Home
Part 4 of 5 - The United States: A Persistent Debate
The United States: A Persistent Debate
Part 4 of 5
JAMES E. DAVIS
H. MICHAEL HARTOONIAN
RICHARD VAN SCOTTER
WILLIAM E. WHITE
The United States has been described in many ways: a land of opportunity, liberal, democratic, republican, capitalistic, multicultural, pluralistic, imperialistic, and materialistic. However, history students must understand that, foremost, the United States is an idea that is sustained through debate. The health and existence of American democracy depend on the quality of that debate. This is what Abraham Lincoln meant in the Gettysburg Address by “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Perhaps students would show more interest in history and understand it’s central role in education if teachers started from the proposition that representative democracy must be developed and sustained through debate.
Students must also understand that this debate is not sustained for the purpose of establishing absolute rights and wrongs; it is a debate about the relationship of important American values. To participate productively in this debate, students must develop and cultivate a distinctive American mindset. The American democratic mind must be capable of debating two conflicting values while noting the essential merit of both.
Four sets of value tensions central to the American debate allow students to understand historic events, analyze current issues, and address the problems of democracy. The mark of an enlightened citizen is the ability to intelligently use these four sets of values — (1) law versus ethics, (2) private wealth versus common wealth, (3) freedom versus equality, and (4) unity versus diversity — in addressing matters of public interest.
These pairs of values are inherently antagonistic, yet together they hold the promise for a progressive and better society. In a healthy democracy, citizens and their representatives attempt to bring these value pairs into balance as they address problems. The result is a continuing debate to establish and maintain balance among the value tensions. Without that debate, democracy is threatened and may even cease to exist. No single value is adequate. Taken to their logical ends, freedom leads to anarchy, equality to collectivism, diversity to tribalism, unity to totalitarianism, common wealth to communism, private wealth to plutocracy, law to fascism, and ethics to nihilism. Together, these value tensions represent the ethos and aims of the United States.
LAW VERSUS ETHICS
Americans describe the United States as a nation of laws. They believe in the rule of law and the duty of citizens to abide by laws. At the same time, many heroes in U.S. history were lawbreakers. George Washington led a rebellion against his sovereign government; he was a traitor. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and violated a Supreme Court ruling to maintain the union of American states. Rosa Parks broke the law on a Montgomery, Alabama, bus to advocate for civil rights.
Laws that help govern and ethical principles that guide behavior are sometimes in disharmony. This dissonance and tension can lead to a better legal system and society. How prepared are young Americans to engage in the enduring debate and resolve legal and ethical paradoxes in government, society, and culture?
The Declaration of Independence highlights the tension between ethics and law and between statute law and higher law:
-
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and institute new Government.
A century later, another great American statesman, Martin Luther King Jr., reminded Americans that laws had been used to suppress the civil rights of certain citizens since the Civil War. He explained that America “has defaulted on this promissory note” (1963a). Speaking from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, King appealed to higher ethical principles. “We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. . . . So we have come to . . . demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice” (1963a).
Mischievous actions can be perpetrated in the name of the law. At the same time, maintaining a higher principle can stall the progress of a nation. Thus, statutory law and ethics tend to be in tension with one another. Without a vigorous debate about the relationship between law and ethics, the fabric of democracy is weakened.
PRIVATE VERSUS COMMON WEALTH
The Founding Fathers acquired many of their principles and values from early Greek and Roman philosophers and political leaders. The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius said, “One should serve his city not because it is the right thing to do, or even the good thing to do, but because it is joyous thing to do” (Staniforth 1964,61). In many respects, Americans have done well. Perhaps this is what Alexis de Tocqueville (1956) meant when he referred to “the principle of civic participation” as a distinctively American story.
Civic participation has always been a central tenet of the American republic. It implies a civic responsibility referred to as civic membership, or the active promotion of public good (Bellah et al. 1985). One example is education. Some of the Founders understood that democracy could not exist unless the people were well educated. Jefferson wrote, “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be” (qtd. in Lee 1961,18-19). Jefferson developed a plan of education, and his Bill for the More General Diffusion of Knowledge was introduced to the Virginia Legislature in 1778 (Lee). Jefferson believed that people should become educated not to be better off, but to be better. Education is a tool for transcending the role of subject and embracing the responsibilities of citizenship.
Before the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, Congress, under the Articles of Confederation, passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Among its provisions, the law recognized that knowledge was “necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind” (Thorpe 1909, 957) and encouraged the creation of community schools. The understanding that civic education grounded in literacy, ethics, and character development was deeply held and considered essential to the success of the United States. The quest for education makes America exceptional. “Our public schools are here not to serve a public but rather to create a public” (Postman 1995, 18).
