Ameritecture has moved

Steding's blog, Ameritecture, has moved to a new site: www.ameritecture.com.  If you wish to follow via email, you can sign up there at the "Follow Ameritecture" tab at the top of the home page.  Unfortunately, current subscribers to the old site must renew their subscription by signing up again.  Sorry about that, but apparently the competitive dispositions of Wordpress and Google don't allow better cooperation between platforms.

The Great Regression

The Trump presidency has cast a disorienting pall over America and the world. His daily dishing of stupefactions—each seemingly more stunning than the last—manage to exceed the most brazen expectations of presidential misbehavior while his Republican cohorts in Washington, who have yet to realize he is sinking their ship with the ham-fisted skills of the captain of the Titanic, stand grinning like toddlers who have just filled their diapers. Meanwhile, foreign leaders look on with growing dismay, as the world’s lone superpower appears hell-bent on self-destruction like a heroin-addict with a full spoon and a loaded .45.  As Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone political writer tasked with explaining this clown show to rocker Millennials and graying Boomers wrote:

“Welcome to the Trump era, the flushing-toilet-bowl stage of America’s history, where every move any of us makes is part of a great swirling synergy sucking us with ever-greater alacrity down the hole of failure and destruction.  Good news, bad news, it all heads in the same direction soon enough, after a spin or two around the bowl.”[1]

Taibbi’s fecal flushing metaphor aside, America is nowhere near the collapse so many citizens and allies fear, or that fertilizes the flowerbeds of President Putin’s fantasies.  Collapse is no more certain than Trump growing a conscience, or a pair of manly stones suddenly appearing nestled in the Worsted groins of Congressman Ryan and Senator McConnell. 

            To be clear, there does exist an epic arm-wrestle over the future identity of America and, as president, Trump does occupy the best seat to affect the outcome, but with each forthcoming blunder—each boisterously larger than the last—Americans are awakening to the reality first suggested in 1811 by French philosopher, Joseph de Maistre, that we “get the government we deserve.”  Trump’s “America First” theme that aims to codify his “taking America back” to highly romanticized bygone days of greatness—when bobby-socks, Brylcreem, and Budweiser were markers of a much whiter and more Christian portrait of power—will (hopefully) be characterized by historians someday as the last gasp of a Waspy and clumsy America that fell victim to the intoxicating arrogance that plagues all aging empires.  This crisis, which follows in a timely eighty-year cadence after the first three crises: the American Revolution, Civil War & Reconstruction, Great Depression & World War II, will be labeled, in Trump’s (dis)honor: the Great Regression.

            The accomplishments the Trump administration claims in its first one-hundred days will likely be re-classified  by historians under the more appropriate header of “damage report.”[2]   There is virtually no corner of American progress that Trump has left unscathed, to the glee of those who feel 1968 was a better year than 2018 could ever be. The cornerstones of his regressive movement attempt to kickstart dirty industries, dumb-down American education, embolden white-male supremacy, and hoodwink Americans into thinking the world is flat and profoundly dangerous, all while his family shoves millions of dollars in their pockets.  He will definitely leave his mark, which will either fix the beginning of the end of the American empire, or demarcate the call to action that propelled America forward to rid itself of Trump’s dystopic dimwittedness and re-claim its destiny as a steward of global progress.

            This alternative American identity—the narrative of global stewardship—contemplates an America whose power is gained not coercively, but referentially by  empowering people throughout both America and the world.  This is not a fearful America, nor is it bounded by bigger walls and bigger guns.  It is an America that believes in itself and its traditions of inclusion and  empathy, and of its passion for education, innovation, and leadership.  It views dynamism and creative destruction as prerequisites to continued greatness, rather than a “great” that can only be found in a Rockwellian past. 

Purging and healing this boil on the back of American history will not be easy, nor will it be painless.  Everyone who wants a better tomorrow for their children and grandchildren must join up, stand up, speak up, and act up. It means those who sit on the sidelines hoping that their fellow Americans will defeat Trump’s regressive fantasies—who don’t do their part—are contributing to the risk that Trump will succeed in relegating the United States of America to the ash heap of failed world powers.  As painfully amusing as Trump can be, he and his sycophant congressional n’er-do-wells must be thrown out before their damage report metastasizes from sea to shining sea.  The threat is clear.  Do not sit this one out; Trump and his cadre of truthbenders, slurping from their cups of magical thinking, will fight hard to prevail. The question is: is it their America, or ours?

---

[1] Matt Taibbi, “The War in the White House,” Rolling Stone, May 18, 2017, Issue #1287, p. 24.

[2] Credit for this characterization is due David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker.

Trump: Dangerous or Just Plain Pathetic?

