October, 2009
Civic Virtue: Signs of Life in an Age of Low Expectations
Thank you for inviting me here today. I get good vibes from this room. My wife and I had our wedding reception here a few years ago. Congratulations for keeping Arpad in the money.
I spent 40 years in the classroom. But I’m not particularly comfortable with speeches and the lecture format. I prefer Socratic dialogues. I call lectures “full-frontal teaching”. It saves time but the retention rate is pretty low. But I don’t want to test you folks later. I just want to talk with you.
Brad Kent first asked me to speak some time ago. He thought voter apathy would be a timely topic. Well, that’s not going to work. We just witnessed one of the most exciting elections in our history. Millions of citizens enrolled for the first time. November 4th was a great day for American democracy. People all around the world were cheering us, many with tears in their eyes. We may well have rekindled the spirit of civil engagement in America. And this may be a better way of spreading democracy than our recent foreign policy has been. But only time will tell.
So with this sign that American voters are not quite apathetic, I’ve decided to modify the topic a bit. To speak to you about the state of our democracy in general.
We’re on our post-election honeymoon now. Many people are excited about what’s possible for America – especially in the area of pubic service and civic engagement. And they should be. But I don’t want the euphoria of the last two weeks to cause us to forget where we’ve been recently. Democracy has taken a hit over the past few years. And I’m not simply referring to the actions of the current administration. I’m talking about us. If this election has done anything, it has reminded us that the people are still in charge here. And any decline that democracy has experienced lately also falls at our feet. So I want to talk to you about the life blood of any democracy – civic virtue.
Civic virtue is the silent, unrecognized essence of patriotism. In our lifetimes, patriotism has mostly been linked with militarism. To support war is patriotic; to oppose war is unpatriotic. Rarely do we acknowledge public service or civic virtue as expressions of patriotism. To some people wearing a lapel pin is more patriotic than supporting the education of our children.
But what is possible now is that the idea of patriotism may encompass the rebirth of citizenship – the love of country as expressed in the people’s protection of democratic ideals through service to their communities. A transformation from self-interest to other interest; from discord to concord; from narcissism to fellowship; from personal gratification to civic well-being; the rejection of the belief that self-loyalty is the only means to survival; and the acceptance of the reality that our own lives become immeasurably richer when we live cooperatively with others.
Being the director of the New Enlightenment Institute, my thoughts about civic virtue are guided by the great ideas that inspired the 18th Century Enlightenment. I have a tendency to evaluate our current condition through the values that our founders held most firmly, the ideals which flourished during the Enlightenment. – reason and moral virtue. So what I’m going to do today is to revisit some ideas that rose at the outset of Western thought but were forgotten for two thousand years prior to their rebirth in the Enlightenment. I believe we need, from time to time, to go back to the basics so we can make sense of what’s going on in our own time. And there’s a lot going on. I hope I can be clear about these ideas using “full-frontal teaching”. We can discuss them later.
The founders believed that man’s very nature is freedom. That he possesses human rights. And that these rights cannot be separated from his nature. They believed man’s reason and moral instincts made individual and human progress possible. In fact, they believed in our perfectibility. With this foundational set of beliefs they arrived at a truly revolutionary conclusion. That virtuous men are capable of governing themselves. In short, a good society is possible as long as the people who constitute it are themselves good. “The character of a nation is determined by the character of its people.”
To understand what we mean by “good people”, I’m going to briefly go back to the ancients – to Greece – the inspiration for the Enlightenment. In his major work, The Ethics, Aristotle claims that the highest good in life, the good that all humans seek, is happiness. Every other good in life that we seek is sought for the sake of something else. But happiness is the only good we seek for its own sake. For example, we might seek a good education for the sake of a good career. We might seek a good career for the sake of wealth. We might seek wealth for the sake of security or the ability to raise a family. And we probably seek security and the love of a family because we believe they will make us happy. But when we ask why we seek happiness, we see that there is no higher goal. Why do we want happiness? Because we want to be happy! That’s it. Aristotle concluded that happiness is the highest good, the only good we seek for its own sake.
Thomas Jefferson was a student of Greek thought and our best model of an Enlightenment thinker. He claimed in the Declaration that man has an unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. And that man creates governments to protect this right. But what is happiness? Today we generally see it as an emotion – something we feel when we get what we want. Most people would say it’s a synonym for joy or contentment. But seeing “happiness” as an emotion or the result of getting something we want, makes Jefferson’s claim pretty weak. Do we have the human right to pursue a particular emotion? Joy or contentment? Not really. Afterall, thieves feel very satisfied when they pick our pockets. Should the government protect their right to feel good? Vandals are quite proud when they tag a bridge abutment or a gravestone with spray paint. Do they have the right to “feel” happy this way? No, this is clearly absurd. For Jefferson, happiness must have meant something other than a feeling of joy or contentment.
So what’s the disconnect here?
Well, actually it’s a translation problem. In The Ethics, Aristotle sought to find out what is good for man, the highest good. He called it “eudaimonia”. In Greek, that means “a good life”. So the best outcome for a human, as Aristotle saw it, was “a good life”. This is the goal for which humans aim. So here’s the problem. When medieval scholars sat down to translate Aristotle’s Greek into English, “eudaimonia” became “happiness”. For us, there is quite a big difference between “happiness” and “a good life”, isn’t there? But by knowing this, we are able to better see that Jefferson was really saying that man has the unalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of a good life.”
But what’s “a good life”? Aren’t we all different? It can’t be the same for all men can it? Well, according to Aristotle, happiness is exactly the same thing for all men. The argument goes this way. Anything that performs its function is called “good”. Books and cars are good if they perform their functions. For books, it is the power to inform, inspire and entertain. For cars, it is the ability to move one or several people from one location to another. And man? Man’s function is reason. It is the determining factor which separates man from plants and animals. Hence, a good life for man is going to have to be a life in which his reason prevails. Man is the thinking animal. Man asks questions. Man seeks knowledge. That is his nature. So part of what a good life is for man, must include the use of reason and the seeking of knowledge.
