The Demise of the Melting Pot

During the 1800s and up until around 1920, immigrants to this country were assimilated into American culture and society.  Although there were immigrants from a myriad of countries, the vast majority of them came from Europe.  Within a few generations they were all Americans, forged in the crucible of democracy, freedom, and civic responsibility.  Eighteen million men, women, and children were assimilated into this country between 1890 and 1920.  They learned English and sent their children to school on order to learn what it meant to be an American.  They may have celebrated their ethnicity in neighborhoods or on religious holidays but at heart, first and foremost, they were Americans. 

Today, the United States is experiencing its second great wave of immigration.  This time they come, not from Europe, but from the world of Asia and Latin America.  And they want to completely retain their ethnicity, along with their language and culture.  They want to have their own schools, shop in their own shops, speak their own language.  In historic numbers these immigrants do not wish to be assimilated into American culture and society.   

The question that remains, according to social historians, is what direction this shift will take us.  Undoubtedly, it will severely test the melting pot idea which has been so central to our national identity – the process by which this country transforms its immigrants from people of every color and background into “one America.” 

These same social historians fear that our nation will continue to fracture into many separate, disconnected communities without a shared sense of purpose or meaningful interaction among them.  We see this fracture beginning to develop as there is more emphasis on preserving one’s identity, of finding ways to highlight and defend one’s cultural roots.  If one doubts this, just look at the neighborhoods where people live, the politicians they vote for, the friends they have, churches and schools they attend, and the music they listen to. 

Herein lies the basic question:  As a nation caught up in this change, is there enough glue to hold Americans together?

The Lure of the Inner Ring

In 1961 when Gus Grissom’s spacecraft sunk, he reportedly said, “the hatch just blew.” Today, forty-seven years later, we hear similar excuses from people who desire to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. We hear, “mistakes were made,” or “the system failed us.”

In 1944, C.S. Lewis told a class of university students, “to nine out of 10 of you the choice which could lead to scoundrelism will come, when it does come, in no very dramatic colours. Obviously bad men, obviously threatening or bribing, will almost certainly not appear.”

He was saying that when the temptation to do wrong came, it would come in a form hard to resist. “Over a drink or a cup of coffee, disguised as triviality and sandwiched between two jokes, from the lips of a man, or woman, whom you have recently been getting to know rather better and whom you hope to know better still — just at the moment when you are most anxious not to appear crude, . . . – the hint will come.”

Once drawn in, the next week will mark a further departure from the rules, and so on until you cannot bear to return to where you once were. The lure of the Inner Ring, the desire to be one of the chosen, is the hardest to resist. The lure of the Inner Ring, Lewis says, “is most skillful in making a man who is not yet a very bad man do very bad things.”

We see this every day at work and at play. We cannot resist the siren call of the Inner Ring but when the consequences of our bad judgment storm our door, we simply say, “Mistakes were made.” Notice we do not say, “I screwed up.” Someone or something else caused our demise. Enron just happened.

Is there an antidote to this poison? Sure, but it requires a moral compass, character and personal responsibility. Don’t have a moral compass? Try reading philosophy, religion, or the great books of our time. Find a mentor. Decide you will not succumb to the lure of the Inner Ring and live your life as only you decide.

America’s Dance

This fall, as we head toward the national election, we Americans will argue two main issues – the war in Iraq and the economy.  Looming even larger than the war is the threat of economic recession and what effect it will have on our pocketbooks and our psyche.  The debate will center on what role our government should play in these uncertain times.  Should our government institute controls and regulations to prevent unscrupulous business practices from wiping out our retirements and savings?  Should the government step in and prevent these large conglomerates from going under even though they made unsound investment choices?

 

Or should we allow those who made unwise choices to pay the penalty for their actions and go into receivership or bankruptcy?  If I as an individual buy a house whose payment I cannot afford, isn’t the end result usually that I lose my home?  Isn’t that a right and proper consequence of my stupidity?

 

On the other hand if we allow these big businesses to go under it will affect millions of people, most of whom had nothing to do with the decisions of the company.  If you own stock in a company that one day sells for $170 a share and now it is selling for $2, you have lost real money.  Your retirement is wiped out.