I seldom look for solace in someone's incompetence, but in the case of President Trump his many deficiencies—that span from prehistoric executive skills to fundamental character flaws to psychological and emotional instabilities—may prevent him from achieving his fascist aims.  He is no Putin and the United States is no Russia.  Further, his detachment from facts and truth has severely compromised his credibility both at home and—especially—abroad. He appears to have the focus and navigational skills of a gnat in a windstorm, but I acknowledge this may be unfair to gnats (that always seem to survive such storms). 

The chaos that is the White House today coupled with the cowardly political rapacity that plagues Congress, a Supreme Court stuck in a 4-to-4 standoff, and a Federal bureaucracy frozen between the twin pulls of passive aggression and career security, virtually assures that little will be accomplished, at least for now.  In the end, this may be the story historians tell of the Trump presidency: much smoke and little fire.  Noise without leadership is still just noise.  What is emerging now is less danger than a leadership vacuum; both are bad, but they also open opportunities for others to lead.  So, who will lead?  It won’t be the Supreme Court or the Federal bureaucrats; the first is not supposed to lead and the second is incapable (by design).  Congress may try, but my bet is it will devolve into a battle between dumb and dumber.  Leadership then, will come from beyond the Beltway in Washington, at the state, county, and municipal levels.

We may end up owing Mr. Trump a debt of gratitude, if we use the peril he proffers as a call to organize and engage in a democracy we haven’t, as citizens, paid much attention to for the last forty-five years.  Since Nixon was shown the door and our draft cards became coasters, it has been easy to ignore Washington D.C.  The collapse of the Soviet Union and the dawn of the digital age contributed mightily to our collective withdrawal from national politics.  Apathy and complacency became natural and comfortable.  After all, who wants to spend time engaged with those who aspire to be politicians when we can turn the lens toward ourselves on the end of a selfie-stick?  Yes, Trump happened because of us, not in spite of us.

We have a choice: continue to wring our hands over the horrors of Trumpisms, or take advantage of the leadership vacuum and forge our own future.  We can wait and see, which gives Trump and Congress a chance to fill the void, or we can seize the moment.  The best and brightest are not found in our nation’s capitol, they are in our universities, small businesses, non-profits, and coffee shops.  They are old, young, born here and not.  They are the quiet ones who do not seek the spotlight.  Yet, they, you, are our future.  Are we Americans, or are we Trump?

Global Stewards or America First?

Although the word “unprecedented” was used constantly in 2016, and though there were many behaviors and statements made that were indeed unprecedented, what was going on—fundamentally—was not.  We do this to ourselves about every eighty years.  We renegotiate and redefine our answer to the question: What does it mean to be an American?

Toward the end of each American crisis (and we are nearing the end of the fourth American crisis) we define a new identity.  After the American Revolution that gave birth to our country, we identified as Land of the Free.  After the Civil War and Reconstruction, we became the Land of Opportunity.  After the Great Depression and World War II, we became Superpower.  Today, as we conclude this crisis—the War on Terror and Great Recession—we have a choice of new identities: Global Stewards or America First.

Global Stewards is the direction President Obama was taking us, and likely would have continued under Hillary Clinton had she been elected.  President Trump has proposed a nearly opposite identity in his inaugural address, America First.  Trump’s advocated new American identity has visceral appeal to many Americans.  It makes folks who feel left behind, or feeling suddenly dispossessed of their position in American social, economic, and political order, empowered, or at least comforted in the moment.  It taps resentment of government as its clarion call.  It is, however, a diabolical ruse intended to concentrate power in the presidency of Trump without regard to established American values or the rule of law.  It is profoundly dangerous.

America First is a fearful, zero-sum, win/lose, and isolationist future for America.  It puts America’s position in world order in peril by allowing other powers like China and Russia to move aggressively—both politically and economically—into Asia, the Middle East, and Europe.  It relies on deceit and divisiveness to exercise power over Americans for the benefit of the very few, represented most obviously in Trump’s selections for his cabinet.

Trump won the presidency not, however, by fear and anger, or even by Mr. Comey or Mr. Putin.  He won because too many Americans were complacent or apathetic.  Voter turnout and civic engagement operate at pathetic levels in America, but in a democracy you get the government you deserve.  Moving forward, many more Americans must take responsibility for themselves, their community, and their country if we are to transcend and defeat the mockery of American values President Trump represents.  We must unite and engage with a calm sense of profound resilience if we wish to protect the future of this great nation.

Power of the People

Ask any former living president, or read the dead one’s memoirs or presidential documents in the national archives, and you will find at least one thing they have in common: they came to understand their power was largely a function of the will of the people.  Yes, presidents do have specific constitutional powers, but without significant approval ratings they lose institutional support from federal bureaucracies and members of congress.  I expect our new president will become an historical touchstone for this reality. He enters office with the lowest approval ratings of any newly inaugurated president and those may prove to be the highest of his presidency. (See http://time.com/4636142/donald-trump-inauguration-polls-approval-ratings/.)  In the vernacular of Wall Street, he is a slam-dunk “short.”

