My subject is to examine the reasons for how our nation has, despite its many challenges over time and today, manage to do so well…to survive and generally thrive.
One could object: “We’re not doing so well.” After all, we have a populace split along political lines as sharply as most of us can remember. We have a president whose values deny what’s expected of an organization leader, let alone the president. Racism persists; so does vigorous debate on immigration and the challenge of climate change. We debate the position the nation should play in the world with our allies and in confronting countries and movements that represent a threat. With all of this, how can one say we’re “doing well?”
Because, by almost any measure, we are. How many people, I ask, would trade living in the United States by moving to another country? Very few, I would say.
With all the challenge of the gap between the “haves and the have not’s,” our economy and standard of living is as strong as or stronger than any other nation in the world. Our military strength is greater than other country by far, and the dedication of the men and women of our armed forces beyond question. Our government can be extraordinarily dysfunctional, especially at the federal level (it is shut down as I dictate this), but it’s been shut down before and we have survived. And, while there is no guarantee in the future, especially in a life that is as short as the life of our nation, there is more than hope—there is learning to be gained by understanding what has enabled us to survive and, more often than not, thrive over the course of our history.
So what explains this?
There is the famously stated balance of power that was built into our government from the very beginning of the Constitution through the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Yes, the executive branch has assumed increasing power over the years, but we still have the three branches and while, on occasion (e.g., during the post-Reconstruction period), they have worked together to impede progress, much more often one branch contested another branch, which, if not thwarted, would have imperiled the development of the country. The positive role of the Supreme Court in combatting discrimination in the 1950s and the action of Congress during FDR’s presidency to block his intention to pack the court are examples.
Frederick Douglass said it well in the 1860s. Lamenting the “disgraceful” presidency of Andrew Johnson, he left, as Douglass biographer David Blight records, a “timeless maxim for republics: ‘Our government may at some time be in the hands of a bad man. When in the hands of a good man, it is all well enough. We ought to have our government so shaped that even when in the hands of a bad man, we shall be safe.’”
At no time has this maxim been more relevant than today.
There was another structural dimension of our government which was created by our founders that, on balance, has been of great importance in advancing the welfare of the nation. I refer to the distinction among governance at the federal, state and local levels.
Of course, it was the bitter argument over the rights of a state to secede from the Union which led to the Civil War, that argument being motivated by the desire of Southern states to retain and be able to expand slavery. But, more often than not, the role of states’ rights and the debate about what is the proper province of the federal, state and local governments on key issues affecting the welfare of the country has been of great benefit.
For example, the ultimate passage of the 19th Amendment, which gave voting rights to women only happened after a large number of states had already approved it. The federal recognition of same-sex marriage was driven by states which recognized that right earlier. The long-delayed recognition of the importance of preschool education is being driven at the state level, I hope to the point where it will be appropriately supported at the federal level.
To be sure, virtually every country has distinct governance roles played at the federal, regional and local levels. But, it seems to me, this has been a particularly lively and, on the whole, productive source of dynamic innovation in our nation.
Beyond that, we have the Bill of Rights and, within them, the particular commitment, even if not always honored, to the freedom of speech and with it the freedom of the press. Nothing is more important than this.
Underlying these points is something more basic, and that is the respect with which our written Constitution and the beliefs of the founders of this country (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison), as well as presidents like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt, are held.
Ask yourself: In what other countries do the people today look back to and argue over the meaning of the founders and the founding constitution like we do?
To be sure, other countries have deeply embedded histories in which they take pride and which inform them. China certainly does. So do Russia and England and France and Israel and other countries, too. But I believe we’re unique—unique also in the reality that the different views, often contrary views, expressed by these founders (the role of states’ rights; and federal government rights) still form the basis for significant debate today.
So the construction of our government and the memory in which we hold our Constitution and founders’ beliefs matter. In particular, I don’t think we can overemphasize the importance of those simple words in the Declaration of Independence which begin: “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” While too often honored in their absence (slavery, expropriation of Native American lands, the internment of Japanese citizens during World War II), we have never lost sight of their clarion call to fulfill our originating vision.
There is more that explains the longevity of our nation’s success. There is our geographical breadth and the fact that we have been protected by two oceans. This has not only shielded us from invasion and the immediate threat of the invasion like no other major nation in the history of the world. It has also contributed to a vigorous debate from the earliest of times as to what role our nation should play in the world: To what degree should we look to our own affairs; to what degree do we see our own affairs being inextricably intertwined with the world around us? I suspect, this debate will go on forever.
Then there is not only the breadth of our land, there is its richness. As one example, the fact that, with all the oil in the Middle East and Russia, we are now the largest producer of oil is remarkable.
There is also the entrepreneurial character of the people of this nation. That was undoubtedly fostered in its earliest stages by the ability of immigrants to create sustainable lives by going across this country and establishing farms and businesses. The diversity of our population (ethnically and racially) has had and continues to have enormous influence and, while we have fought bitterly the inclusion of people of different nationalities and races at different stages of our history, there has been for most (even if taking a long time), the opportunity to not only participate but to lead the economic development of this nation. One only has to look today at the founders of most of our major tech companies who are first-generation immigrants to see this.
