couple of those comments and it is that current, rather than the contrary viewpoint, to which I wish to respond here. 

There is a lot of discussion concerning what is wrong with our country.  All sorts of interest groups put their own, personal stamp on then major cause of our decline – so-called “abortion rights,” resistance to same-sex marriage, lack of religion in schools, the presence of religion in schools – you name it and someone has decided that that particular issue is the fundamental agent responsible for the collapse of the American Way. 

I, too, have my own take on this problem, and it is one that encompasses all others.  It is also one that is quite apparent in at least one of the statements posted to my last column.  There is no need to say which one.  For one thing, my purpose is not to indict or embarrass anyone and for another, it doesn’t matter what particular individual posted the comment; that single episode is merely indicative of the larger issue.

In the 1980s, there occurred a phenomenon that was labeled the AWM Syndrome; AWM being an acronym for Angry White Male.  This, said sociologists and psychologists, was a backlash on the part of certain men to the progress made by minorities and women in obtaining equality in our society.  It was, in large part, according to these experts, a response toward change by those who were uncomfortable or afraid of change. 

This was – and is – truly an oversimplification.  But the fact is that there were many young and not-so-young men who took contrary positions toward anything that would jeopardize the real or imagined superiority of the White Male. 

As the 80s rolled into the 90s, this syndrome evidently spread and, indeed, became cross-gender.  There were not only Angry White Males, but Angry Males of all shades, and then Angry Females as well.  In the end, what we became was an Angry Nation.  Everyone was tired of someone – everyone? – pushing them around, trying to make them do things they didn’t want to do, forcing their ideas and opinions on them; in short, they were sick and tired of anyone who refused to see that their way was the only right way and everyone should just get with the damned program. 

Phil Gramm’s Nation of Whiners. 

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there were 888 known hate groups extant in this country in 2007, their most recent data.  The FBI’s 2007 hate crime statistics show 7,624 reported hate crimes incidents involving 9,006 separate offenses.  (They estimate a total of 191,000 -- no, that's not a mistake -- reported and unreported hate crimes in 2005)  Hate crimes against both illegal immigrants and people of alternative lifestyles are on the rise.  In fact, five out of nine reported hate crime incidents involved sexual orientation. 

Anger inevitably evolves into intolerance. Where did we lose the concept of the “loyal opposition?” 

When did we forget that democracy and liberty, by definition, means that all ideas are acceptable as long as they do no harm? 

Ah! 

Therein lies the rub! 

Somewhere and somehow we seem to have gotten the idea that every disagreement is a struggle for survival.  That if the opposing group, whether it is political or social or religious or ideological, is able to realize their goals – even a single one – it will wreak destruction and damnation upon us. 

I remember working on a political campaign for a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives.  During one meeting we were going over strategy and the young campaign manager was talking about how we had to crush our opponent and take no prisoners. 

I had been listening to this for a while with growing concern.  I knew the candidate quite well and knew that she was a person who, while strong in her convictions and very committed to seeing them through, was not a vindictive or offensive person.  Still, here was our campaign manager talking in terms of political (not physical) violence. 

At some point, I spoke up and said, “You know, this isn’t war.  It’s a campaign.” 

The young man turned on me and, with no small degree of disbelief in his voice said, “No – this is war.  They are the enemy and we have to completely destroy them!” 

I left the meeting that night troubled; not so much that he had said that, but that I had found myself thinking of ways that that destruction could have been realized.  I truly liked my candidate and I believed in her platform as strongly as she did.  But I also had a clearly defined moral and ethical code that was telling me that this was wrong. 

The following day, I resigned from the campaign, although to her credit, she relieved that young man from any position of authority and conducted her campaign along more tolerant strategies. 

My point in this story is to illustrate that we all get angry and we are all susceptible to what I call the Anger/Intolerance Syndrome.  We get frustrated because we – each of us – believe that we are intelligent and knowledgeable and that we know the way we need to proceed.  When others fail to see this, we assume that they are simply ignorant, stupid or, to one degree or another, evil.  They are Haters of Right and Lovers of Self Service. 

And yet, what does our hatred of them make us? 

I’m not suggesting that we meekly turn the other cheek to our opponents.  I’ve never believed that did anything but get the receiver bruised and battered.  I beleive there are things worth fighting and dying for and I am in no way a pacifist.

But neither am I a warlord.  Combat, whether physical, inteleectual or emotional, must be a last resort and carefully chosen repsonse.

We do need to listen and to try to understand and to take from each other those things that are valuable and which are usable, no matter who thinks of them, and put them to use to make a better community.  

We do not need to straddle a fence – we need to tear the fence down and forget about “our side” and “their side.” 

I look at the society we have today and I see similarities with another in history.  I see not the Roman culture that we so often compare ourselves with, but another; one that had a devastated economy; one whose population felt disenfranchised and surrounded by enemies; one in which anger and frustration and fear gave birth to an intolerance unlike any we had seen before, and hopefully will never see again: Germany. 

We say it cannot happen here, but that is the greatest danger of all. 

Look around and you will see no shortage of scapegoats and targets, and you will find much of the same rhetoic used by that party 70 years ago to accomlpish its ends.

 I hear a lot of people complain that the reason there is not peace in the Middle East is that neither Israel nor the Palestinians want peace; they want only war until the last remaining enemy is annihilated.  

It isn’t the economy, nor is it terrorism or secularism or religion or Republicanism or Democratism or conservatism or liberalism that is our greatest threat.  It is our own refusal to allow ourselves the liberty of our own convictions while allowing others the liberty of theirs.  

Authors Bio:
For 12 years, as a professional journalist, I covered education, environmental legislation, criminal courts, and politics. Throughout my career, I described myself as from the "Dragnet School of journalism -- Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."

In 1998, I left journalism because I refused to become the type of sensationalist I would've had to become to continue in my chosen field. Instead, I entered a new career in education, working with inner city, at-risk students trying to make a new and better life for themselves.

I still write for magazines, mostly historical and biographical non-fiction, and have a continuing interest in (true) journalism, environmentalism, world poverty and a new world economy.