That is not to say presidents don’t learn this and recover.  President Reagan, known to many as “the great communicator,” was keenly aware of keeping what he called “the common man” by his side throughout his presidency.[1]  He had polling, although it was fairly rudimentary by today’s standards, and he would even note in his diary how many people gathered on the sidewalks as his motorcade passed.  When the number of people who waved enthusiastically declined, he would take to television and give a national address, which were covered by the three big networks.  It worked.  Not only would the gears of government work for him, Speaker Tip O’Neill, his partisan nemesis in the House, had to make deals.

President Trump has neither the skills nor the temperament to manage this phenomenon.  140-character insults via Twitter will not endear him to the will of the people, nor has he surrounded himself (as other presidents have, including Reagan) with top-flight advisors and cabinet members.  Most, if not all of his cabinet picks are, at best, bench-warmers in the game of governing.  As attractive as ‘outsider’ status is during a campaign, it is crippling when the task of governing begins.  Just ask President Carter.

As I have written before, your future and the future of this country are in your hands.  And, although the challenge seems daunting at times, you and your family, neighbors and friends have the power.  (See https://www.indivisibleguide.com/web.)

Rejecting Trump at every turn will quickly degrade his power.  He will lose what I call referential power, critical to the support of those who actually make things happen.  I expect once Senator McConnell and Speaker Ryan get what they want from Trump, Mike Pence will be sworn in.  Pence may not be what many of you want, but probably no worse (and perhaps even better) than Trump.  And, 2020 will arrive before you know it.

---

[1] William Steding, Presidential Faith and Foreign Policy: Jimmy Carter the Disciple and Ronald Reagan the Alchemist, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), Ch. 6.

Obama's Farewell

Tonight is Obama's farewell address.  If his is received like his predecessors, few of us will listen.  It may, however, be the last sensible address given by a sitting president until late January 2021 when we will (hopefully) come to our senses and inaugurate the 46th president.  Unlike those missed celestial events that seem to always present themselves in the middle of the night, Obama's will be available in real time and anytime thereafter to listen to, and re-listen to.  I recommend it.

Presidents often give their most compelling notes of wisdom in these addresses.  For the first time in their presidency they are allowed to tell us what they have learned and, moreover, what we should lock in our minds to avoid in the future, without immediate political consequences.  George Washington established this tradition when he cautioned us about partisanship.  It certainly was a warning we should have heeded.  He wrote that hyper-partisanship,

"serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion."

More recently, President Eisenhower warned us of an emerging "military industrial complex."  We should have listened to both. (See a compilation here, http://www.npr.org/2017/01/10/509052320/obamas-farewell-address-how-presidents-use-this-moment-of-reflection.)

The United States will survive Trump.  Power will be abused, mistakes will be made, people will suffer, but America will emerge battered but largely intact, and so will you.  But not if we don't listen to the wisdom of those who came before us, and not if we don't stand up, speak up, and act responsibly.  Our future is in our hands, not Trump's.  Focus on the difference you can make.  First locally—home and community—then with a wider lens.  Do not bully or be bullied.  Engage with a calm sense of profound resilience.  It is your life and your country.  Own it.

Your Gift 2016

Shoutout to Tom Craddock who, after reading my post on Trump's Value-free Presidency, offered up this spot-on quote from C.S. Lewis, "Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil."

And with the holidays upon us, and particularly given the events of the past year, I offer this little piece of reflection.  Cheers.

Your Gift

We arrive in this world by circumstance and spend much of our life trying to reconcile the gift.  We endure our struggles and ascribe our lot with the certainty of burden.  Between the jubilation, pain and occasional humility we scrape a path that is ours, alone.  In the seam of these struggles life offers brilliance: the warmth of late summer’s sun quenching our shoulders as we gaze across a horizon of promise; the magical touch of a child’s hand who clasps ours for comfort; the flash of a smile from a heart who loves ours, too.  We are placed here to express a life all our own.  Tear away the wrapping; therein lies the gift.

Our choices are many, perhaps too many.  Some wring their hands over pearlized ivory or satin cream, over the eight-place setting or twelve.  Some pay others to tell them how to dress, behave, and raise their children.  Some find decision making an unbearable burden, fearful of those who may judge their choices as wrong.  Still others among us are addled by success; frozen by a world we herald as great. Those who understand their gift grant short shrift to such contrivances and lean forward into tomorrow.

Every morning offers beauty.  Every day arrives as a clean slate, if we look past the indelible erasures.  When the sky is dark, the wind unyielding and the news dire, there is reason to smile.  We each possess the promise of greatness: to thrust our spirit into the light where our gift can shine.  The choice is ours, in this moment and every moment that follows.  Look at that person who stares back at you in the morning mirror and accept your gift.  Draw those near who nourish your soul.  Let others pass.

This season, take a morning walk in the silence of new-fallen snow; lift a child upon your knee and tell them a story about your grandfather; sit outside at night until the sky throws a star your way.

Listen.

