On The Fall of Basic Decency in the United States.

Political Philosophy
1

To my dearest Americans,

In the course of the history of the great republican experiment set forth by our forefathers some two hundred and fifty years ago, the Republic stood through the passing of ages and the emergences of eras, and Glory flew, with its Stars and Stripes, a symbol of Liberty, Freedom, and a Dream, a Dream of promise, hope, and opportunity.

Our history, however, is not one of perfection. It is a story of imperfections and failure, of pain, of war, of upheaval. Yet an understanding remained among the people of the Republic, a common understanding that Liberty required responsibility and care, and that disagreement need not become hatred. Our political opponents, despite all our disagreements, were still fellow citizens, no matter the width of the aisle.

Yet, in our modern day, in the world provided to us in the aftermath of the War on Terror, that understanding is slipping from our grasp.

No more is there an understanding. For the lifetime of the Youth, they were told that the true enemy of the Republic lay abroad, whether economic or military. Yet in the course of world history, rarely does a Democracy’s fall come from the influence of those abroad. It comes from within, for it is when the People abandon the civic virtues embodied in the Declaration of Independence that the Republic falls.

The modern citizen is given access to information on a scale never available until the modern day, yet seems less willing to understand the viewpoints of the Opposition. Rather, the modern citizen retreats into their ideological camp, refusing to hear any such rhetoric that may rebut their own, seemingly immovable, convictions.

As these ideological camps grow ever more insulated, the ability to engage in good-faith disagreement deteriorates on an incredibly quick rate. Political opposition in the modern world is no longer regarded as a difference of opinion between fellow free citizens, but as evidence of moral failure or malicious intent. Americans, in their ideological camps, seek not to persuade, but to defeat and humiliate their opponents. In such an environment, compromise becomes a near-impossible task, as it becomes suspect. Understanding becomes weakness, and the spirit of republican government begins to erode.

A healthy republic requires a willingness not only to win, but to lose elections. No citizen will prevail in every contest, nor every party in every November. Yet increasingly we respond to political defeat not with renewed persuasion, but with a mob mentality form of bitterness. We forget that our opponents possess the same right to participate in self-government as we do, and that the legitimacy of a republic depends on our willingness to accept the judgement of our fellow citizens.

Modern discourse, especially in the mediums of social media, has become increasingly governed by outrage. The most inflammatory voices are elevated through algorithms, while the thoughtful, those capable of reasoned deliberation, are thoroughly ignored. Complex issues have become a matter of tribal competition, becoming simplified contests of loyalty to one’s party rather than rational debates of principle. Such tendencies may appear harmless, yet they strike at the very foundation upon which the Republic rests.

The true foundations of a republic lay in the character of its citizens. When loving your neighbor despite your disagreements overrides the instinctual human desire to hate, a republic flourishes. Yet when such love, honesty, and care gives way to impulse and hatred, and of primary importance, when partisan fanaticism eclipses common decency does a republic falter.

Of importance to note is that disagreement is the lifeblood of the Free People. A nation lacking disagreement is but a dictatorship. It is, however, of great importance that disagreement be tempered by decency.

Yet it is this same decency that has slowly eroded from public life, especially in the aftermath of the September 11th Attacks and the War on Terror. Too often do we seek not to understand our opponents, but to condemn them. Political discourse has become little but a contest of loyalties. Citizens are judged by their faction, Republican or Democrat, rather than by the merit of their character. In such environments, the aisle begins to widen, and our divisions grow ever greater. The bonds that unite the citizenry gradually weaken.

Thus has the aisle widened.

For too long has the aisle been widened! A patriot need not despise his neighbor to love his country. Moderation is cowardice, compromise is weakness, we are increasingly told. Such ideas poison the spirit of the Republic.

I implore you, my beloved Countrymen, narrow the aisle! Rise above hatred! Rise up and find peace with one another. Let understanding triumph over resentment and decency above fanaticism! For should you ignore, will our greatest enemy not be found beyond our shores. Our true enemy is naught but ourselves. Decency must be victorious for the future of the Republic.

Let not decency fall.

Signed,

Cleisthenes

2 Likes
2

Greetings! Welcome to the forum!

