Gleanings 2010, No.

2
Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Food For Thought

America is a land of dichotomies.€ It is a mistake to say that there is only one w
ay to see America, or only one way to be an American.€ What follows is a brief sur
vey of some of the many dichotomies that make up this country.€ Any one of them is
deserving of a separate essay which I may do one of these days.€ It should be not
ed that many of these dichotomies are not an Either/Or proposition, but “This and
That” synthesis, as will be illustrated.€ Meanwhile, enjoy the following and maybe t
hink on these the next time someone talks about what “Real Americans” are supposed t
o be.
The first dichotomy goes back to the very first colonies: Jamestown and Plymouth
.€ The first, Jamestown, Virginia, was a purely commercial enterprise. The first s
ettlers were all male.€ The first women (all single looking for husbands) didn’t arr
ive until the following year.€ In the beginning, the settlers looked for treasure.€
Not finding any, they decided to make the Native American crop of tobacco to be
their path to treasure.
Meanwhile, Plymouth Colony in Massachusetts was settled for religious freedom (a
t first, for themselves).€ Most of the colonists arrived to find a new life, but t
he major impetus was to seek freedom from persecution since many of them were re
ligious dissidents (or Separatists).€ They did find freedom, although, because of
their work ethic derived from their faith, they also became prosperous as a colo
ny.€ The difference between them and Jamestown was that Plymouth did not depend on
just one crop for their prosperity.
So, the first dichotomy is freedom and opportunity.€ We often hear that people com
e to this country for the freedom, but many come for the opportunities that this
country offers.€ Jamestown might have had churches, but religious freedom was not
why it was settled.€ It was the opportunity for becoming prosperous that drove th
e settlers onward.€ It was the same impetus that drove the Plymouth and Massachuse
tts Bay colonists to strive onwards as well.€ Even though freedom was the major fa
ctor for them to be there, it was their work ethic that drove them to prosperity
.€ They became the embodiment of synthesis of both freedom and opportunity.
Another dichotomy was discussed in my previous essay about the American Revoluti
on, namely between the Patriots/Rebels and Loyalists/Tories.€ One side felt that t
heir grievances with the government (namely the British Crown) went unheeded, wh
ile the other side believed strongly in the rule of law, and that the Crown had
every right to denounce the grievances of its subjects.€ Needless to say, the firs
t group won, and, to this day, we have the right to petition our leaders.€ Yet, th
e other side is still echoed by those who call for law and order.€ Again, America
is what it is because of both views.
An even more profound example of two visions of America is found at the start of
the new government.€ This was literally embodied in two individuals, the first Se
cretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, and the first Secretary of the Treasury, Ale
xander Hamilton.€ Each had his own view as to what direction the nation would go,
and each had their respective visions fulfilled, although in different ways than
either expected.€ Both visions can still be found in modern American politics to
this day.
Alexander Hamilton was the leader of the Federalists and believed that America h
ad to encourage commercial enterprise.€ He wanted a strong central government beca
use he believed that it would be the best instrument to help foster the new nati
on’s burgeoning economy.€ He founded the Bank of the United States to help in this e
ndeavor (a precursor to the Federal Reserve).€ His other reason for a strong centr
al government was to help preserve order and authority (shades of the Loyalists
who defended the Crown).
On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson believed in a limited federal government.€ He
pushed for stronger state representation (the forerunner to states’ rights).€ Contra
ry to the precious beliefs of some today, Jefferson did not believe in limited g
overnment in and of itself.€ His call for state sovereignty meant that states need
ed to have a stronger government.€ (In fact, when he was Governor of Virginia, Jef
ferson pushed for strong state laws such as freedom of religion and welfare for
the poor and destitute.)€ What Jefferson wanted was a dissipation of power from a
central authority, which to him meant nascent tyranny.€ He believed that this diss
ipation of power was the best way to preserve individual freedom.€ When he became
President, Jefferson let Hamilton’s precious Bank of the United States lapse since
he thought that it gave the federal government too much control of the nation’s m
onetary policy.
If you haven’t noticed, the rivalry between Hamilton and Jefferson is still with u
s, although in modified form.€ In fact, this dichotomy has always shown itself thr
oughout American history.€ Hamilton’s Federalist Party morphed into the Whigs, and l
ater the Republicans, whereas, Jefferson’s party, Democrat-Republican, became the
Democratic Party.€ The first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, echoed Jefferso
n when he let the Second Bank of the United States to lapse for much the same re
ason.€ So, in a way, Jefferson won that argument, although Hamilton’s vision lived i
n the commercial enterprises fueled by Yankee ingenuity and financial backing.
The irony to all this is that both sides of any political dispute look to both J
efferson and Hamilton, but that is part of how American dichotomies work.€ It’s this
and that.€ A perfect example is in the US Civil War where both sides looked to Je
fferson as their guide.€ The South of course saw states’ rights as sovereign, althou
gh they ignored the reason why Jefferson wanted that, namely to preserve individ
ual liberty - although the southerners may have seen it as preserving their libe
rty to oppress others.€ Meanwhile the North looked to Jefferson in his most import
ant writing of the Declaration of Independence, namely that all men are created
equal.
The embodiment of that ideal was found in Abraham Lincoln who saw the Declaratio
n as the more important document than the Constitution.€ It’s in Lincoln that we can
see the merging of these two dichotomies.€ He was Hamiltonian in policy (as a Rep
ublican who pushed for commerce), but a Jeffersonian in belief.€ His Gettysburg Ad
dress is a brief treatise on Jeffersonian ideals with its call for a new birth o
f freedom.
That new birth of freedom was first called by the Abolitionists who wanted to se
e the end of slavery.€ They looked to the founding documents, mainly Jefferson’s Dec
laration of Independence, as well as the Bible.€ The slaves too looked to the Bibl
e, especially Exodus which told the story of Moses and the Israelites escaping f
rom bondage in Egypt into freedom.€ Both slaves and their abolitionist defenders t
ugged at people’s moral conscience.
Ironically, the defenders of slavery looked to the Bible too, especially Genesis
Chapters 9 and 11 (the Curse of Ham, Noah’s son, and the Tower of Babel), as well
as those portions where slavery was mentioned in a positive light (slaves shoul
d respect their masters).€ Morality had little to do with it, although, since many
in America at that time saw the authority of the Bible as sacrosanct, it was as
sumed that people would follow the Word (as interpreted by them) more than their
conscience.€ Also, unlike the abolitionists (and Lincoln), slaveowners looked to
the Constitution as the document that mattered the most.
Even though slavery ended with the Civil War, this didn’t mean that the abolitioni
st vision completely won out.€ Both views were echoed through the years leading to
the Civil Rights movement.€ The stories in Genesis 9 and 11 were still used to de
fend segregation and racism.€ The Constitution was still used to defend state sove
reignty.€ However, the conscience of America would once again be struck by looking
at the Bible beyond Genesis and looking to the Declaration as the foundation of
America’s ideals.€ Again, this was embodied in one person, namely Martin Luther Kin
g, Jr.€ His speech where he declared his dream of a new America alluded to the Bib
le (namely the prophet Isaiah) and, echoing Lincoln from a hundred years before,
he looked to the Declaration by stating that all men are created equal.
The lesson here is that there are different ways to interpret things whether it’s
the Bible, the Constitution or history in general.€ The course that one follows la
rgely follows how we interpret them.€ Slaves and slaveowners looked to the same Bi
ble, yet one saw it as an instrument of oppression while the other saw it as a p
ath to freedom.€ Abolitionists and Slavers looked to the Declaration and the Const
itution for freedom.€ However, one saw it as freedom to oppress others, while the
other saw it as freedom and equality for all (or, as Lincoln aptly put it, a new
birth of freedom).
The Jefferson/Hamilton rivalry continued into the 20th Century.€ This time, it was
n’t so much a rivalry but a Lincolnian synthesis.€ The early 20th Century Progressiv
e movement led to policies that both helped the individual and promoted commerce
.€ Theodore Roosevelt, who’s Republican Party was the heir to Hamilton’s monetary visi
on, would lead the fight against business monopolies and for food safety, forest
preservation and other acts that helped the American people live long and prosp
erous lives.€ His rival and successor, Woodrow Wilson, who’s Democratic Party follow
ed Jefferson’s vision of individual liberty, saw the founding of the Federal Reser
ve which echoed Hamilton’s vision of a central government overseeing the nation’s mo
netary policy.€ (It still does.)€ Wilson’s fellow Democrat, Franklin Roosevelt (Theodo
re’s cousin), continued the trend of a strong Federal government.
