Necropolis on a Hill

While reading Steven Weisman's “Daniel Patrick Moynihan: A Portrait in Letters of an American Visionary” (Public Affairs; 2010), I have been thinking about Ronald Reagan and Mario Cuomo's speeches, comparing America to a “shining city on a hill.” By no coincidence, their contrasting views of America still define the ways in which people see our country today. And so it came as no surprise when Moynihan, a registered democrat who was equally comfortable serving in republican administrations, makes mention of Lewis Mumford's 1961 book, “The City in History.”

The physical attributes of a “city” are easily recognized: streets, stores, businesses, factories, parks, apartment buildings, homes, etc. But more important is the relationships between individuals, groups, and institutions. These are the linkages that offer the highest quality of life. An individual may be linked first to their family, then to a school district, a church or other house of worship, a job, to civic groups, and also to a local political organization. It is the overlapping relationships between the individual and the other members of those groups and institutions that creates the social cohesion necessary for a city to function at peak.

In January of 1974, Ronald Reagan began using John Winthrop's 1630 quote about the settlement he inhabited in the “new world” being a “city on the hill.” In the full statement, Winthrop noted that if the people were not true to their God, the settlement would become a “byword throughout the world.” Reagan was representative of those who believed the United States was a divinely ordained nation, which was certainly distinct from the view of Winthrop, a century and one-half before the Revolutionary War. However, Reagan's world-view was definitely as restrictive as most of Winthrop's contemporaries.

For almost the first century of the USA's existence, the concept of “community” was limited, primarily to white male property owners. Women, children, and people of color may have had linkages to the institutions that defined the greater society, but not in the sense of being recognized as valuable participants. Indeed, from the 1780s until the early 1800s, the nation was a republic, or “public thing,” to be administered by what Sean Wilentz notes was considered “the most worthy, enlightened men.” In other words, by the elite.

In the early 1800s, the nation became a democracy, or “demos krateo” – meaning “rule of the people.” Wilentz explains in “The Rise of American Democracy” (W.W. Norton; 2005) that the elite viewed democracy as the “government of the worst.” Thus, those considered the worst of the worst – women and African Americans – would be marginalized and excluded from exercising political strength, including holding positions within those groups and institutions that define social life, for extended periods of time. It would only be a result of struggle – often bitter, sometimes violent in resistance to its goals – that those other than the elites would come to experience anything close to full citizenship.

Throughout the letters in the Moynihan book, and particularly during the period when he was working for President Nixon, he focuses on the stress placed upon the social fabric by those who were not either in that “elite,” or attempting to become part of it. These groups included the lower economic black Americans, including those he viewed as “radical,” and potentially violent; the younger generation, particularly those in college; and women. He was correct in his belief that society was being fractured at many levels; most famously, he wrote about how the break-up of the black family in lower-income urban neighborhoods had a negative impact on children's performance in school.

Moynihan would carry a large chip on his shoulder for the remainder of his life, as a result of being called a racist for his report on this topic. However, in a widely distributed letter to the President introducing the report, he did refer to black men as “Sambo.” It is rather difficult to not view this as racist. After feeling that democrats in Washington had not supported him when the report came out, Moynihan would secretly begin supporting republican candidate Richard Nixon in 1968. It is likewise rather difficult to not view this as evidence that the political elite do not consider themselves a distinct class, superior to the very linkages in the social structure they expect others to honor.

During the Nixon years, Moynihan frequently told the President that the break-downs in society were providing just cause for restricting the rules of democracy. It was, in his opinion, essential that the elite maintain a tight grasp on the reins of power. Certainly, few would argue that there is a need for law and order, and that violent crime poses a real danger to society. But Moynihan went well beyond these issues. He wrote several times about the potential problems that would result if black Americans began to exercise their right to vote in such a manner that black Americans began to win seats in the House and Senate. In particular, he was concerned that their historic experience in America could cause them to befriend the Arab world. This was the thinking that resulted in his closer relationships with the founders of the neoconservative movement. It also added fuel to President Nixon's belief that he had a right to break the law to “preserve” our democracy – in this case, meaning his group of elitists.