I enjoyed your speech for its energy and uncompromising nature. I think the decline (relative to ideals) can be defined not simply as the existence of the circumstances you listed, but rather as society’s deafness to speeches and gestures like yours.

So, I’m not simply talking about the existence of problems (which have always existed) but about the lack of a mechanism for overcoming them and returning to ideals.

On the other hand, the text also conveys a certain normativity: “the ideals chosen by the founding fathers = good.” But what if that’s not necessarily true?

3

Hypothetical question. What are the true intentions of the newly-indecent?

I suspect such indecent people are playing a new kind of game where they can be indecent in a role and then revert to being decent again as soon as the game is over, absolving them of having committed a “real” infringement.

If I am right, your plea is complicated by this dual-aspect nature of being selectively indecent in certain roles. Such individuals are unlikely to believe they have, or are, a problem.

4

A fish rots from the head, and ungodly smells have been rising from across the pond since 1963.

5

I’d put it down to two things, the first not specific to the US:

  1. It’s always been advantageous for the wealthy and powerful to get working men to blame each other for their problems. And the tools for doing this have got more effective over time.
    For example, hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by republican PACs on anti-trans adverts.
    Accordingly, there are vastly more people who engage in anti-trans bigotry than have even met someone who is trans.

  2. “The america as #1” meme. I think this idea ironically is responsible for many problems, as it means america is immune to seeing ways that it’s falling behind, or copying good ideas from other countries. But more seriously it has spilled into white christian supremacy and an utter lack of concern for Iranians, Cubans, Palestinians etc as human beings – basically a 21st century “manifest destiny”.

6

First of all, thank you for your kind words regarding my writing. I wrote this under the presumption it would be ignored.

This question made me think for quite a bit, but I think I have an answer.
The answer is that it isn’t. There’s no real universal law on what makes a system of government “good”, as that falls into the eyes of the beholder. Someone could agree that fascism is the correct form of government. Another could argue that parliamentary government is correct. Admittedly, I believe I shouldn’t have wrote specifically to Americans.

7
  1. Absolutely! And that’s why I want people to be kind to be kind to one another.
  2. That is another thing. I also wanted to write a paper on the dangers of American exceptionalism. Maybe I should still write that one.
8

Interesting point. I think that brings up an point regarding the Internet. People are often so kind in real life, but become “indecent” as you describe, on the Internet to spread inflammatory rhetoric. Thanks for the comment!

9

What exactly do you mean? I assume you are referring to the United States from a European perspective. Do you mean the Civil Rights Movement, the Assassination of Kennedy, or the Counterculture Movement, or are you just referring to 1963 in general?

10

No doubt Donald Trump has instigated a downturn blip in civility, truth, and respect for the Constitution. However, the notion that we should return to some halcyon past ignores the realities of history.

Was there more care for “liberty” in the days of legal slavery? Weren’t more than half of the people living in South Carolina enslaved? How about in the time when schools, bathrooms and busses were segregated? Did that indicate “a common understanding that Liberty required responsibility and care”?

Were we more understanding of political opposition in the McCarthy era, when accused Communists were blacklisted, imprisoned and banned? How about when the National Guard shot those students at Kent State?

Were political opponents still “fellow citizens” if they were black, or Native American?

It is of course true that Trump seems to want to turn in the direction of North Korea, installing himself as the Beloved Leader. WE shall see whether this is a short downturn in the direction of moral progress, or a blight that will alter the United States forever. In either case, we should not ignore the past, and falsely believe that THESE are the only times which try men’s souls.

11

Yes, the long view of American history feels encouraging.

The short view can feel damned unsettling.

12

Don’t worry, over the years, I’ve become accustomed to American-centricity. It’s an interesting word, isn’t it? But it’s precisely this that allows me to describe the degree of immersion in the subject matter required of a non-American reader…

Once upon a time, people (mostly adherents of Western philosophy) strove for God, then for truth, then for America! And I’m not joking.

I’m just a humble resident of a humble Asian country, but I can easily feel the poignancy of the American concern for what is right. And that in itself means something!

On the other hand, you impressed me with your answer, which (unexpectedly) managed to incorporate a reflection on your own position.

This seems like an excellent start in the philosophical field! Once again, welcome!