All of them were Jeffersonian in substance (helping individuals) than form (pres
erving state sovereignty).€ Of course, this meant that they had to follow Hamilton
ian tactics to do it.€ This was exactly what Lincoln did as well.
Another area where we can see America’s dichotomy is in its foreign policy.€ The two
groups here are the Idealists and the Realists.€ Idealist rhetoric can be found f
rom the start where we are seen as a city set up on a hill (John Winthrop, the f
irst Governor of Massachusetts) or the New Israel (the novelist Herman Melville)
or the last, best hope on Earth (Lincoln).€ Woodrow Wilson embodied this in his F
ourteen Points and his call to end all wars.€ Franklin Roosevelt echoed this with
his Four Freedoms and the formation of the United Nations (of which his widow El
eanor would be strong proponent).€ This idealistic vision of America is what peopl
e throughout the world look to.
In contrast, we have the Realist vision which follows the Real Politick of Europ
eans like Talleyrand, Metternich and Bismarck.€ When John Quincy Adams was Secreta
ry of State, he followed this path with the implementation of the Monroe Doctrin
e which stated that no European power should be allowed to interfere in the West
ern Hemisphere.€ That sounded all fine, except that the US didn’t have a strong Navy
to enforce this.€ So, Adams negotiated with the British to help out.€ The British w
ere then “allowed” to have colonies as ports-of-call in Central America (British Hon
duras) and the South Atlantic (Falkland Islands).
Real Politick Realism was the policy followed by President Eisenhower and his Se
cretary of State, John Foster Dulles, in the overthrows of Mossadegh in Iran and
of the Guatemalan government, all done in the name of freedom, but really for c
ommerce.€ At the same time, when Hungarians revolted for true freedom, these same
leaders stood by.€ Eisenhower’s Vice-President, Richard Nixon followed the same path
when he was President along with his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, with
the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile.€
These examples are just the extreme version of Realist foreign policy.€ All Presid
ents follow them in their everyday diplomatic duties.€ Some do it more often and o
penly than others, but it’s a part of American foreign policy.€ Yet, the Idealistic
vision still holds.€ Every call for human rights and every humanitarian aid effort
are echoes of the American ideal.€ Even though the atrocities done in our name at
Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib might have tarnished our image in the world, the
idealistic vision of America as the last, best hope on Earth still holds for man
y people.
When we initially study these dichotomies, we see their contrasts.
Are we a nation founded on just freedom?€ What is freedom without opportunity to p
rosper and succeed?€ Slaves won freedom, but did they gain opportunity?€ Needless to
say, we need to be able to have both in order to prosper as individuals and as
a nation.
Are we allowed to petition our grievances to our leaders?€ Must we allow our right
s to be diminished for the greater good and to keep order (Patriot Act)?€ Followin
g the law and keeping order are necessary, but it shouldn’t be done at the price o
f losing basic freedoms that go back centuries to English Common Law.
Whose vision is allowed to prevail, Hamilton or Jefferson?€ Who was right and who
was wrong?€ Or, were they both right and wrong in equal measure?€ Can we synthesize
both visions into a new way for this nation to run, just as Lincoln, Wilson and
the two Roosevelts did?€ This dichotomy is still being debated on the streets, in
the media and in Government at all levels (federal, state, local).
Which type of foreign policy must our leaders follow, one based on ideals or one
based on reality?€ If we are idealistic, does this mean that we’re showing weakness
or strength?€ Or, is it truly strong if we allow tyrants to overthrow sovereign g
overnments just because we don’t like those governments (Iran, Guatemala, Chile)?€ W
hat does it say if we allow that to happen?€ Can we truly call ourselves the last,
best hope on Earth?€ Were we ever such, or was that only rhetoric both then and n
ow?€ In my heart of hearts, I’m an idealist, although I know that our leaders must m
ake hard decisions that go against those ideals.€ The smart ones understand that t
here are dire consequences while others just don’t care.€ It’s up to us to find leader
s who have that understanding.
Whose interpretation of America’s founding documents is correct?€ Whose version of h
istory is right?€ Should we preach only about American exceptionalism (my country
is always right) or should we see America as it is, warts and all (my country: r
ight and wrong)?€ Personally, I feel that we should learn all aspects of America’s p
ast, not just the good.€ If we just teach half a story, we should realize that hal
f a story is just propaganda.€ This piece is my mere attempt to counter such propa
ganda.
Siva Jonnada