Federalists, anti-federalists. Small states, large states. Free states, slave states. Those were the forces that would come together in May 1787 in an attempt to forge a nation – or prevent one from being forged. What did a Massachusetts fisherman or a New York industrialist have in common with a Virginia tobacco farmer or a South Carolina slave owner – other than suspicion and a mutual disrespect? How did the Virginia aristocracy reconcile its eloquent defense of liberty and freedom with its adamant support for the institution of slavery? Just how did such polar opposite forces come together and accomplish something magnificent for the common good?
What are the factions that make up America today? That would depend upon whom you ask but as a generality on one side of the spectrum we have the anarchists, the progressives, the Marxists and the blame America crowd and on the opposite side we have the Tea Party movement, the religious right and constitutional conservatives. Flitting around the edges and belonging to no one we have racists and skin heads, Klan members, New Black Panthers, secessionists, domestic enemies, conspiracy theorists and other assorted fringe groups.
Then we have the 80% of the country that just want to live their lives in peace, raise and educate their children as they see fit and partake equally in the opportunities and blessings which accompany liberty. They may have differing views on the role of government but are not insistent on forcing those views on others. They may look at activists on the right or the left and see some areas of agreement or none at all but it is not in their nature to praise or condemn. They don’t join in marches or protest on the steps of City Hall. They attend church and worship quietly and place their faith in a just God. And, increasingly, they vote.
What binds Americans together – and we speak here of the vast majority of Americans, leaving out those who wish fervently for the destruction of this nation – is an instinctive and emotional love for country. They may not all love everything about America and they may not all love the same things, but like the love a parent has for a child or a child for a parent, it is deep and unwavering. We recognize the flaws but accept them as our flaws. We see and feel the wisdom that has emerged from our sins. We are one and we are many.
When you go to a sporting event and stand along with 30,000 others at the playing of the national anthem, as you look around and see people with their hands over their hearts mouthing the words, you can’t tell if they are Democrats or Republicans, liberals or conservatives, advocates of big government programs or desirers of limited government. Many, quite frankly, may not even dwell on such issues. But as you stand there, with your hand on your own heart, you know you will experience a certain feeling at the end when you and 30,000 others raise your voices and start applauding at the words, “O’er the land of the free and then home of the brave.” That feeling is called love.
What is this love Americans feel for their country? Is it any different than the love an Englishman has for England or an Italian has for Italy? Before we can begin to heal America, before we can start the process of renewal, we have to rediscover what it is that we love.
At a recent event a former presidential candidate for a well-known third party told the story of how a number of years ago he was in London and the conversation turned to how Americans were fortunate to have a benevolent government while that of England (presumably under Thatcher) was so corrupt and venal. He said, “I said to them, are you kidding me? I hate my government. My government is evil. It is responsible for so much misery and injustice in the world. I love my country but hate my government.”
It was an extraordinary statement coming from a man considered to be a Constitutional scholar. While it may be expected that a citizen of Myanmar would hate that government or an unfortunate soul in Iran might hate that government, is it reasonable to expect a citizen of this country to literally hate the government? We may disagree from time to time on matters of policy or priority or process but in a nation with a government of, by and for the people, to hate the government is to hate the people and to hate the people is to hate the country. To separate oneself from the body of the whole, to willingly enjoy the fruit but shun the tree is a form of moral and intellectual cowardice. To condition ones love or hate based upon which political party is in power is worse.
Just as one cannot conditionally love ones country, one cannot unconditionally love it either. Yes, America has sinned and we must always be open to recognizing where we err and where we sin. It is inconceivable to any American today that there was a time, only 50 years ago, when black Americans were prohibited from staying in certain hotels or eating in certain restaurants. It is painful to consider that our childhood heroes like Willie Mays or entertainers like Nat King Cole were so shamefully treated. And yet the beauty of the American experience is the capacity for her people to recognize and admit to injustice and sin and no matter how wrenching or difficult it might be, to call on the resources of the American soul and absorb the sins of others, often generations removed, to right the wrongs of the past.
Thus the first thing we must consider as we rediscover what it is we love about America is the amazing capacity of her people to seek and receive redemption. Perhaps it is this inherent striving for perfection – in the eyes of man and in the eyes of God – which has nurtured the enormous generosity of the American people, this intrinsic need to share the rewards of our bountiful harvest, in part because many of us know we are Americans by fortune of luck.
We can define this first virtue in several ways – charity, generosity, kindness – but the word most encompassing is compassion. Compassion is America’s greatest virtue because it enables all the others to blossom. At the news of any tragedy, manmade or natural, it is the instinctive reaction of the American people to give – to give blood, to give money, to give food or clothing or shelter or to simply offer prayer. American compassion is unique in the world in that we instinctively expect to give it but have no expectation of ever receiving it. We will take care of the world and take care of our own.