 

So, I ask again.  What is the proper role of government in this arena?  Do we want more government oversight or do we let these corporations deal with the consequences of their actions even if it means loss of jobs and money? 

 

Let me hear from you.

John McCain’s War Revisited

After posting John McCain’s War earlier this week, I have been asked by several people to take a couple of his foreign policy ideas and expound on them based on what he said in his Foreign Affairs article.  So here we go.  Please comment what you read here.  Debate and discussion is good.

1)     Privatize sanction effort with other countries.  John McCain thinks that if Iran were to be protected by a nuclear arsenal, it would be more willing and able to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy, including the US, even pass nuclear materials on to its allied terrorist networks.  He feels that the US must be able to act outside the framework of the United Nations to impose tough, effective multilateral sanctions against Iran.  Especially refined gasoline.  He wants to isolate and delegitimize the regime in Tehran.

2)     Create Army Advisory Corps.  This corps would partner with militaries abroad to engage in Special Forces operations, civil affairs activities, military policing, and military intelligence.  It would help the nonmilitary deployable police force to help maintain law and order in places threatened by state collapse.

3)     Create a worldwide League of Democracies.  John McCain insists that this would not be similar to Woodrow Wilson’s failed League of Nations but would be like Teddy Roosevelt wanted – like-minded nations working together when the UN fails.  Like what happened in Rwanda, Darfur, etc.  It would provide unimpeded market access to those countries who endorse economic and political freedom.

Now, I am not saying that these objectives are necessarily all bad, just that they might be.  They certainly will cost a lot of money, money that might be better spent here at home.  Also, I am uneasy about the United States becoming intimately involved in a foreign country’s internal affairs.  The fact that a nation does not completely stand with the United States in all facets of world politics does not make them our enemy.  This is essential politics – finding a way to work with others who differ with you toward a common purpose.

Stay tuned for more of these in the next few days and please feel free to post a comment.

John McCain’s War

In the November/December 2007 issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Senator John McCain outlined his vision for America’s future in the war against terrorism. In the article he argued how he, as the next President, would push US foreign policy and what programs he would institute. The following is a list from that article.

1) Tougher political and economic sanctions against Iran.

2) Privatize the sanctions effort with other allies

3) Help friendly Muslim states build open and tolerant states

4) Establish a free-trade area from Morocco to Afghanistan

5) Increase size of US Army and Marine Corps to 900,000 troops

6) Increase military equipment

7) Create an Army Advisory Corps of 20,000 to partner with militaries abroad

 Create a nonmilitary deployable force to train foreign forces

9) Launch programs in civilian and military schools for education in Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, and Pashto

10) Enlarge the military’s Foreign Area Officer Program for strategic interrogation

11) Create a new agency patterned after the Office of Strategic Services

12)Expand post conflict reconstruction capabilities

13) Create a new independent agency similar to the disbanded US Information Agency

14) Create a League of Democracies to act independent of the United Nations

15) Seek elevated partnership with Indonesia to expand defense cooperation with Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam

16) Seek to institutionalize new quadrilateral security partnership among Asia-Pacific democracies

17)Complete trade agreements with Malaysia and Thailand

After contemplating this list, does anyone really think that this is not just a further extension of the Bush-Cheny doctrine of meddling overseas? And at what cost? Even if we bring a good portion of our troops home next year from Iraq, the above list will cost an enormous amount of taxpayer money.

Does anyone who reads this blog want John McCain’s war? Please let me hear from you, pro or con. What we need is dialogue and debate before the voting starts.

“…our next president will have a mandate to build an enduring global peace on the foundations of freedom, security, opportunity, prosperity, and hope.” John McCain

What Price Freedom?