Developing and maintaining common wealth enhances private wealth. Investment in the public infrastructure helps business and industry operate more efficiently, productively, and profitably. Schools and universities, streets and highways, electric and gas utilities, and even parks, hospitals, libraries, and museums benefit businesses and their employees.
Alongside the marvel of America’s experiment in republican government is its immense economic development. Americans’ quest for private wealth has been a driving force behind the nation’s economic development. At the same time, private investment in business and technology has made America a land of innovators and enriched the common community. As with law and ethics, private and common wealth create a healthy tension between what the individual can have and what the community needs.
FREEDOM VERSUS EQUALITY
The debate on the relationship between freedom and equality has been the pivotal tension throughout U.S. history. Democracy is a continuous struggle to balance these ideals. One persistent theme in American history is the struggle for individual freedom and liberty, but the theme of equality is also persistent. Like a swinging pendulum, one value or the other seems to be more popular and persuasive during any era in history.
The Declaration of Rights adopted by Virginia in June 1776 asserted that the laws of nature granted all men individual freedom: “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” At the same time, “no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges.”
This balance between freedom and equality is the essential fabric of American democracy; an imbalance is undemocratic and bad for the republic. When conventional wisdom favors freedom, the power and resources of society tend to flow into the hands of the few. Those in power develop rationales to justify this distribution in the name of merit, efficiency, and economic growth. Left unattended, this imbalance of wealth and power undermines democracy and threatens to destroy a nation. In contrast, when the national persuasion tends toward redistributing wealth evenly in the name of compassion and economic justice, personal freedoms suffer. In a democratic republic such as the United States, citizens need the freedom to achieve knowledge, justice, and wealth. U.S. citizens also must assure that society is balanced with an appropriate level of equality.
The Founding Fathers struggled with these ideals. In the end, they created a system in which merit outweighed privilege. Ability, not birthright, mattered. Gordon S. Wood suggests that equality is the most powerful idea in American history. However, he notes that “republican equality did not mean the elimination of all distinctions” (2002, 100). Republics would still have an aristocracy, but it would be, in Jefferson’s words, a “natural aristocracy” (Wood, 100). The American aristocracy, or leaders, would be not those of opulent wealth, but people of talent and merit, such as writers, painters, scientists, and creative statesmen (Wood).
Not all of the Founders were as optimistic about equality as Jefferson. Washington referred to the common people as “the grazing multitude” (Wood 2002, 101). John Adams spoke of the “common Herd of Mankind” (Wood, 101). As a nation, Americans have been uneasy with their abilities to finely mesh the powerful concepts of freedom and equality.
UNITY VERSUS DIVERSITY
The Latin motto of the United States, E Pluribus Unum, means “out of many, one.” The one is highly prized in U.S. society, yet Americans understand that the individual must live in common society with others, with obligations, requirements, support, and enrichment. What does it take to be admitted as part of the Unum? In 1790, Washington wrote to the Hebrew Congregation in Rhode Island, “The Government of the United States... requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.”
That is the American ideal. It is a place where diversity is recognized and celebrated while the unity of the people is cherished. Realizing this ideal has been difficult, and Americans struggle to recognize the contributions of ethnic and cultural minorities who yearn for acceptance at the full status of Americans. How well Americans treat and assimilate this diversity is a test of what Gunnar Myrdal (1944) called the “American Creed.”
Another salient aspect of U.S. national unity involves the diversity of values, beliefs, and thoughts represented by the citizens. Is it possible to have a coherent, stable culture that allows the greatest possible freedom of religious and political thought and expression? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is explicit: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This statement is one of the most contested assertions in the history of America, and U.S. citizens continue to debate the First Amendment as the culture and society evolve.
Is it possible to have a stable, coherent, unified culture made of different languages, religious traditions, and races? Emma Lazarus (1883) wrote in the name of America, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” It is a common story for Americans, and they think nothing of asking what it means to be Native American, German American, Italian American, African American, Mexican American, Asian American, and so forth. How do these stories blend into a common national identity?
Is it possible to have a coherent, stable culture made of different languages, religious traditions, and races that allows the greatest possible freedom of political thought and expression?
FRAMING DEBATE
If debate is the heart of a democracy, then its soul is lodged in recognizing the gap between the real and the ideal. This understanding helps leaders and citizens see the imbalance that exists within the value tensions. King, for example, acquired a compassionate following because he helped the nation to see inequality, bigotry, and injustice. As a result, people began to see that the nation’s laws and cultural norms granted some people a great deal of freedom while restricting opportunity and equality for many others. The social and economic injustice that rested beneath the national consciousness was brought to the surface by King, who demonstrated how the reality of American life for many citizens was distant from the nation’s ideals. In doing so, King also threw a spotlight on how empty of higher principles or ethics existing laws could be.