Love.

Laugh.

            Embrace your gift.

Trump's Value-free Presidency

Good news (sort of)!  There will be something for everyone to like in the Trump presidency, decisions that comport with your own particular political disposition or interests.  Bad news: there will also be many things to dislike, and many more things—perhaps greatest in number—that will be just plain mystifying.  President Trump promises to be a one man wrecking ball who will dramatically expand the effects contemplated in Edward Lorenz’ chaos theory. (Butterflies beware!)  How can this be?  Why?  The answer resides in Trump’s cognetic profile[1] that is, by my assessment, completely devoid of a value system that assures coherent decision making.

From weird, to weirder, to weirdest, off we go!  As columnist Gerald Seib suggested in his recent Wall Street Journal column,

“It’s nearly impossible to identify a clear ideological bent in the incoming president’s early moves … the definitions of left and right, liberal and conservative, are being scrambled right before our eyes.”[2]

Similarly, Christopher Buckley was asked to explain whether or not his father, the late William F. Buckley, would have considered Trump a conservative.  The son demurred, observing that

“it’s difficult to discern any identifiable ideology, philosophy, or politics behind his curtain; instead, only an insistent, clamant narcissism that one hopes will come to an inflection point and re-purpose itself in the service of those who have installed him at the center of our democracy.”[3] 

Yes, “one hopes,” but my expectations follow a different maxim: take him at his word and plan accordingly. 

So what are values and why are they important?  Values are the principles we embrace that are essentially our interpretations of concepts, norms, and ideas that allow us to simplify the world and make decisions.  In my development of cognetics, they act like a box of filters and impellers that sort out the myriad of variables we must consider to make decisions; some information is blocked while other information is sent forward for further consideration.  I further argue that without this set of values that allow us to reconcile dissonance in our world—too simplify it and make decisions—we would go insane.  It is unlikely Trump is insane (at least not in the clinical sense), but his many inconsistent incoherent statements and behaviors are precursors of insanity.  He is definitely on the spectrum, somewhere right of delusion and left of insanity.  The inherent pressure of the presidency—the volume and velocity of decision-making—will most certainly exacerbate this condition, pushing him further toward insanity and potentially even physical, emotional, and psychological  collapse.

To be fair, many, including Trump himself, have suggested that he has clear values.  Suggestions include things like winning, money, his children, and especially himself. However, these are not values.  Winning is an outcome, money is a means, and the others are, well, people.  They are not values; they are not durable interpretations that provide fundamental beliefs and convictions that predict future behaviors and decisions, which is why Trump can be confounding and appear reckless.  None of which is particularly concerning in his role as real estate developer and reality TV star, but when combined with the power of the presidency disaster is a near certainty.

Presently, Trump is best described as a conundrum.  Many have already recognized his recent decisions are a product of whom he spoke with last.  This presents problems in domestic affairs, but the most dangerous effects are in foreign affairs since other world leaders must (nearly always) consider what the United States, the world’s lone superpower, will do on an array of issues.  Trump’s value-free presidency increases risk in foreign affairs exponentially.  He has already declared his foreign policy will be “unpredictable starting now.”[4]  Misinterpreting what one state or another may do in an anarchic international system is profoundly dangerous, as we saw in the outbreak of violence that escalated into World War I. 

Recently, Trump decided it was best to blow up our forty year-old “One China” policy by engaging directly with Taiwan.  Although as an isolated issue this may not appear to be dangerous (his supporters view it as enlightened and powerful), policies like One China comprise the foundation of stability in a unipolar, one-superpower, world.  Trump may never launch a weapon first, and his bluster may be confined by other realities, but other world leaders may act first, and violently, in anticipation of what he promises to be “unpredictable” behavior.

Sugar-free and gluten-free may be good for you, but buckle up, value-free is going to be one hell of a ride.

---

[1] See my explanation of cognetics in William Steding, Presidential Faith and Foreign Policy:  Jimmy Carter the Disciple and Ronald Reagan the Alchemist (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), p.3.

[2] Gerald F. Seib, “Trump Shuffles the Ideological Deck” in “Capital Journal” section, wallstreetjournal.com, 5 December 2016.

[3] Christopher Buckley, “What Would William F. Buckley Have Made of Donald Trump?,” Vanity Fair, 5 December 2016.

[4] See, Nick Wadhams, “Trump’s ‘Unpredictable Starting Now’ Foreign Policy,” Bloomberg, 5 December 2016.

From Hope and Change to Fear and Change: a Letter to My Children

There are certainly more questions than answers this morning after Trump’s stunning ascension to the presidency of the United States. I cannot recall a more troubling political outcome during my lifetime.  As you know, I view Trump as an utter incompetent and vainglorious ogre.  Trump has destroyed the Republican Party and has defeated the Democratic Party creating unprecedented political uncertainty in America and the world.  The fundamentals of his support are, however, not surprising.  The same yearning for change that swept Obama into the White House in 2008 gave us Trump today.  The difference is Obama’s appeal was denominated in hope, while Trump’s is based in fear.  When the voting data is analyzed I expect to see many Americans—especially white suburbanites and exurbanites—to have voted for Obama in 2008 and Trump in 2016.  It seems weird, but it underscores just how fed up we all are with our political leaders and institutions.

