Perhaps we are on the cusp of our second “irrepressible
conflict,” the first being to “determine whether the nation would be dominated by a system of
free labor or slave labor.” That first conflict ushered in our first American
Civil War. And, yes, it was about
slavery, mostly. But for now, what if we
changed “free labor” to “higher educated” and “slave labor” to
“under-educated”? Could we be talking
about another such conflict, a social and cultural condition of irresolvable
differences based on distinctly differing core understandings of our society’s
traditions and values? Opposing views of
the meaning of “freedom,” the Bill of Rights, “democracy,” “republic,” “hard earned money,” representative
government, “justice,” and so on—are thought to be universal concepts that all
citizens agree on. But do all of us citizens
actually agree? Or have we reached the
point in our evolution at which each of us by our individual “right” can
determine what these concepts mean? And
if we have reached that point, are we then no longer a unified pluralistic and
secular society—no longer e pluribus unum? And if we are not, what can the consequences
be?
In his 1858 speech (the source of the quotation), William H.
Seward felt that final question had been answered—the only way to resolve the irrepressible
differences was to enter a conflict that risked the destruction of the
nation. His proclamation became the
underlying principle of what followed.
I think we will avoid civil war.
I don’t think we have the courage for that. But I do think that the people of the United
States will no longer share an interest in accepting or believing in our
cultural commonality, an agreed upon system of values. What we are experiencing is a shift from our
acceptance that we are a nation of diversity to an acceptance that we are a
nation of divergence, of turning away from and turning inward. As the street protests grow in their response
to the absurdity of the election of 2016, we will hear much about our “belief”
that we are a nation of laws. But, in
fact, we are a nation of money and its power to control every facet and need of
our daily lives, from our education to our health to our identity to our longevity,
and so on. Whatever laws enter or are a part
of that, those laws exist merely to justify and sustain that power. One of the great ironies inherent in our
condition is that virtually the rest of the world understands the truth of it.
I reach this conclusion reluctantly and unhappily. I have written on this blog and elsewhere
about how the creep of various forms of insular and self-absorbing media
formats (such as this blog) and other cultural stressors have undermined our cultural
cohesion. We have become alone together. Add to that the loss for millions of Americans
of the stability and reliability of a reasonable means of sustenance and
community, which includes their cherished belief system, and you have an
unforgiving gulf between those people and the others for whom that loss is not
so perilously felt and experienced (see J.D. Vance's Hillbilly Elegy). For
people on either side of this gulf, fear has risen from an incidental emotion
to a metastasizing central part of their consciousness. And that experience becomes a vigorous
motivator.
Some observers have decided that the street protests we’re
experiencing are no more than the same things that happened in the 60s. I disagree.
The 60s protests were opposed to a war, to its execution and to its
consequences that were seen to be detrimental to our culture and our
government. Our current protests oppose
what is seen as the destruction of our traditions and values. The threat is seen very much as internal,
rather than external. To avoid an
irrepressible conflict Americans must seek to restore their commonality. If what have become labeled as the so-called
coastal elites and the fly-over states as geographical representations of the
gulf and become acceptable (as in North vs. South), we will be headed for a more
serious dilemma than an absurd election.
It will be our time “for something entirely different.”
No comments:
Post a Comment