“They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security.”    Benjamin Franklin

 

In a recent poll Americans were asked if they would give up a little freedom for additional security.  To my amazement, 50% answered, “Yes.”  So it seems a whole lot of people pin their hopes of security on our government’s ability to deliver it.  I would guess that most Americans have no understanding of the Declaration of Independence, or our Constitution or Bill of Rights.  Listen to what concerns most people and you will hear things like crime, housing, poverty, the homeless, social security but you will seldom if ever hear worries that our government no longer holds to the foundations upon which our country was laid.  People don’t care what the government does as long as it takes care of them.  We want to be secure and we want to be comfortable; in other words, we want the government to take care of us.

 

Now I don’t think our government has acted malevolently in eroding our individual freedoms, they just have made serious errors in judgment.  The new-found powers to search and surveil, to have a national ID card, to have Google be required to turn over certain results of it’s search engine to the government will provide no guarantee of security.  In fact, these powers could be seen as the slippery slope which the wrong people in a future administration could use for a far more sinister purpose.

 

The Gestapo and the KGB could arrest and kill anyone at any time for any reason all in the name of security which was actually the greatest threat to that security.  Giving up freedom in no way insures that we will have more security.

 

Ironically, freedom does not guarantee security either.  But the 9/11 tragedy, although it left thousands dead and disrupted our economy for a while, did not endanger our nation, our way of life.  But the federal government did show that despite millions spent on defense it was unable to protect us entirely.  If we give in to this rush toward ever-increasing state control of our society for the sake of security, the freedoms we have enjoyed may dwindle away.

 

Security is an illusion.  Freedom is not.

A Seeker of Truth

“And you shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”  (John; Ch.8, v.32)

I want to be a seeker of truth.  What is this truth, however, that I seek?  The story of Adam and Eve’s fall in the garden reveals that their “sin” was seeking knowledge; they wanted to be like God.  But in the above statement, it is the knowledge of truth that we seek.  Isn’t KNOWING knowledge?  Isn’t knowledge the same thing as truth?

 

But then again is truth relative?  Could what is true for me be different than what is true for you?  We hear this all the time do we not?  My perception of truth is real, right?  On the other hand, millions of people thought the earth was flat and just because they thought the earth was flat did not make it the truth.  The truth was the earth was round in spite of what they thought or believed.  So, it is obvious we can take no comfort in what our friends, neighbors, religious leaders, parents, or other experts tell us.  They could be wrong in what they say is truth.

 

When Pilate asked Jesus, “What is Truth,?” what was the answer?  Silence.  Pilate left and we never know if Jesus answered.  Again, we are left in the dark.

 

When we talk of Truth most of us depend on reality to guide us.  What we see in nature is real and that reality we accept as Truth.  Is there some absolute Truth or reality we can depend on and if so how do we lay claim to it?   It has to be more than belief, for as we have seen belief may be wrong.

 

Please, someone, help me out of this quagmire!

 

I want to be a seeker of Truth.

Altruism As Mental Illness

Scientists and anthropologists have shown that certain animals, even amebas, show altruistic behavior at times.  Could this be the reason that concepts of altruism developed in the human race?  Society and religious orders have long touted the benefits of altruism for the betterment of our culture. 

But is it really? Altruism is the sacrificing of ones own self-interests for the sake of others.  Friedrich Nietzsche’s opinion of altruism and of self-sacrifice as a whole is that it is unnatural and self-destructive.  It eventually causes one to say no to life and to oneself.  To make someone else the beneficiary of one’s action instead of oneself will lead ultimately to mental illness. 

How does this work?  If a man accepts the ethics of altruism certain things will follow:   

1) Lack of self-esteem.  His first concern must be not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it.  Once one’s ego has been denied it becomes something novel and different, the abolition of the individual.  He will have no confidence in his own mind and judgment.   

2) Lack of respect for others.  When a man’s ego has been negated he sees mankind as a collection of doomed beggars crying for help.  One must seek out others who are miserable then sacrifice oneself to them, to a lesser or non-value. 

As Ayn Rand pointed out, in the end, altruism leaves one with no moral principles or guidance at all.  Psychologically, altruism is devastating and leads to treating oneself as less than worthy. 