In the short run, expect the uncertainty that swirls around a Trump presidency to produce a significant amount of economic, political and social stress.  Trade, foreign policy, healthcare, the Supreme Court; there are many places to expect him to exercise his power in nefarious ways.  But remember this, a president is deeply constrained by the institutions and markets that surround him and, in the case of Trump, by members of both parties who abhor him. And, America remains the most powerful and resilient nation in the world.  We’ve had bad presidents before, but the creativity and perseverance of Americans has always survived.

In the long run, this may just accelerate the pathway I described earlier this year in my lecture, Is it Always this Weird?  Trump’s missteps, which promise to be numerous, may actually cause Millennials (you) to get active and get organized, turning Trump’s “take our country back” slogan around to expel him in 2020.  I still believe the cyclical trends I outlined in my lecture will hold; that we will evolve as a country from a “superpower” identity to one best described as “global stewards.”  President Trump is a messy way to get there, but historical rhythms have a stubborn way of prevailing.

So, what to do?  First, focus on your own physical, psychological, economic, and intellectual strength.  Protect and strengthen those four cornerposts.  Second, focus on the well being of your family and friends.  Their welfare is your direct responsibility. Finally, get politically active and organized.  Your generation has more voters today than mine.  The reality, however, is that we vote and too many of your peers ignore this solemn duty.  Do not allow my generation to continue to damage America.  You have the power.  Do not squander it through apathy or neglect.  In the end, we all—individually and collectively—are responsible for Trump and what happens next.

Love,

Papa

The Certainty Trap

In decision making at all levels—personal, business and government—it appears there is one pitfall everyone succumbs to at one time or another: the certainty trap.  Stated simply, the certainty trap occurs when decision makers grant inordinate meaning to apparent ‘knowns’ that are subsequently revealed to have had little or nothing to do with the outcomes produced by the decision.  The effects of the certainty trap on our failures range from marginal opportunity costs to the catastrophic—from a missed business opportunity to waging ill-conceived wars.  The certainty trap yields fatuous decisions, however carefully justified by ‘knowns’. 

Although we seldom conduct a post-analysis on our victories (after all it was our brilliance and hard work that produced the triumph!), it also seems logical to assert that the certainty trap is outcome agnostic; whether we are successful or not, the certainty trap may have preceded both our wins and our losses.  The decision itself is dependent on the ‘knowns’ but the outcome may prove to have been quite independent of the same ‘knowns’.  Former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld often jousted with reporters over his seemingly magical matrix of knowns and unknowns, focused somewhat fatalistically on those combinations that included ‘unknown’.  But what if the real problem was not with the unknowns, rather it was with the knowns that, in reality, did not matter (or, in Rumsfeld’s case were not actually ‘knowns’ at all)?  More importantly, how do we avoid the trap of granting inordinate weight to factors that are visible and immediate, but ultimately inconsequential?

The first thing to realize is that the certainty trap is a naturally occurring phenomenon.  We need little if any help to fall into it.  After all, upon what are we to base our decisions if not those things that are known?  Here is where the wisdom born from failure can be critical.  While it is natural to point at visible and tangible factors and data to justify our decisions, and equally unnatural to point at the same data and call it into question, doing so may be extraordinarily valuable if the ‘knowns’ are irrelevant (or worse).  It takes an exceptionally confident and wise person to discount the obvious knowns in favor of the possibilities lurking in the unknowns.  It takes confidence born from intelligence and experience and a wide-open mind to make judgments instead of decisions.

And yet, we can observe many ‘unnatural’ judgments that created enormous successes, while there are many more ‘natural’ decisions that resulted in failures.  Steve Jobs made judgments that resulted in the largest and arguably most culturally influential corporation in the world, while Steve Ballmer made decisions that set the incumbent software giant Microsoft on a glide path to mediocrity.  Tesla and SpaceX’s Eton Musk made judgments about the future of travel on roads and in space, while at the same time General Motor’s former CEO, Rick Wagoner, made well-justified decisions that led to GM’s bankruptcy.  President George H.W. Bush made judgments after the collapse of the Soviet Union that prevented chaos in much of the world while his son, President George W. Bush, made decisions after 9/11 resulting in tragic losses of life and treasure and little, if any, meaningful gains.  The outcomes speak for themselves and point to a new rule to observe: worry as much or more about the knowns as the unknowns.

