There She Is, Myth America

American history is draped in mythology. The drapings are, of course, a mixture of red, white and blue, but the mythology, itself, is pure white.ⁱ Whether Parson Weems or a modern text, the history is intermixed with unprovable – often invented – stories that add to the image of a great nation – a nation with a glorious mission – one with a Manifest Destiny. And, daily, the myths increase.

That shouldn't come as a great surprise. All societies remember their pasts with a luster that often exceeds reality, but one that answers the great inevitable questions in a way that both engages and honors us and our forebears.

Few history books will mention, for example, that George Washington was a poor generalⁱⁱ or that Alexander Hamilton was probably a British agent.ⁱⁱⁱ Most will gloss over the fact that although Thomas Jefferson was a strong advocate against slavery, he was, himself, a slave owner. My intent is to deal with what actually happened – at least to the extent that we can so long after the events – not to belittle our Founding Fathers. Their greatness is undeniable. The documents upon which they founded this nation,^iv and the nation which has developed following the outline they put in place, are of unmistakable brilliance. Both are masterful products of their time, and those who fashioned them must not be judged by us. They acted, too, in accordance with the principles of their times, and they not only did the best they could, but they did a superb job.

But that's the point. They, and the founding documents, were products of their time. And we live in different times. Sooner or later those documents will have to be reviewed and revised to reflect the times in which we live.

“Jefferson also believed – uniquely – that this world belongs, solely, to the present generation. Hence, every twenty years or so, new laws should be promulgated at a constitutional convention. A grown man he noted in his best biblical parable style, should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”^v

Jefferson's view was acknowledged in what eventually was termed Federalist Paper number 49, although James Madison, who wrote that “letter,”^vi opposed constitutional conventions. And Jefferson was not alone in believing that the Constitution – the script for the great American drama – which we have come to revere, would have to be brought up to date periodically. There were many who recognized that a perfect document was not achievable at that, or any time, and that amendments would be required periodically.

The United States is one of the greatest countries on earth.^vii It is strong, rich, and the kind of place to which people from around the globe want to go. Some risk their lives to do so. And it exists because those who founded it endowed it with a governing document that was unique – one that has served as a model for other nations since then. But the mythology surrounding the founding itself and the documents employed to do so, as well as the virtue and wisdom of the founders, clouds the fact that however great they may have been, however far they may have been ahead of their time, they were fallible human beings of the eighteenth century. They were products of that age, but their time was not the twenty-first century in which we live.^viii Jefferson was right. “A grown man … should not be forced to wear a boy's jacket.”

The two major political parties have created their own “realities,” or, more accurately, their own mythologies. They have expressed exaggerated views of their own virtues and, very much in evidence at election times, frightening characterizations of the evils of their opponents. And the parties tend to become even more confrontational following election. The three branches of government, like the political parties, compete rather than cooperate. Each works hard to increase its own influence, leaving the mythical “We the People” out of the loop. Although our Constitution provides for a form of democracy, the reality is that the “representative” democracy our founders gave us is not representative of anyone but the politicians themselves. Having promised us solutions to all the problems we face, our representatives, once in office, focus on the next election rather than on our needs. The Executive branch of our government claims to lead, but its members are more likely to say what poll-takers tell them will sell, and after election they go on to assert their power and act as they see fit. And those of our Judiciary, who may never face an election, are free to follow their own views, irrespective of the wishes of the people they are supposed to serve.

The ability to review the mythology, however, and, if necessary, to change it, is built into our system.

Article IV

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.

The Constitution, which we sometimes view as sacred, provides for measured changes. No more should be necessary since its authors saw it as the answer to our country's problems and a solid basis for an infinite future of liberty.

But it was written illegally. The convention from which it emerged had been asked to amend the inadequate Articles of Confederation – not to write a new document. And we are as free as they to rewrite the Constitution rather than amend it if there are enough changes that need to be made, and if individual amendments will either not accomplish our wishes or will, because of their large numbers, either take too long or prove too burdensome to accomplish. It may take historical revisionists to correct our mythology, but a united citizenry – one fed up with current bickering and manipulation of the system to suit the needs of those who are supposed to work for us – has the ability, at least in theory, to invent our own future and the mythology that surrounds it. Whether we have the will to do so, though, is a different question. Probably not, because it's easier to live by the rules of an imagined past.

