Volume 8, Issue 3
Birds of a feather flock together.
Because animals cannot broaden their spheres of acceptance, they are restricted to a confined universe, stifling change. They are often the casualty of the very natural environment they escape to for protection.
There is one exception to this rule in the natural kingdom…Homo sapiens.
Humans have not been dealt this same hand. Humanity has been given the gift of reason. Humans manipulate the environment for their own purposes rather than survive in spite of it. The effects of climate change, in the grander scheme of things, may be more a lesson in humility than cause and effect.
However, mankind has resembled the other species by, at times, isolating itself in tribal effects. Governments and society have therefore been managed through tribal relations. One’s tribe defines his or her basic definition of relational comfort. The association is based on the human need for security. This is no different than the need of all God’s creatures. One’s tribe can be based on family, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, political ideology, philosophy, or anything else that makes one feel comfortable, politically or socially, with those who either look or think like they do.
As a country, the United States broke the cycle of over 5,000 years of recorded history that birth is destiny. By establishing the premise of e pluribus unum (out of many, one), the greater cause was paramount. The revolutionary idea was that, in diversity of background and ideas, differing opinions would compete. But the cause of one in unity was foundational and eternal.
In 1787, Alexander Hamilton argued at the Constitutional Convention for citizenship for all Americans. The debate was vociferous. But the compendium of each argument was the greater pursuit of ultimate liberty in each viewpoint.
In 1776, America held up this hope. In 1860, America held this hope true to themselves. And in 1941, America defended this hope for the world.
What happened to our commitment of e pluribus unum?
George Washington worried about political parties. Why? Because he feared that their tribal mission would become more important than the nation’s cause. The United States was unique in its first 200 years of history in that our political system did not result in multiple parties. Most democracies have more than two major political parties. There has been a consequence to this reality. The two parties became umbrella organizations for not only diversity of ideas, but passion for ideologies. Americans were okay with loosely being called Republicans or Democrats as long as each state was able to maintain its own political identity.
In 1974, two things of historical significance occurred to begin the unraveling of this political stability. First, globalization began to impact markets and jobs. Second, cable TV reached critical mass.
Prior to 1974, state economies were regional as remnants from World War II production. That began to change when foreign industrial powers recovered economically. Other countries began to compete in the U.S. marketplace with the production of automobiles and other manufactured goods.
In the 1960s, there were three TV channels feeding information to middle class Americans: ABC, CBS and NBC. In 1974, 88% of the American public received news from the evening broadcasts of these corporations. Howard K. Smith and other news anchors were composite voices of reason that allowed Americans to discuss their differences locally while agreeing with national commentators on the greater purpose of America and the bigger issues facing the country.
HBO began its first pay-per-view broadcast in 1972. Premium channel subscriptions exploded after 1974. By 1988, the 88% of American households watching the national evening news declined to 12% total. Replacing the national conversation of united purpose was more than 256 channels, thousands of individual blogs, and partisan cable news networks. The common forum of national conversation had been circumvented.
As national political issues became narrower in focus, zealot support became strident. National parties as umbrella organizations began to decline. From 1974 to 1990, the Independent Party became the largest party of registration in many states. Lee Atwater, a Republican political consultant, coined this phenomenon “the great dealignment.” Adding to the blurring of identity is the fact that there is no national Independent Party platform. There is also no national Independent Party convention. To be an Independent does not define one in any way other than that one is not a Republican or Democrat.
All of this has led to a fracturing of coalitions, leaving national candidates unable to unite 51% of the people under a common theme. Therefore, instead of uniting people, candidates must appear to be all things to all groups who have become extreme in their tribal identity.
2016 was the first year where two leading nominees running for President, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, both had higher negatives than positives. National pundits misread the favorable/unfavorable indicators. Yes, President Trump has a favorable rating of only 44%. However, another 14% dislike him personally but like his policies. A percent of this group will vote for him, even though they don’t like him. Depending on who the Democrats nominate, Americans may again be faced with the same situation of having to choose a candidate that they don’t personally like.
The Senate trial on President Trump’s impeachment began with the expected partisan comments for political tribal purposes. Very little effort was expended on protecting the great American Experiment. Focusing solely on procedural law minimizes the aspirations of liberty protected for the next generation.
This morning at 12:30 am, Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding over the Senate trial, warned both sides as to the tone of their presentations and to remember to respect the chamber in which they argued. Senator Mitt Romney said that when everything is an outrage, then the outrage becomes normal. By this, he meant there is no greater perspective.
It is absolutely appropriate to advance and defend one’s political viewpoint for the values one deems critical. Great debates on government existed in the world long before 1776. The nobles at Runnymede in 1215 who penned the Magna Carta claimed individual rights in the greater consciousness of God’s Creation. Even though the king had mandated authority, mankind had a God-given right to liberty.
In these times of America’s crossroads in national history, it is critical that the men and women in the United States Senate render judgment based on America’s national purpose, not on political tribal identity. Retreating into a default identity will leave the United States descending into tribal chaos. In such descent, we will abandon our gift of reason that distinguishes us from all other creatures. And society will devolve into an environment no different than the jungle in which other animals strive to exist.
The call for the greater debate is the essence of the moral purpose. The future of the American Experiment is at stake.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?