The mindset of the executive who makes judgments vs. those who make decisions is worth exploring.  All the executives listed above are intelligent and well-intentioned human beings.  They vary in experience levels, but that alone does not assure judgment-making over decision-making.  We must look at the cognitive nature of each executive.  Do they view the world as a zero-sum game where limits define options, or a world awash in possibilities?  Do they see issues as black or white, good or evil, or are they intrigued by the nuanced spaces between?  Do they have the ability to see and argue different sides of an issue—possessed of an opposable mind—or do they easily dismiss other options in favor of their predispositions?  Are they deliberative or impulsive?  Do they surround themselves with people who can replace them, or with those who see them as irreplaceable?  Are they curious, or are they certain? Are the unknowns a source of fear, or a venue of creative opportunity?  These are the questions we should all ask of ourselves and of those we choose as our leaders.  These are the considerations that produce judgments over decisions and protect us all from the certainty trap.

Rebranding America

The cacophony that pervades American discourse today, where volume and pitch offend every meter of reasonableness, provides clear evidence that the struggle for American identity is once again underway.  Every eighty years or so America resets its image; reboots its brand.  It is never an easy or comfortable process and this time is no different.  Before I get into the current issues, however, allow me to provide some historical perspective.

Upon reaching the shores of Massachusetts Bay in the summer of 1630 on the ship Arbella, John Winthrop, echoing Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, framed the requirements and expectations of his voyage-worn future colonists in a sermon that resonated throughout American history.  His Model of Christian Charity[1] articulated a sense of independence, duty, and blessings to those who honored their covenant with God.  Winthrop claimed,

the Lord hath given us leave to draw our own Articles’ and that ‘he ratified this Covenant and sealed our Commission [and] will expect a strikt performance of the Articles’ that if neglected in any way would cause ‘the Lord [to] surely breake out in wrath against us’ but if we set the example of His Word, ‘hee shall make us a prayse and glory… for we must Consider that wee shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eies of all people are uppon us ...[2]

Winthrop envisioned “Massachusetts as the ideal place to build a Puritan utopia untainted by the corruptions of the Church of England and distant from a suspect English monarch.”[3]  It was up to the colonists to live up to the standard of the “chosen people” living in the “chosen land”—a “City upon a Hill.”  He defined the Puritan ethos of the new American colonies: independence from the hierarchy of the Church of England; a constant struggle with sin, salvation, and battles against evil; and a high commitment to work and its just rewards with “attention fixed on God.”[4]  In so doing, he also set theological covenant as a standard of social order.  Winthrop believed he could “transfer the principles of nationhood found in ancient Israel to [his] Massachusetts Bay Company with no need for explanation.”[5]

Over the last two hundred thirty-eight years, this sense of American exceptionalism has proven to be the most durable of all aspects of American identity.[6]  Every president, regardless of political affiliation or disposition, has embraced the idea of America’s special role in the world.  Most American citizens, albeit with different interpretations and varying degrees of fervor, similarly believe in the ‘specialness’ of America. We should remind ourselves, however, that by world historical standards a two hundred thirty-eight year-old country is just a pup, at most a testy teen. And like an adolescent, our identity—what it means to be an American—will evolve, subject to new interpretations of old values and perhaps even new values, to craft a new image to be projected across the world.  Notwithstanding the somewhat clumsy brilliance and beauty of America’s early years, we must be mindful that the great powers that preceded America faced the reality of maturation and decline.  There is no reason to believe we won’t face the same arc of maturation.  We might aim to age gracefully, retaining our sense of exceptionalism—preferably as an exemplar rather than missionary— but a graceful course is far from certain.[7]  

This process of American re-identification is natural and recurring.  It actually follows a discernible pattern that includes a four-phase cycle comprised of periods of objectivism, then radicalism, idealism, and finally crisis, each full cycle spanning approximately eighty years.  The first cycle began after the Revolutionary War and founding of our country, then again after the Civil War, and then again following the Great Depression and our entrance into World War II.  At the end of each period of crisis a new American identity is negotiated that more or less endures for the next eighty years.  Following the founding of our country, America embraced an identity as “the new world.”  After the Civil War, America identity evolved to “the land of opportunity.” Since the mid-1940s, when America last re-identified itself as an emerging “world power,” our collective identity has been focused on attaining superpower status.  Today, twenty-five years after the collapse of the Soviet Union and our own (mis)adventures as a political superpower and overseer of the world’s financial markets, we are faced with a diminished, if not severely compromised, sense of American exceptionalism.  In effect, we are standing in the middle of another period of crisis and renegotiation of identity, which is always contentious as evidenced by those at the extremes making more noise than the vast majority who sit between them. Liberty, capitalism, democracy, civil and human rights, all of which we believed, as President Lincoln did, would collude to form a more perfect union—the “last best hope of earth”—needs yet another makeover. [8]

Our union today is hardly cohesive and the invocation of hope seems an empty refrain. “Superpower” no longer rings true when the institutions we have developed to serve our interests and project power appear to be collapsing under the weight of hubris and avarice.  Since the end of the Cold War, rather than following the example of President George H.W. Bush by behaving with a sense of restraint and humility, America’s leaders—political, business, religious, and academic —have puffed out their chests and spewed their decrees with the bravado and rectitude of a freshly saved sinner.  These behaviors are markers of a period of high idealism that precede every crisis.[9]  And, as if our own guile was insufficient, now comes a tome of criticism aimed at a fundamental tenant of American exceptionalism—capitalism—by the economist Thomas Piketty.  Not since 1959, when Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev flustered then Vice President Richard Nixon in what became known as the “Kitchen Debates” have Americans had to bear such criticism about capitalism.  However, unlike Krushchev, Piketty’s study is well researched, well written, and delivered with a clear expression of limits and, moreover, humility.