Next episode: “Gossip” – Some words to the wise guys.

i     The word refers to the purity of the story only, not to the harsh realities of our history. No defense of “racial purity” is intended. Indeed, it shouldn't be overlooked that racial politics spawned a separate mythology designed to justify the indefensible practice of slavery.

ii    Fortunately he was a patriot. He was honest and politically savvy even if he was a poor soldier.

iii    Recognizing the greatness of the work he did in establishing this country, we can only assume that he believed a close association with Great Britain would be beneficial to our survival. Whatever other motives he may have had, and notwithstanding disagreements we have had – and even a war – we have found our alliance with England to be mutually beneficial. In Hamilton's time, moreover, the (American) colonies had many supporters in the British government. England, to a degree, was just as happy to be rid of the colonies which had become a major financial burden, detracting from her hostilities with France.

iv    Primarily the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The efforts of James Madison in writing the latter document are also noteworthy.

v     From Inventing a Nation by Gore Vidal, 2003, Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Page 14.

vi    The Federalist Papers originally appeared as newspaper letters signed by “Publius,” but written by Madison, Hamilton, and John Jay.

vii    Some will take issue with this assessment, and that is understandable. They cannot, however, argue with the specific qualifications I mention in the next few sentences.

viii   In this electronic age – one never foreseen by eighteenth century politicians – both the tools and the rules have changed. See Constitution 3.0, by Rosen and Wittes (eds), Brookings Institution Press, 2011.

My Demands Are Not Negotiable – What's Your Best Offer?

 

I wish I were 24 and handsome. And rich. The monetary award I got that went along with the Nobel Peace Prize would only be a small part of that. Eternal world peace would be a bigger reward.

All right. I'm neither 24 nor handsome, and I'll never be rich or win the Nobel Prize. I regret as well that world peace is no more than a dream. But there are some things I can accomplish. Like vacuuming the dining room, or taking out the garbage. That's the approach that most people take. They do the possible. It may not be quiet desperation, but it takes their minds off larger issues. However there are other ways.

It is said that politics is the art of the possible. The Federalists who wrote and proposed the American Constitution opposed a delineation of Rights, but eventually they accepted the idea of a Bill of Rights when the passage of the entire document depended on it. Abolitionists signed on to a document that included the institution of slavery, counting slaves as three fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation. And those who favored strong state governments and reduced central power,ⁱacquiesced to having a strong Federal government. All in the service of a new nation. They compromised.

Nowadays “compromise” is a dirty word.ⁱⁱ We view the whole idea with disfavor. It's a sellout. “My way or the highway.” That's the modern creed. “Just say 'No.'” If we can't have it our way, we don't want it at all. We would prefer to sit in the corner and pout, and accuse those we oppose of evil. In England there is at least a pretense of a loyal opposition. There is acknowledgment that others may disagree and still be faithful and patriotic. Perhaps not all the Brits accept this idea – perhaps some, too, see opposition as obstructionism – but at least there is the suggestion that honest disagreement is possible in a civilized society.

American politics has fallen into the trap of total victory or nothing. Liberals and Conservativesⁱⁱⁱwant nothing short of whatever program they are supporting at a particular time.^iv And if not, all we can seem to do is to find different ways to insult each other. Rather than engage in courteous discourse and discussion, we simply “dis.” There used to be an expression,“Politics stops at the water's edge.” It was first enunciated in 1947 by Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg during President Truman's first term, and indicated that while we may not share the same values, all Americans should be united when it came to dealing with the world.