Raising personal awareness and providing a new perspective sets up debate. Some people reject emerging views and argue for the status quo; others demand change. Differences of opinion and viewpoint are inevitable, but the distinguishing feature of democracy is that it provides the venue for differences to be debated. This debate requires at least two ingredients.
First, the dialogue should be civil and respectful. There have been times when civil disagreement turned to violence, even among respected and educated individuals. This is how two statesmen settled their long-standing political feud on July 11, 1804, on a secluded spot near Weehawken, New Jersey. As a result, Alexander Hamilton, America’s first Secretary of the Treasury and one of its finest minds, was mortally wounded in a duel with Aaron Burr (Ellis 2002). Today the pistol may be replaced by name-calling, meanness, cajoling, and ridicule — all less fatal for the body, but nevertheless lethal to healthy civil debate.
Second, debaters must be willing to submit their arguments to evidence — the sequence, relevance, and logic of facts, definitions, values, causes, and effects. There is no shortage of methods, techniques, and models offered for conducting rational debate. The problem with methodology is not simple, and any complete curriculum needs to address this. Yet it is important to keep in mind that the engineering of learning is often assigned exaggerated importance. Neil Postman (1995, 3) quoted an old saying: “There are one and twenty ways to sing tribal lays and all are correct. So it is with learning.”
ENGAGING IN DEMOCRATIC DEBATE THROUGH CASE STUDIES
The Colonial Williamsburg History and Civics curriculum uses case studies to teach history in secondary classrooms. Each case study is focused on a significant event in U.S. history, and students investigate aspects of the event. The case study calls on students to identify pertinent democratic value pairs along with efforts used to reconcile the tension. With this approach, students also examine arguments surrounding the event and assess the effectiveness of actions taken, decisions made, or policies rendered. We present this approach through an analysis of the debate in a case study on the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Understanding Current Reality
The 1920s was a decade of prosperity for many Americans. However, the economic conditions for farmers, who comprised a significant share of Americans, deteriorated during this period. As a result of World War I, U.S. farmers were feeding much of Europe, and international markets turned to American manufacturers for other goods. When the war ended, European land was put back into production, and American farmers lost large shares of markets in Europe. With surpluses of food and falling prices, U.S. farmers — many of whom also carried debt — suffered a recession.
The decline in purchasing power of farm families reduced sales for manufacturers, who, facing falling revenue, laid off workers. This increase in unemployment led to a further decline in consumer demand and an increase in inventories of unsold goods, which resulted in further reductions in production and manufacturing jobs. By the latter years of the Roaring Twenties, the slowing economy set off a series of events that deepened into a major depression:
- Many Americans were making purchases on new forms of credit, including corporate securities bought on margin. Personal debt increased.
- Families that had counted on a growing economy to sustain affluent lifestyles found themselves in mounting debt.
- Baffled political leaders and economists, wedded to a laissez-faire philosophy, did little or embraced policies that slowed the economy more.
- The government raised taxes and reduced spending on public works projects, further choking off economic activity.
- In October 1929, the U.S. stock market suffered its worst decline in history, referred to as the “Great Crash.”
- In hope of aiding struggling businesses, Congress passed the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act in 1930 that
transported the economic downturn abroad. - Several nations, particularly in Latin America, attempted to stabilize their economies by returning to the gold standard; this slowed global trade, reduced money in circulation, and hindered U.S. banks’ capacity to extend loans to businesses for capital investment.
- Between 1929 and 1933, nine thousand U.S. banks went out of business.
By the early 1930s, the U.S. economy was seriously depressed, reaching its lowest point in 1933, when one-third of the nation’s workforce was unemployed.
Analyzing Value Tensions
It is useful to examine the Great Depression through the lens of the four value tensions. In the years leading up to the 1929 stock market crash, most Americans were enjoying gains from a decade of economic expansion that began during World War I. The rising economic tide helped all citizens except for family farmers, who comprised a majority of American workers.
- Americans enjoyed the freedom afforded by brisk economic activity during the 1920s, but some fared better than others. Although most wage earners saw their incomes increase, the real winners were upper management groups and affluent citizens who invested early in a strong stock market.
- While private citizens were enjoying opulent lifestyles, the nation’s public infrastructure-particularly schools, hospitals, roadways, and utilities lagged behind population growth. Other social measures often failed to provide basic economic security for those who lost their jobs, were too old to work, or earned substandard incomes. These circumstances reflected a growing disparity between private and common wealth.
- As the industrial sector of the economy advanced and a growing proportion of the workforce experienced diminishing control over their jobs, labor laws did not change to account for the increasing imbalance of power in the workplace. It would require catastrophic economic conditions in the 1930s for the government and courts to take an ethical stance and enact new legislation.
- Protests mounted, and Americans became more divided along class lines such as the “haves” and “have-nots” and “white-collar” and “blue-collar.” Populations along this economic divide formed solidarity groups, which created further disunity, and this social stratification did not represent diversity.