Piketty’s basic argument is that a society’s adherence to the principles of capitalism—as the most efficient system of allocating capital and distributing wealth—results, in the long run, in a highly skewed distribution of wealth in favor of the very few that, among other effects, compromises other liberal democratic values, including democracy itself.  In short, capitalism threatens democracy.  This is based on his finding that the rate of return on capital is consistently higher than the rate of return on labor, by about three percentage points.  Over decades, this condition (absent significant policy interventions or war) moves more and more wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people.  Furthermore, he shows, that the impact this has had on the concentration of wealth in the hands of the 1% is no more alarming than in the United States.[10] 

We need look no farther than Washington, D.C. to see that the effects Piketty warns us about are blooming with the ferocity of fertilized dandelions on the Washington Mall.  Money has always held sway over politicians, but now more than ever moneyed interests funded by those who enjoy higher returns from capital have a vice-like grip on Congress. We no longer “get the government we deserve” through our votes, we get the government people like the Koch brothers have purchased.  Across the street from Congress, the Supreme Court is doing its bit too.  It has decided, as Mitt Romney claimed on the campaign stump in 2012, that corporations are citizens too.  Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission (2010) and other decisions like the more recent Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) that support this notion of corporate personhood, and which I expect may someday will be viewed as just as ridiculous as the holding of “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), provide a growing body of evidence that suggests a slide from democracy to plutocracy—those with the gold rule.

Plutocracy is not all bad if all you want is a more functional government.  Fewer people with influence means more things are likely to get done, but will they be things that benefit most Americans, or few?  Moreover, plutocracy threatens more than the democracy it supplants, it threatens the very essence of individualism and independence, which are at the core of another tenant of American identity: liberty.  When those with the gold rule, there are a whole list of other “INs” that are at risk: invention, ingenuity, inspiration, initiative and innovation; inclusiveness, integration and integrity; and perhaps most importantly, intelligence and intellect—our collective brainpower.  Opportunity, like wealth, becomes concentrated too.  As Piketty points out, in the history of 19^th century France, the last time similar levels of wealth concentration occurred, inheritance rather than merit defined the path to wealth and opportunity.  Is that where we want America to go?  Will whom we marry matter more than an advanced degree?  Will the next iteration of American identity be that of a wildly wealthy few and a mass of commoners for whom the American dream is restricted to something to read about in the diaries of their grandparents and great-grandparents?  Will privilege trump merit?  Will democracies continue to be replaced by authoritarian regimes across the world?[11] 

If egalitarianism in America (heralded by Tocqueville in Democracy in America) is another durable thread of American identity, it is at best frayed and in need of repair.  However, such values like egalitarianism—broadly interpreted— may not have survived America’s coming of age as a superpower.  Egalitarianism today may be limited to those strands that support civil and human rights, not economic opportunity.  This issue is the anvil against which America’s next identity—especially as it pertains to its economic system—will be hewn.  Indeed, pundit-economists like Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz believe economic rights are an issue of equality, rather than equity; of entitlement more than merit, while others who follow the teachings of Ludvig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek believe the Krugman/Stiglitz world is, to use Hayek’s phrase, the “road to serfdom.”[12]  Of course, seldom do the extremes of any range of argument—the polar endpoints—produce solutions with more benefit than (unintended) costs.  Even Alan Greenspan, a staunch protégé of Ayn Rand’s, realized (perhaps too late) that her argument of the perfectly rational man as a virtuous economic actor was deeply flawed.[13]  So, the question is, in this contentious period of re-identification, can we retain the benefits of capitalism while avoiding its apparent endgame of a very wealthy few?  Unfortunately, the answer is probably no.

Absent the destruction of capital that we saw in World War I and II, which, as Piketty illustrates, flipped diverging rates of return on capital and labor to converging rates, the only way to stem the concentration of wealth and affect redistribution is through various tax schemes, any and all of which are anathema to the Mises/Hayek school and its many wealthy supporters.  Reading Piketty’s proposals of a global tax, or others who have put forward similar tax schemes is like reading a new version of Alice in Wonderland, prompting the query: did Piketty get into Lewis Carroll’s stash?  However, things happen, like the collapse of the Soviet Union, that still amaze people like me, so who knows?