The obvious implication was that we were not united at home. But that's what politics was all about. Nonetheless, despite disagreements about policies, we found a way to work together in the long run for the common good. Sadly, at least publicly we no longer have any kind of political cooperation – either for domestic or foreign policy. The predictable pattern is that the party out of power will do its best to paralyze the government until it can take over. Then, of course, it will be paralyzed by the party it replaced. The old saw,“Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country,” no longer has currency. Our “leaders” place party above country. “Purity”^vtakes precedence over accomplishment. We do not view half a loaf as better than none.

Of course there are absolute values that cannot be compromised. But those are not the problems at issue. What is involved is the idea of compromise itself. Because everything is done in the open – transparency and all that – accepting anything but a maximum position is seen by one-issue voters and viewed as backing down. Were Congress to act behind closed doors with no one to reveal the details of the negotiations,^vithere might be a way of reaching some accommodation that is impossible publicly. However secrecy is seen as corrupting. Yet when it came to writing the Constitution, the framers worked in secret^viiand, as John Roche wrote in The Founding Fathers:  A Reform Caucus in Action, "Perhaps the time has come, to borrow Walton Hamilton's fine phrase, to raise the framers from immortality to mortality, to give them credit for their magnificent demonstration of the art of democratic politics. The point must be reemphasized: they made history and did it within the limits of consensus."

For the most part, those who met in Philadelphia to write the new document, believed that the others – even those whom they opposed – were patriots. They may have disagreed with their positions but they did not doubt their dedication.^viii They were able to reach a decision because they were willing to trade ideas and institutions in order to reach a position which they believed superior to the one with which they started – the confederation of states. They knew that the document which they crafted would be hard to change later, which was the reason for the determination of some to have a Bill of Rights promised before ratification. But, for the most part, they did not question each other's motives – only their positions.

Unfortunately, the trust they had is often absent today. Compromise is difficult in an open society, and too often viewed, simply, as a starting point for the battle's next round. A typical example of this approach is the position of the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel. Any public concessions by Israel are considered the starting point for the next round of negotiations.  But that is only the case – that the opponent's compromise is the new starting point – when discussions are possible to begin with. The American Congress is paralyzed by a refusal by all parties to leave their maximalist positions and try to reach a middle ground. They'd lose votes. So they talk to the voters, not to each other.

I am loath to suggest that modern politicians are less patriotic than the “Founding Fathers,” but there is no question that current pressures are different from those once faced. The concerns at that time were only war, peace, and history – as well as the good of a new nation. There were fewer pork-barrel projects and lobbyists then. And the constant jockeying nowadays of pressure groups and others whose main concern is their own benefit, is only aided by polls, focus groups, and the spotlight of the media. Perhaps the time has come for a return of secrecy, and the relinquishing of local representation, which leads to the demands for local projects. Perhaps the time has come for us to adopt a proportional national representation system based on total, not local vote.^ix To do so we'd need marked changes in the Constitution. It would take compromise And that would have to be done in secret.

But I'll be 24, handsome, rich, and a Nobel Peace Prize winner before that happens.

Next episode: “Change” – The more things change, the more things change.

i     The Federalists called them “anti-Federalists” but they were a diverse group and they, themselves, didn't really accept the designation.

ii    In a marriage, however, it's the most important word there is.
iii    And everyone else.

iv   Right or wrong, but never in doubt.

v    Not to mention the next election.

vi    A situation the media would consider intolerable.

vii    In public they could neither have made the necessary compromises nor fashioned an entirely new document, rather than simply fiddling with the Articles of Confederation.

viii   James Madison, a dedicated Federalist and author of the Constitution wrote, “... there never was an assembly of men, charged with a great and arduous task, who were more pure in their motives, or more exclusively or anxiously devoted to the object committed to them, than were the members of the Federal Convention of 1787 ...” cited in Original Meanings, by Jack N. Rakove. It should be remembered that Madison disagreed with the opinions of many of them, but he never lost sight of their dedication.

ix   Many countries have such systems. They require the proposal of a list of candidates by each of the participating parties. Seats in the House of Representatives would then assigned according to the percentage of the vote, and each party would then go down its list until it has filled the number of assigned seats. It is a national rather than a local election. We might even go back to the choice of Senators by State Legislatures to restore the representation of the states and of state interests.