By Edwin Cooney
One of the most effective teaching tools is the strategy of
linking situations and events to people and their needs. Therefore, history is invariably more
meaningful when it’s described as the story of a people rather than as the
story of a nation’s political, economic or military history. Thus when we write or speak of
America’s needs or demands, that’s a general description of America’s
collective will.
On a number of occasions over the seven years I’ve been
writing these columns, I’ve identified fear as “public enemy number one.” Since the conclusion of the 2012
presidential campaign I have been asking myself: “What great collective or American need did the outcome of
the recent presidential election reflect?”
Many, depending on their political orientation or
priorities, would offer different responses to that question. Conservatives would say that the
re-election of President Obama indicates the triumph of secularism over “family
values” and America’s tendency toward socialism over property rights. They
would also say that there is an increasing shift from traditional “American
values” in foreign affairs to a more internationalist or world order tendency
of viewing and evaluating events.
Liberals, on the other hand, would likely assert that the
re-election of President Obama is an affirmation of human values over property
rights, a triumph of the collective well-being over the well-being of the
powerful and the privileged, and the people’s insistence that government and
private enterprise have a legitimate role to play in our domestic economic
affairs.
An objective view of these two general evaluations of the
meaning of the outcome of the 2012 presidential campaign could conclude that
both views have some merit. The
problem with both of these points of view is that they don’t get to the heart
of what America’s ongoing demand has always been and, as I see it, continues to
be.
Hence the key question is: does America generally demand
what it needs most? Since America
is ultimately the sum and substance of you and me, and since we all can be a
bit fickle now and then, the answer to that question is necessarily mixed.
A sometimes jealous world has often observed that America’s
most continuous demand was for the “almighty dollar.” However, not even that reply gets to the heart of America’s
greatest national expectation, for if one answers the above question by
identifying a material object, one can never discover what America’s real
demand is. So, here goes.
As I see it, historically, America’s most consistent demand
is that all problems crying for solution and all goals worthy of attainment
must be realized “now” rather than over any extended period of time. Nowhere in the world must a national
itch be more quickly and effectively scratched than here in the "land of
the free and the home of the brave.”
Our national impatience is almost institutional. Impatience is neither good nor bad all
of the time, but recognition of the existence of that tendency can be
instructive. Here are some
historical examples of instantaneous problem solving at its worst and at its
best:
July 4th, 1776: The Second Continental Congress,
while declaring the colonies free and independent states, wrote into the
Declaration what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr called “that promissory note” by
declaring that “…all men are created equal.” If "now" had a more eloquent and subconsciously lingering moment,
history does not record it.
May to September 1787: In their valiant effort to construct
the framework of a balanced government, "now" forced the Founding
Fathers to evaluate white males' first class citizenship while at the same time
constitutionally devaluating white women and especially blacks and Indians to
second class status. Hence, this
was the immediate solution for "now" to solve a political need for
balanced representation brought about one of America’s most seriously flawed
examples of political and social inequity.
April 1803: President Thomas Jefferson laid claim to high
public office because he insisted he would more consistently follow the
dictates of the letter of the Constitution. Jefferson followed the demands of
"now" by purchasing land offered by Napoleon of France. “The
Louisiana Purchase” more than doubled the size of the United States. Jefferson’s act was clearly
constitutionally questionable, but perhaps -- for "now" -- it was
more justifiable in April 1803 than unwise.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended civil rights
by freeing captured slaves whom he would have had no authority to free in
normal times, but "now" clearly demanded it. In February 1942, FDR
caved into political pressure from the west coast to intern Japanese Americans
for the duration of World War II.
"We want all of it now" was the cry during the summer of 1963 as American blacks sought
to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s Emancipation
Proclamation with their demand for national and social justice.
Tuesday, November 6th, 2012: "Now"
appears to have at least temporarily steadied our national political nervous
system by returning to office a seemingly indecisive president and a
quarrelsome Republican House of Representatives.
Risky decisions will always continue to confront our
national leaders for a very simple reason: a free people will always be an emotionally and spiritually
hungry people. If a hungry people
may at times be bellicose, a free and hungry people will almost never be
complacent. The consistent demand
for steadfastness, accountability and rationality "now" will
permanently keep complacency -- freedom’s deadliest enemy -- at bay.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment