Unity was relatively
easy for Sam Adams, the Boston merchant, and Tom Jefferson, the Virginia
farmer/lawyer. They read the same
authors and were soaked in the same “literary canon”, the collection of
writings familiar to all. As a
consequence, when either spoke of liberty or the common welfare, the other
understood what was meant. It
contributed to responsible politics. While
the Constitution was drafted, flamboyant orators like Patrick Henry and Tom
Paine and yes, even Tom Jefferson, were politely shooed away in favor of cooler
heads like Madison and Franklin. Even in
1858, when Lincoln said “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, most of
his audience could immediately put their finger on the passage he was quoting. It is much harder these days when we’re
constantly bombarded by thousands of messages from newspapers, social media,
books, the internet, wildly in conflict, coming from people talking past each
other, separated by a common language without common referents. Speakers are
often using word meanings from cultures so different that a translator would be
appropriate. Internet comments on
practically any news item are more a trading of shallow insults than a sharing
of understandings. When controversies
erupt like the current wikileaks and Snowden issues, or the Zimmerman trial, or
gay marriage, or voting rights, or internet freedom, or whatever, Silicon
Valley and the Midwest can disagree violently without either realizing they are
not really talking about the same things.
When talking about liberty or equality or discrimination or justice or
respect, they don’t understand how what they’re saying to others will be
understood. The common experiencing of
McGuffey’s Reader is no more.
The controversies, the
congressional impasses, the displays of violent incivility, are all signals of
a growing lack of mutual understanding prompted by our diversity and polyglot
cultures. We need to consciously seek
ways to strengthen both our unities and our understanding of our differences. The redevelopment of a core curriculum of
foundation documents in our schools would help.
Just the controversies that would occur over defining such a curriculum
would be enlightening. So would Michael
Gerson’s proposal to reinstitute a program of a required two years of national
service, military or civilian, for young people, male and female, coming out of
high school. I cringe when I say that
because I have six grandchildren who would be subject to that. But the draft, when we had it, was the
greatest mixer in our American melting pot; it helped us understand and respect
each other. We need an updated version
of it back. They can teach, like AmeriCorps,
or build parks, like the CCC, or staff homeless shelters, or do military
service. The important thing is just to
learn to be together carrying out shared responsibilities and learning to cope
with each other’s differences. We need
to talk to each other, respectfully and with understanding. We need to share America again.
1 comment:
Hi there i am kavin, its my first occasion to commenting anywhere, when i read
this post i thought i could also make comment due to this
good article.
Feel free to visit my web page - fitness
Post a Comment