I believe this entrepreneurialism has been fostered to an important though not uniform degree by the religious heritage of this nation, in what can perhaps be fairly summed up as the “Protestant work ethic.” That ethic, too, was enabled by the opportunity to advance personally through personal effort.
They say “success breeds success,” and it does. Being able to look back on revolutionary developments in this country from the creation of railroads to exploration of space to creation of modern retailing has provided a natural incentive to find the next breakthrough.
To a degree that is generally underestimated, investments by the federal government, often stimulated by preparation for war, have led to major innovation in the private sphere. This has also been by alliances with major universities, including the practical, utilitarian orientation of many of them.
There was a separate, more contingent element that has been critical to the nation’s continued strength despite all of its changes and challenges. And that is that, under pressure and with difficulty and uncertainty, we have in moments of crisis found the right way to relate to the rest of the world in a manner protecting our own and the world’s interests. Here is what I mean by this.
Through most of our history, the mindset of the United States can be best described as isolationist. From the earliest words of George Washington, then John Adams, we have been warned not to involve ourselves in international conflicts. We focused on our own Continental expansion, confident of our ability to do well on our own and reluctant to become concerned about being entangled in other countries’ messes.
We were dragged into World War I kicking and screaming. We were dragged into World War II because we were maliciously attacked by the Japanese. Franklin Roosevelt campaigned in 1940 on a theme of keeping us out of war.
World War II and the Great Depression showed our nation’s leaders the danger of our stepping aside from the world around us. What followed World War II, an era of unquestioned preeminence by the United States, was a series of institutional creations led by the United States that brought together countries of the world in a way that fostered a half-century of peace and economic prosperity. This was evidenced in NATO, the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and more.
NATO and the UN stood up to resist Communist expansion, especially in Korea. To be sure, this expanded view of the proper role of the United States led to horrific errors in decisions, most particularly the Vietnam War and, much more recently, the commitment to more or less reconfigure the Middle East with a cataclysmic decision to invade Iraq.
Now, with the evidence of these missteps, to which could be added many more (the extended war in Afghanistan), there is a reversion by many to the isolationist instincts that preceded World War II and which I submit have characterized most of our history.
Once again, we must look to leaders in our nation and in the leading countries of the world to work together to resolve the several critical issues which can only be addressed by a global approach. These issues include combatting terrorism, climate change, confronting the risk of nuclear annihilation and avoiding mutually destructive trade policies. The United Nations has not yet shown itself capable so far of being the convening governance institution to come to grips with these issues. The Trump administration is utterly unequipped to take the lead in creating the institutional framework to accomplish this. Indeed, they are turning back efforts, such as the Paris Climate Accord and TPP, that offered the opportunity for progress.
In short, we need a foreign policy orientation which sees the United States as one of the leading countries that will have to carry responsibility for creating the conditions for the sustained health of not only our country but the world. We must do this with an attitude that does not seek to impose our values on the rest of the world but does see the rule of law and the importance pragmatically of working together on critical global issues as fundamental to the future.
While all of these substantive factors which I cited have been of vital and controlling importance, one should not discount the importance of having the right individual present at the right time. At no time has that been more true than our nation’s having President Lincoln at the time of the Civil War. And never was the obverse of having the right individual more clear in the negative sense than having Lincoln succeeded by President Andrew Johnson. There were powerful forces present post the Civil War that would have led to black Americans being disrespected and placed in subservient positions. The belief in white superiority was deeply rooted (and, to an uncomfortable degree, remains) even amongst so-called liberal thinkers. But there is no doubt that Andrew Johnson’s occupation of the presidency facilitated the reversal of views and initiatives that would have accelerated the advancement of black Americans. This recognition of the importance of individual leadership makes each of us doing all we can to elect wise and principled leaders today at every level of government a supreme personal responsibility.
Looking to the future, I believe that the United States will return to an orientation wedded to multi-lateral alliances and open trade and values, even if unevenly applied, much more aligned than is the case today, with the values that have guided the nation since World War II. I hold this belief because I believe this will be seen to be in the interest of the United States economically and in terms of geo-political security. The fact will remain that the population of the United States will represent only about 5% of the world population and there our economic vitality will be heavily dependent on not only exports but on U.S.-domiciled, multi-national companies successfully doing business in other countries.
I believe we will renew our traditional alliances with Europe and Japan; we will continue to be challenged by instability in the Middle East and by an antagonistic Islam presence in some countries, most particularly Iran. We will retain an intimate relationship with Canada and a difficult one with Mexico and Central America, primarily because of the controversy over immigration and importation of drugs. We will be particularly challenged in forging a realistic but ultimately constructive relationship with China, the country which more than any other will be the greatest economic competitor to the United States.
Our relationship with Russia will be an open question. Poisoned, as it is today, by mistakes by both that country and the United States/West over the last 20 years, I believe (and hope) that, in the latter part of the coming decade, we will find our way to pursue common interests and flush the most significant of the antagonisms and misunderstanding which have plagued us down the drain. I have to acknowledge that this hope is surrounded by great uncertainty.
We can only hope that the next presidency and the presidency following that will bring forth leaders who can draw on this learning from the past.
Finally, it must be said that our progress and our future as a nation will be most importantly dependent on what we do in our own house on reconciling the racial divide which still exists and by, insofar as possible, giving everyone the opportunity to fulfill their God-given potential through our educational, social support and taxation policies.
.svg)