The Changing American Social Character

and

Its Effect on Politics

 

The stunning but not novel, and undesirable but not inevitable acceleration of social and political developments in the last few decades give us pause to think about at what point of history we are and who we are. In particular, the unexpected results of 2016 American presidential election, and the calamitous administration and acrimonious politics that followed the election make it clear that it is time for the people to do a serious soul-searching. A deep and wide social study is due if we were to ever avoid the repetition of electing an impulsive, impudent, mendacious, perfidious, vituperative, unethical, irresponsible president. There is disappointment, anger, fear, protests, violence, insecurity, blame in many different directions, and yes nationally and internationally. The torrent of events and their instantaneous analysis seem not to give enough time to pundits to research the core problems of the bigger picture, the society. But there is no more room and certainly not enough time, before the next election, for more patience, hope, trust in democracy, good will, faith, tolerance, nor for compromise. There should not be any doubt that the defeated former president and his followers of the same ilk are not going anywhere but towards the next election; having been emboldened with the discovery that they command up to forty percent of the voters and one of the main political parties and gotten seemingly organized under a leader. It is obvious our democracy, hence democracy in the world, is in clear and present danger, because should they come back to power we cannot expect anything other than the more of the same calamitous administration on steroids.

The legal pitfalls of our democratic system and political practice have been discussed in an earlier article. The present article contends that as a result of natural, systemic changes in the society its culture and character also change. Social culture affects the society’s political expression. With a hard self-analysis, we can see the cultural change that has been going on in the American society for decades, and that there is a need to rediscover and reinstate American idealism and trustworthiness instead of regurgitating the exalted American “greatness.” After an honest introspection we may be able to muster courage to take the necessary remedial actions. A statement attributed to James Baldwin says, “You criticize because you love”.

Here is a retrospection on social/cultural developments of recent decades:

Although most of us see the world as the “Sea to Shining Sea”, we cannot escape the reality of being one part of the occupants of this ever-shrinking earth. World events naturally affect us as we affect them. After a reluctant participation in WWI, our full participation in its sequel WWII tied the US to the rest of the world ever more than before. The US’ leadership in the war entailed the continuation of that position in the post-war era. In 1950s the US as the honest and benevolent leader was prospering, while the rest was licking its wounds from the war with the help of the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan together with its off shoots (like the Mutual Security Act) was the epitome of American generosity as much as its wisdom. The wisdom in it was that we could not enjoy peace and prosperity unless and until the rest (or at the least the most) of the world enjoyed the same. Immediately following the war, we spearheaded the founding of the UN, decolonization, gradual emergence of many new states, and the UN’s peripheral international organizations to facilitate an international dialogue in all human activities. The post-war era was a hope-filled period. Americans were typified as sincere, modern, sharing, generous, and hopeful. Accordingly, the embrace of the US as the leader naturally and rightly evoked its dominance in the international affairs.

This leadership position furthered the American prosperity and industrial and technological advance; but it also had some unforeseen social consequences. The U.S., believing in its leadership got involved in all local problems around the world. But its leadership in military and economic fields did not translate into leadership in social matters because of the American naivete of the world’s historical complexities and other nations’ different cultural and social nature. The US government as well as Americans started being perceived as too confident, self-aggrandizing, ego-centric, self-righteous, exceptionalist, imposing, arrogant, aggressive. Russian challenge to world peace and its introduction of the Cold War in the equation aggravated that perception. Not only the others’ perception of Americans but Americans’ outlook and nature started changing in 1960s in confronting the Russian challenge.

The US’ unsuccessful attempt to try stop the spread of communism by military means in Vietnam iterated the earlier stalemate in Korea. These failures shook up American generosity and hopefulness. The weakening of our traits of hope, trust and generosity led us to introversion, xenophobia, exclusionism, even to internal social divisions. By 1980, political dialogue became acrimonious. Any efforts of a few administrations’ passing success in recovering the remnants of hopefulness were undone by successor administrations (what became the norm in recent years). The ending of the Cold War did not change anything on the international scene; instead, it introduced new spoilers to the international unrest, like the radical “religious” terrorists.

We seem to have thought that the Marshall plan era would continue forever, that the rest of the world would always be dependent on the U.S. and contribute only to American prosperity and superiority. Marshall Plan would have never succeeded with that kind of premise. Obviously, the intent of the Plan was to achieve the worldwide peace and prosperity so as not to repeat the calamity of another world war. When other (or at the least some of the other) countries made good use of the Plan and became economically strong we should not now consider them adversaries but the success of our Plan. The lesson to be drawn today from the Marshall Plan is that the objective should not be “to be the greatest” at the expense of the rest of the world but to make our greatness sustainable by being successful together with the rest of the world. This is to embrace the humanity as a whole, like the Marshall Plan intended to do. Of course, that mentality was the product of the devastation of a horrendous war. Does anyone need another war to wake up to see the wisdom of 70 years ago? A resounding NO. Therefore, our attitudes of disappointment, self-righteousness, exceptionalism, aggressiveness in international affairs are unfounded.