In another work, The Politics, Aristotle also stated that “man is by nature a political animal”. This is a quotation often taken out of context and misunderstood by modern people. What he meant by “political animal” is not that man behaves like a savage brute when engaged in politics, some sort of Lee Atwater archetype; but that man is most comfortable, is in his natural environment and flourishes, in the “polis” – the Greek term for city. In other words, man’s nature is to live in a relatively dense community with other people. Man is not meant for solitude. He is meant for communal life. For this reason, Aristotle expanded the term “good man” to be one who uses reason but also allows others to flourish as well. In other words, a good life for man requires both intellectual virtue and moral virtue. To live among others successfully, we must behave ethically. This is the origin of the democratic ideal of civic virtue. Civic virtue begins with clear, critical thinking and ethical conduct. Without these personal habits, man cannot govern himself. Democracy is threatened any time ignorance, injustice, or incivility reach a critical mass.
Historians tell us that one day following one of the final sessions of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” He replied, “A republic, Madam, if we can keep it.” Franklin himself was a bit skeptical about the character of the American people. He knew that we wouldn’t survive if we lacked the essentials of democratic virtue. So, in this light, let’s look at America today – the condition of our virtue, our civic life, our political life, our republic, and what we can reasonably expect in our future.
First of all, civic virtue would have to include a level of education commensurate with our obligation to govern ourselves. This does not necessarily have to mean formal education – but it certainly helps. It would also include civility, the control of our passions, an ethic of work, and respect for law and the rights of others.
I am more than a little concerned with the intellectual qualities of the average American. And I am saying this as a teacher who spent 40 years of his life in the secondary school classroom. The dumbing down of America is not just a fantasy in the minds of educated snobs; it is reality. I’m afraid I’m in agreement with H.L. Mencken who famously said, “You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” If you want to test my claim, go to any website that features public speeches from our history. Read the words of Lincoln and or listen to the audio of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s speeches and ask yourself if their words would resonate today. The vocabulary alone would confuse many. And the historical and cultural allusions would go unrecognized. In his book Dumbing Down, John Simon notes that a whole world of learning is disappearing before our eyes, in only one generation. Use a mythological allusion today or a foreign phrase or make a reference to a literary character and only a tiny fraction of your audience would get it. About the only response you would get is an accusation that you are an elitist.
Granted, America has a long history of anti-intellectualism; but the hostility toward intelligent people in public discourse today is both rampant and downright frightening.
Exactly when in our recent history did our expectations for responsible citizenship drop to such a low point? Is it the fault of people themselves for simply emulating the stupid, crass and boorish characters we see in pop culture? Or is it the fault of those who market such low culture? Is it the fault of political merchandisers who have convinced us that being “presidential” includes a candidate’s appeal as a beer-drinking partner. When did it become necessary that a presidential candidate be “one of us folks”? I only speak for myself here. But I don’t want my president to be like me. I want my president to be enlightened – a critical and creative thinker. I want my president to have a firm grasp of history and its consequences. Better than my own. I want my president to be able to inform and inspire us with the power and beauty of his oratory. And I don’t want my president to wink at me.
If I were a public figure, which I am not, by today’s rules, simply by saying what I just said, I would be considered an “elite”. I assure you, my mother and father would spin in their graves if they ever heard anyone claiming that their son was elite at anything. Isn’t this era of low expectations a stunning state of affairs? We have made the word “elite” a pejorative. What’s wrong with being elite? Don’t we want the Marines to be elite? I do! Why do we want the Marines to be elite, but the people who vote on their deployment and assign them their mission to be “just like us”? Someone who is elite aspires to and achieves excellence. Every American citizen should want to be elite. We need to turn this notion around before the “Palin in 2012” campaign gets rolling. There is nothing wrong with excellence, whether it’s in the ability to wage war, think rationally, or act morally. We have seen mediocrity on the international stage in recent years and we don’t like it. Two weeks ago we rejected it in favor of what we hope is intelligent, mature, self-controlled competence. Perhaps President Obama can serve as a model of virtue for the rest of us. Perhaps his warning to parents that it is time to turn off the TV, supervise homework, and read to our kids will take hold. We may even return to speaking in full sentences. Anything is possible.
The United States of America is the first nation whose citizens are not bound together by bloodlines, state religion, or autocratic leaders. Americans are bound together by common ideas. To be an American it is necessary to understand the ideals upon which we were founded … and to assent. To say “aye” to the principles outlined in the founding documents – especially the Declaration of Independence. Adult citizens have an obligation to know more about their government than they did when they took civics in middle school.
To understand the principles within the founding documents requires thought – actually critical inquiry. What do we mean by equality? In what sense are we created equal? Certainly not in ability, or circumstance, or potential. The Declaration says we have the natural right to life. Does that include health? If this is so self-evident, why has it taken us over two hundred and thirty years to provide health care for all citizens?
Understanding the principles of the founding documents also requires reflective thinking. Reflective thought is as essential as critical thinking and yet it is a luxury regularly ignored in political life. Sometimes I think we as a people lack reflective instincts. As a rule, Americans like basking in the reflected glory of our greatest triumphs, but we don’t like to admit to our moral shortcomings. How often in public speeches and programs do we glorify the greatness of the American spirit with no reference to human slavery and genocide. These were facts of life for centuries. America, of course, is a contradiction. The most successful democracy in the history of the world denied civil rights to the majority of its population because of their sex or race. We need to remember both of those Americas.