The American values we have historically held dear; that basket of values that includes ideas like liberty, individualism, capitalism, merit, democracy, civil and human rights needs a new handhold we can believe in—a new identity.  Coming of age is an inelegant and klutzy process, but to-date America has handled it mostly well.  We have created more prosperity than any predecessor power in the history of the world.  When called to defeat evil like Hitler’s Third Reich, we put our blood and treasure on the line and, with great help from allies and, in particular, Stalin’s Russia, we won.  We have, for the most part, lived up to Winthrop’s ideal of a “city upon a hill.”  Adulthood is, however, knocking at America’s door. 

·      Will our leaders be wise and graceful, or continue in the vain and bilious manner portrayed by too many today? 

·      Will we be exemplars of self-restraint and moderation, or zealous missionaries of consumptive duplicity? 

·      Will we lock the gates to America, or continue to embrace those who come from foreign lands? 

·      Will we educate our children to know more than us, or fail to enable their dreams? 

·      Will we honor science and take reasonable measures to affect climate change, or will we continue to chant “Drill, baby, drill!”?

·      Will we fight to engineer a system that protects and rewards merit balanced by empathy, or will we accept the pernicious effects of concentrated wealth and its natural progeny plutocracy? 

·      Will we be welcomed in the capitols of the world, or be regarded with contempt and trepidation?

·      Will we honor our American heritage and come together to relight the city upon the hill, or continue to strut down a pathway to irrelevance?

 

In sum, will America be rebranded as ‘beneficent stewards’ of the future of the world, or will the nation of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and Hamilton become an isolated, self-centered, and decaying archetype of entropy?  These are the choices we face as we step forward to rebrand America.  Other great powers in the history of the world faced the same dilemma; some succeeded, some failed.  There is no clear roadmap to follow and nothing will be determined in the next election, or Supreme Court decision, or annual statement of profit and loss.  This is a result that will be determined by the decisions and actions of individual Americans every day.  Like water carving a new gorge in a mountain of stone, it will be the collective will of the people, expressed in their nearly imperceptible movements that will set the course of the next eighty-year cycle.  The loudest among us will not prevail; it will be the actions—not words—of the vast majority of us who decide how to behave as Americans each and every day.

---

[1] Winthrop’s Modell of Christian Charity is available in his papers, volume II, at The Massachusetts Historical Society, http://www.masshist.org/books/winthrop.cfm.

[2] Winthrop in Conrad Cherry, ed., God's New Israel: Religious Interpretations of American Destiny (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998), p. 40.

[3] Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Dilemma: The Story of John Winthrop (New York: Pearson Longman, 2006), p. ix.

[4] Ibid., p. 5.

[5] Mark A. Noll, Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden, The Search for Christian America (Colorado Springs: Helmers & Howard Publishers, 1989), p. 34.

[6] See an expanded analysis of exceptionalism and other aspects of American identity in my forthcoming book from Palgrave Macmillan, Presidential Faith and Foreign Policy: Jimmy Carter the Disciple and Ronald Reagan the Alchemist.

[7] This notion of two forms of exceptionalism—exemplar and missionary—are thoroughly illustrated in H.W. Brands, What America Owes the World: The Struggle for the Soul of Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), and Trevor B. McCrisken, American Exceptionalism and the Legacy of Vietnam: US Foreign Policy Since 1974 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003).

[8] Abraham Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1962.

[9] This period of idealism is a dialectic synthesis of objective method and ‘settled’ radical ideas/values from the preceding period(s). Assertion of this synthesis is projected on an often-unwilling populace, both domestic and foreign. Other common markers of periods of idealism include hubris, certitude, grandeur, and consumption-based economies. Conspicuous consumption. Get rich quick. Speculation. Deregulation. Class inequalities. High religiosity.  Periods of idealism include 1835-60, 1915-29, and 1985-2007.

[10] There are those, however, who dismiss the importance of the gap between today’s rich and poor in the United States.  Gilbert Chin and Elizabeth Culotta, editors at Science, suggest it is not so bad.  They point out that it is much worse in South Africa (even though it is worse than more likely comparable economies like those of Japan, Europe, and all of Scandinavia.)  I am not sure I can remember another time we have pointed at South Africa to make ourselves feel better, as Americans; at least not since apartheid. See Gilbert Chin and Elizabeth Culotta, “The Science of Inequality: What the Numbers Tell Us.” Science, 344:6186, May 23, 2014, p. 820.

[11] See Joshua Kurlantzick, Democracy in Retreat: The Revolt of the Middle Class and the Worldwide Decline of Representative Government (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013).

[12] Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom: A Classic Warning Against the Dangers to Freedom Inherent in Social Planning (London: George Routledge and Sons, 1944)

[13] See Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (New York: Penguin Group, 2008).  See also, Jerome Tuccille, Alan Shrugged: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan, the World’s Most Powerful Banker (Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2002).