Not all historic events relate to all four of the democratic value tensions. With most, one or two value pairs will call out for attention. Although the Great Depression lends itself to a comprehensive understanding of all tensions, the diminished freedom and equality many impoverished people suffered deserves the most classroom attention.
Seeking Redress or the Ideal through Policymaking
Prior to the 1930s, the United States had not addressed imperfections in its capitalism or sought to understand the root causes of economic downturns. The Great Depression was hardly the first economic calamity since industrialization. The nation experienced serious depressions in the 1870s and 1890s that resulted in substantial business failures, bank closings, and job losses. Economic conditions also suffered during early decades of the 1900s, but with each crisis, military conflict — first the Spanish-American War then World War I — provided the economic stimulus of government spending to bring back prosperity.
By 1930, policy makers could no longer ignore imperfections in the American economic system. However, not all historic events require government action and policies. Major court decisions, celebrations, and discoveries can be appreciated for their contribution to culture and impact on democracy’s core values. This was not the case with the Great Depression; it called for urgent and strong government action.
Americans take pride in their individuality and can-do spirit, so leaders typically have taken a laissez-faire approach to the economy and personal affairs. Laissez-faire is a French phrase meaning “let do,” which means that government should not interfere in people’s lives. However, by the early 1930s, the American economy, with businesses closing and many people unemployed, was showing no sign of self-correcting. Scholars, political analysts, and officials began calling for government intervention. People who favored the status quo opposed calls for activist government, saying that the economy would soon return to normal. Thus, the argument was set up between proponents of laissez- faire and interventionist policies (see table 1).
Teachers can encourage classroom debate in many ways, such as panel discussions with different positions and arguments represented, policy papers presented by individuals or small groups, and traditional debates. Whatever the method, students should understand the facts about the Great Depression. Digging deeper, they can analyze how it improved democracy by enhancing one or more of the values and creating a better balance between any value pair. For example:
- How did responses to the Great Depression advance equality of opportunity or promote personal freedom?
- How did policies improve the moral climate and create a more ethical society?
- Did these policies create wealth, either private or common?
- Did the policies serve a pluralistic American culture while preserving unity?
After debating issues regarding the Great Depression, opposing sides could work together and forge a mutually agreeable policy. This may occur in a full-class discussion, or students could form groups, construct policies to combat the Depression, and report their recommendations to the class. The discussion should also include how lessons from the Great Depression have affected contemporary society. What is the current state of the economy, and how is it similar to and different from the economy of the 1930s? How can policymakers address current issues and reconcile tensions among the values to create a stronger economy and better society?
CONCLUSION
American democratic society is sustained through debate among its citizens. Four sets of value tensions — (1) law versus ethics, (2) private wealth versus common wealth, (3) freedom versus equality, and (4) unity versus diversity-are central in allowing citizens to address matters of public interest through debate. These value pairs are the intellectual tools and language with which students acquire the skills of a democratic mind and thoughtful citizenship.
REFERENCES
Bellah, R., R. Madsen, W. Sullivan., A. Swidler, and S. Tipton. 1985. Habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
de Tocqueville, A. 1956. Democracy in America. Ed. Richard D. Heffner. New York: New American Library.
Ellis, J. J. 2002. Founding brothers. New York: Random House.
King, M. L. Jr. 1963a I have a dream. [speech].
––––––. 1963b. Letter from a Birmingham jail.
Lazarus, E. 1883. The new Colossus [sonnet]. Ellis Island. NY: Liberty State Park. Liberty Science Center.
Lee, G., ed. 1961. Crusade against ignorance: Thomas Jefferson on education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Myrdal, G. 1944. An American dilemma: The negro problem and modern democracy. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Postman, N. 1995. The end of education: Defining the value of school. New York: Knopf.
Schlesinger, A. M. Jr. 1992. The disuniting of America: Reflections on a multicultural society. New York: Norton.
Staniforth, M., trans. 1964. Meditations. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Thorpe, F. N. ed. 1909. Federal and state constitutions, vol. 2. Washington. DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wood, G. 2002. The American Revolution: A history. New York: Modern Library.
JAMES E. DAVIS is the executive director of the Social Science Education Consortium in Boulder, Colorado. He is also a civics textbook coauthor.
H. MICHAEL HARTOONIAN is a professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota and past president of the National Council for the Social Studies.
RICHARD VAN SCOTTER is an educator and writer who lives in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and a contributor to the media on cultural issues.
WILLIAM E. WHITE is the executive producer and director of educational program development at the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and is responsible for the foundation’s Teacher Institute Program and Electronic Field Trip Series. He received his doctorate in American studies from the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Find more information on The Social Studies at http://www.heldref.org
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