The worst of all, and probably as a result of  the above-mentioned unfounded attitudes, generations since 1960s in particular, three generations to be exact, were taught and raised to be individualists, exceptionalists, fearless (translation, using force for what we want), and egocentrics. The entire education system, including the home-grooming of kids  (raising them with the traditional “teaching by example” method), shifted from human values to dog-eat-dog style winning for success values. We raised egocentric, narcissist, hedonist, supremacist masses. 

In 1980s “toxic politics” was introduced to Congress and from there to political life in general. Minor matters that were not disputed before, like abortion and sexual orientation, were made into heated religious and political causes. Intolerance against blacks, Asians, Muslims, Jews, gays and lesbians, women, science, law and order grew (It is reported that there are 1400 hate groups, of which about 600 are National Supremacists, about 600 Anti-government, about 100 religionists). And yes, against the government, as the unsuccessful preemptive coup to block the incoming administration from taking office demonstrated. These compulsionists constitute a large minority, and minorities resort to force by natural instinct to have their agenda accepted. Along the way, the free flow of military style firearms mostly in the hands of that group who were raised with the belief in winning by force stained our national brand more red than white and blue. Violence seems to have become the norm anywhere from home to political stage. Distrust in and armed opposition against the government is accepted as the exercise of freedom of speech (Another example: Police brutality is a manifestation of the “enforcement” concept in policing and of their exceptionalist, domineering, and arrogant upbringing and even formal training).  Inhuman actions (in breach of rules of engagement) of by some unruly members of the military in recent senseless ideological wars may also be examples.

The effect of cultural change on politics:

Exceptionalism is a perfect environment for totalitarian governance. After about five decades of incubation period the fearsome large minority ultimately came to the open and to power, as a reaction to the election of a President of color at the 2008 election. The self-aggrandizement, the exceptionalism syndrome, the superiority attitude reached the highest possible levels. The succeeding unorthodox administration confirmed by word and action that its base and its policies are National Populist. National Populism is exactly what Italy was in 1930s leading up to WWII. All Presidential statements and appearances during 2016-20 remind us of Mussolini, the utmost representative of fascism.

Many pundits are now warning about National Populism and hold the President and certain political leaders responsible for it. However, they should not hold the administration and politicians responsible for it. In democracies they do not come to those positions by aristocratic heritage, or by force; they are elected by some of us to represent us. In other words, they are the product of democracy. According to data since 1945 provided by “differing” reports, the average of voting age population in the U.S. ran around 76% of the general population. Of that number an average of 64% were registered voters. Of those who voted, the average turnout was 66.5%. The average of actual voters of those eligible were therefore 64/100x66.5/100 = 42.5% (this calculation includes the highest participation in 100 years reached in 2020 election at 66.7%). When 42% is divided in almost evenly split factions, the winning party for the U.S. Congress is a mere 22% of those entitled to decide on matters of vital importance for all. In other words, one person among us determines the lifestyle of four others. That percentage may even be lower for the presidential election if the vagaries of the Electoral College is factored in, say one for five. Unashamedly, we call this “democracy” or “self-governance”. Politicians in power often invoke “public will” for the points they make allegedly on behalf of their constituents. But the more appropriate term would be the “will of the minority I represent”, i.e. ochlocracy at best “the tyranny of minority” at worst in political science terms. Therefore, if the twenty percent of the voting age population who are Nationalist Populist were to win an election, we would have a fascist government “democratically” elected.

Rethinking the way we raise our off-springs:

The public in a functioning democracy must be able to correctly process the true information fed to them. The eligibility to vote is determined by age, not by knowledge. Those who are confused for not having the capacity of processing or of learning the complex nature of national and international issues are not interested in voting; or if they vote they do not take voting seriously or vote based on wrong information. All voters must be at a certain level of knowledge and of intellect for democracy to work for the common good. One glaring characteristic of our society is that the basic education lacks a solid structure in humanities, social sciences, civic matters, and world knowledge. Hence the entry of people with antisocial inclinations into public service or politics becomes common place. We then become vulnerable to the fallacies of democracy. Being knowledgeable in general should not be considered as being elite; it should be recognized as the standard in a modern, civilized, and prosperous society, especially in a democratic society. John Dewey expressed this concept impressively, “The school should rather be viewed as an extension of civil society and continuous with it, .… a child is best prepared for the demands of responsible membership within the democratic community.”  He was also of the view that "(i)nchoate publics consist of members lacking the critical education, time, and attention necessary to inquire. They present democracy with perhaps its most significant and undermining condition" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Specifically, the style of upbringing the generations must be changed from the aggressive and egocentric exceptionalism to strong knowledge in social sciences and respect for humanist values. The public needs to be reoriented towards reaching objectives with self-discipline and the power of knowledge instead with self-centered individualism and the power of physical force.

We cannot overlook the fact that our society, a historically very young and an immigrant society, lacks the long common history, culture and race that are the cohesive social elements in many other countries. The common elements that maintain unity in the U.S. immigrant society are hope, opportunity, security provided by the rule of law, and mutual trust. The concept of diversity and humanity should, therefore, be brought from being just a cheap political jargon to homes and classrooms as a pillar, strength and natural foundation of our society.

It is high time we come down from the pedestal and search our soul with all humility, modesty, and honesty. If we will find there the audacity and sagacity of modernizing the education system, along with the political system, we may be proud of our democracy once again, and also deservedly take pride in ourselves.

July 1, 2020