13

The idea that our differences today are so extreme that they might be more likely to lead us to civil war more than ever before is contradicted by the fact that our differences once actually did lead us to civil war.

The point being that I don’t believe the current state of discontent is unique, just now it has an overlay of new inventions and modern life. It would be difficult to argue that the Vietnam and Civil Rights era was a time of calm and harmony. Our kids were dying in jungles, JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X were all shot dead, massive riots, bombings, all with a WW2 generation clashing with an alien race of hippies.

The rich have always played a disproportionate role in America as well. We are a nation founded by English aristocrats. It was J.P. Morgan’s (now JPMorgan Chase Bank) personal wealth that bailed out the US in 1907 along with Rockefeller (now Citigroup) and many of the nation’s wealthiest people. The creation of the federal reserve was heavily influenced if not spearheaded by J.P. Morgan. That is, our national bank, the heart of our economy, was created by the wealthy.

President Andrew Jackson got in a bar room brawl involving guns and knives where he was shot in the shoulder and almost died. He shot and killed Charles Dickenson in a duel. Famous qoute by him: “I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun.” Trump’s bluster holds no candle to Jackson.

It’s all romanticizing to suggest otherwise, which is fine, but just realize it’s a building of a mythology, not a statement of reality. To the extent it might motivate that we all behave better to speak of our ideals and pretend that Washington was so honest he admitted to cutting down the cherry tree, then it has its value, but let us not pretend the human soul has rotted from a more pristine state over time. We always have been imperfect, nuanced, complicated, and amazing creations.

14

That is a fair enough statement. I believe, in my eyes, for most of American history, I feel as if Decency has become less and less prevalent.

Liberty, in my mind, is something that all wish for in the United States, no matter how it is interpreted. The problem is, that when one sees another interpretation of what liberty is, there is no attempt to understand the opposition, and rather partisan hatred.

Keep in mind this is nothing new. But from my experience, at least in the last 20 years, basic decency has declined to a point where we have reverted to how we were in the decade before the American Civil War.

15

I believe I should have specified that I am aware that is nothing new. A correction I should have made is that I was more referring to the past three decades. Note that I referred specifically to the era following the September 11th attacks.

16

So in 1832, South Carolina passed a law that any tarriff exacted upon it by the federal government was null and void. Jackson passed the “Force Bill” which gave him the right to march onto South Carolina and take his money. He and Senator Clay (the guy Jackson said he wished he shot, and he meant it because he was going to march onto S.C.) eventually worked out a compromise.

That defiance of the federal government was obviously a prelude to the Civil War, with the first shots being fired upon Ft. Sumpter, off the coast of Charleston, again in SC.

My point here is just to say that state officials objecting to Trump’s sending in of federal law enforcement to enforce controversial immigration policies doesn’t come close to state legislation that amounts to secession.

Even in the George Wallace days in the 1960s (The lovely slogan, “Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”) he stepped aside and allowed the federal government to integrate the University of Alabama. Think that one through. The governor literally stood in the doorway of the University of Alabama along with the Alabama National Guard to physically block 2 black students from entering, only to relent when JFK federalized the Guard and took authority from the governor.

Wallace then formed his own party, ran in the 1968 presidential election, and swept Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Lousiana, and Missippi.

I just don’t think we’re anywhere close to that complete crazy.

17

I will answer with one “word”: MAGA. They may not be their own party, but they are anarchists who refuse the basic fundamentals of kindess as outlined in the Bible, which they claim to believe in: “Love thy neighbor.”

18

The AMA has had to put out guidelines for vaccinations this flu season because the CDC has become somewhat confused about the benefits of vaccines.

Crazy times.

19

Neither MAGA individuals nor Trump are “anarchists”. In fact, they promote a form of oligarchy, with deranged Donald leading the way. In addition, the right wing is hardly more lacking in “basic… kindness” than the left; both despise one another.

When Andrew Jackson sent the Cherokee to Oklahoma on the Trail of Tears, his order was declared unconstitutional by the Marshall-led supreme court. Jackson supposedly quipped, “Marshall has made his decision, now let’s see him enforce it.”

20

Anarchists in the way that they feel as if they can do whatever they want whenever they want, if that makes sense. And I’m not taking sides. Do not assume that I am. I wrote this page as a criticism of the entire United States.