On the other hand, Nietzsche espouses a principled form of egoism aimed at a healthy and accomplished lifestyle.  He describes a life of healthy and holy selfishness where the egoist bestows in abundance not simply because he is capable of doing so, but because in his abundance, this is how he fulfills himself and feels powerful, good, and virile.  He bestows gifts on others because it enhances his life.  This is not self-sacrificial.  The egoist decides when and to whom he will give and it is to those who are the most important in his life that he will give.  Egoism is now seen as a means of promoting generosity as goodwill and kindness cannot come from a person who disregards himself. 

People are done for when they become altruistic.  Saying “Yes” to oneself enables great acts of generosity and benevolence.

Talent Debunked!

Margaret Young, a popular singer in the 1920s once said,

 

“Often people attempt to live their lives backwards, they try to have more things, or more money, in order to do more of what they want, so they will be happier. The way it actually works is the reverse. You must first be who you really are, then do what you need to do, in order to have what you want.”

Does it really take natural talent to a become a great success? Research is showing that it does not.

 

So what makes Tiger Woods great or Warren Buffett the world’s premier investor? If it’s not talent, then what? If it’s not targeted natural gifts, what in the world is it?

 

A person only will achieve greatness through an enormous amount of hard work over many years and that work must be demanding and painful. You don’t want to hear that? You think you can coast to fame and riches once you find your talent?

 

Read on.

 

People usually learn quickly at first, followed by a plateau, then stop developing entirely. However, there are a few persons that continue to improve over many years, eventually becoming great at what they do. How are some people able to do this?

 

The answer seems to be that there is no such thing as a free lunch or free ride. Researchers have found that it takes about ten years of hard work before some people arrive at greatness. And it not just any type of hard work. The experts call it deliberate practice. Hitting a bucket of golf balls at the driving range is not deliberate practice. Hitting 500 balls to within 20 feet of the pin most of the time and doing that every day is what experts call deliberate practice. This requires discipline and feedback as to how one is doing. This deliberate practice model is found in all endeavors including music, art, athletic performance, medicine, and even business. Warren Buffett spends endless hours pouring over financial statements. Musicians spend countless days of practicing their craft.

 

So the lesson is simple. Don’t just do your job. Find your passion and begin deliberate practice to become great. Don’t be discouraged for it takes a minimum of ten years. The good news is that the more you work at it the better your performance will become. Greatness is not preordained; it is within the grasp of each of us.

The Scourge of Satan

There is a movement underfoot in America.  It began decades ago and has been inching its way into our national psyche and it is compromising and destroying our pioneer spirit.  We see the tenets of this movement most pointedly in this election cycle, touted by the candidates running for President and our leaders in Congress.  It is the idea that the group – the nation, the community, the proletariat, the race, etc. – is the primary unit of reality and the ultimate standard of value.  This philosophy, and it is a bastardized form of philosophy, holds that the needs and goals of the individual are subordinate to those of the larger group and should be sacrificed when the collective good so requires.  Achievement is the product of society.  Hillary Clinton calls for “a consensus of values and a common vision of what we can do today, individually and collectively, to build strong families and communities.”  The needs of the people take precedence over the rights of individuals.  Ultimately, this extends to the idea of an altruistic society where individuals must sacrifice and form a safety-net for those less fortunate.  It does not matter that certain individuals have shown no responsibility for their actions – have made poor life choices, have not saved for their future, wasted their lives with smoking, drugs, or alcohol, or never worked and earned a living – society must protect and provide for them.  Paternalistic economic and political policies treat adults like infants who cannot care for themselves without government help.

 

What is needed now is a return to individual freedoms and responsibility.  An integral part of responsibility is productivity; a person must seek to pull his own weight.  We, as a society, must return to the idea that every man is an independent, sovereign entity who posses an inalienable right to his own life.  Should we isolate ourselves from world affairs?  We should not.  Should we abandon trade with our neighbors?  We cannot.  Trade is necessary for our survival.  Should we cease being benevolent to others?  We must not.  But rekindling our revolutionary spirit of individual self-reliance and liberty can help us lead the world in these troubled times.  We need a new individualism that will restore political freedom and create a culture in which our children can survive and flourish.