We must learn to recognize that compassion knows no ideology. It is simply an innate American characteristic, a part of our DNA as a people. We must take care, however, not to confuse compassion with government largesse.
From the earliest days of colonial America until just fairly recently, compassion and its byproduct charity were considered to be the responsibility of individuals and organizations such as the church. In his seminal work on the subject, The Tragedy of American Compassion, Dr. Marvin Olasky argues that government “programs are ineffective because they are disconnected from the poor, while private charity has the power to change lives because it allows for a personal connection between the giver and the recipient.”
The further away the personal connection is, the greater the risk that the social and moral compact between society as a whole and its individual members will fail. By turning the needs of individuals and communities over to a government entity – by, in essence, out-sourcing our compassion – we invite the competing forces of either Social Darwinism or Social Universalism to hold sway. Darwinistic approaches to the unfortunates in society involve “survival of the fittest” policies and fixes. Herbert Spencer, the mid-19th century “Father of Social Darwinism”, held that the strong should be allowed to flourish and the weak should be left to die. “The unfit must be eliminated as nature intended,” he wrote, “for the principle of natural selection must not be violated by the artificial preservation of those least able to care for themselves.” The opposite belief is Universalism. According to Horace Greely, an early proponent, man is essentially good and the way to end evil is to redistribute wealth so that all receive an equal share.
Early Americans, immersed as they were in the teachings of Christianity, believed no person was beyond redemption and so rejected Social Darwinism on the one hand while also rejecting Social Universalism on the other because they believed that individuals – not government – had a duty to be compassionate to their fellow human beings. To remove the individual from the equation and look to the government to provide charity was immoral. In their view, one does not do the Lord’s work by consigning it to others. Government should be dispassionate.
Because of the Christian example which prevailed in those early days of America’s settlement, it was expected that the better off would know the poor on a personal basis and offer charity when needed – what Olasky termed “hard –headed but warm-hearted” compassion. We don’t need to restate all of the “teach a man to fish” analogies to understand the philosophy of the time, but suffice to say that these early Americans recognized the pervasive evil of an excess of compassion.
This viewpoint held well into the 19th century: it was not only the responsibility of society to take care of its own, it was a duty. It was accepted that government would only exacerbate the scourge of poverty by making it too easy and comfortable to be poor. In 1845, Charles Fenton Mercer, writing in An Exposition of the Weakness and Inefficiency of Government, presaged an American welfare system. Having studied the fall of the Roman Empire, Fenton predicted that by keeping large swaths of the public poor and dependent on government, politicians would increase their power and popularity by distributing relief to the masses – at least until such time as the government collapsed. It was a given that “idleness and improvidence” were the natural step-children of excess government compassion.
The notion that the government as the provider of first resort is the sign of a compassionate nation is a somewhat modern phenomenon. In fact, it’s the antithesis of one of the great guiding principles of America and has done much to alter American society from one of hard work, thrift and independence to one of reliance. Perversely, our own capacity for charity and compassion has been diminished as we increasingly develop an attitude of “let the government take care of it.” “After all, I give weekly out of my paycheck as it is, why should I give more?” has become a growing and worrisome sentiment in our society today.
The more our welfare state grows, the less compassionate we are as a nation. Excess government compassion removes from society the responsibility of caring for our fellow citizens and transfers that responsibility to an uncaring, unseen bureaucracy. Who can deny that one day Social Darwinism may actually prevail? It was George Washington who warned, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
We are a generous and compassionate people. Concerns for the welfare of others, the welfare of our communities or the environment in general are not the exclusive domains of any political dogma. Unfortunately, our political and social environments are so polluted today, due either to the cynical manipulations of politicians or the laziness of the media, we have accepted and endorsed the prevailing stereotypes of each other. In the midst of such a rancorous air one is either a bleeding heart or one has no heart. There is no room given for a middle ground. Epithets such as Rethuglican and Demonrat might display a questionable cleverness but do little to advance a thoughtful dialogue.
We are better than that. Perhaps the first step in healing our nation and moving forward to achieve the great things that great nations achieve is to recognize and acknowledge our own greatness. We must de-politicize compassion. We cannot keep repeating the claim that America is the greatest nation on earth while looking around and viewing our fellow citizens with contempt. We are either great or we are not.
It is our responsibility as citizens to complete the American destiny, to set aside the childishness and name-calling, to fulfill the myth of our creation and become the America that our founders envisioned we would become but for which they themselves lacked the wherewithal. They gave us the means and the method to achieve what they themselves could not achieve but knew that with the right spark would one day ignite in the hearts of men all that they believed.
That is our destiny. We must become aware enough so that we may re-mythologize the truth
Connect With Us Around the Web