Certainly, one can make a case that the continuing alienation of segments of our society, including the breakdowns in those structures that are the fabric of American culture, has combined with the thinking of neoconservatism, rigid “law & order” policies, and economic elitism, to create the crises we face today. Those who believe they have a divine right, based on their self-concept of being the most worthy and enlightened, are in most of the top economic and political positions. They are following that “higher law” of greed. If that means tossing out a few thousand votes from black citizens in Florida in 2000, or in Ohio in 2004, they feel entitled to do so. If it means lying this country into an illegal and immoral war in Iraq, in which the sons and daughters of “common folk” must kill and die, it's no big deal. Moving factories to a foreign land may cause suffering for the thousands being laid-off, but it adds to the elites' profit margins. Corruption on Wall Street? Heck, quit your complaining. Have some community values.

Mountain-top removal coal-mining, and hydro-fracking for natural gas, are but two examples of the obscene environmental devastation that is destroying the very country that “christians” like Ronald Reagan say that God provided for us. The elite does not value the communities that live in these regions. If a group of people from the Middle East were pouring the same chemicals that the “energy industries” are poisoning our water with, the republicans would call it “terrorism.” But when they do it, they call it “free enterprise” and “capitalism.”

Now, I've said all of that, to say this: many of us feel betrayed by the democrats in Washington, DC. And I'm not about to attempt to tell you that you are wrong if you feel that way. The majority of them are pathetic excuses for “leaders.” They are puppets for that economic elite. No more, no less. Yet the only thing that distinguishes them from the republicans in DC is that not all of the democrats are terrible. The republicans are.

In that '74 speech, Reagan called Senator Ted Kennedy a socialist, and hinted that Kennedy was strongly influenced by Karl Marx. As if that would be bad. I'm a proud member of the Democratic Left. And I am convinced that if we are to make true democracy a reality in America, we need to begin to organize on that local level that defines the social structure of a community/city. We need to concentrate our efforts at the community-based level, and institute change at that level, before we can possible effect real change at the national level.

Easier said than done, of course. But it is easier than failing to begin this effort.

Allow me to be the first to kick this thread.

though it is hardly the first time that I've found myself being thankful for your kindness here.

Thank you, H2O Man.

them a propaganda arm for the rightwing, the RW has also spent decades cultivating candidates at local and state level. They get RW candidates into local and state school boards, onto city commissions, and into state legislatures, and once they are in the pipeline, these candidates then easily move into leadership posiitons in their state an natonal parties, and ultimately become US representatives and senators.

The left has seriously neglected organization at the local and state level. We are not filling the pipeline with out people.

Howard Dean tried to reverse that pattern, but his efforts, which were responsible for Dem wins in 2006 and 2008, have been pretty much abandoned by the current Dem leadership.

I had an on-going conversation with a DUer that I considered a casual friend about school boards. This person was sincere in wanting to see progressive changes made in American politics. I noted that those republicans who had been to the right of Senator Goldwater in '64 concentrated efforts at grass-roots organizing after his loss to LBJ. And their first building block was the same one that the religious right would focus on in the late 1970s -- the local school board.

My friend thought I was a mad man -- which, of course, I am, but that had nothing to do with the topic. He simply could not understand that there was any connection between a local school board, and the larger world of politics. This, of course, is stark evidence of the fraying of the social fabric, as well as being a primary reason why so many remain politically impotent. If you have a core group that can and does influence the outcome of any local election, those people holding office at the next higher level will definitely listen more closely to you, than if you remain as isolated individuals.

We have to learn to speak the language that politicians understand. It's the best way to communicate with them. And it's the only option for replacing the unacceptable ones for someone better.

I agree. Start at the local level and work out from there. Vote issues not personalities and spend your money and your vote only on those who consistently represent your principles.

I`m a proud member of the Democratic Left as well and hope we can strengthen our message in the next year. The recent issue over health concerns of 9/11 first responders was a good example of Democratic Left principles. I`ll bet anything a majority of Americans were on the same side as they would be on so many other left-leaning social and economic justice issues...if we could do better at getting our message out.

"I am convinced that if we are to make true democracy a reality in America, we need to begin to organize on that local level that defines the social structure of a community/city. We need to concentrate our efforts at the community-based level, and institute change at that level, before we can possible effect real change at the national level."

We are no longer represented. It is TRULY taxation without representation. I, of course, think we can do both -- work at the local level but put up candidate IMMEDIATELY at the national level.

Great missive!

Waiting for a "leader" or parsing words from politicians isn't working, especially when big money controls the system (and today, if it isn't complete, it's very close). We have to combat their propaganda at the local level as well so the average working poor person won't keep falling for the tax cut, cut "big government" canard that is hollowing out our society on the street level. We may even have to develop alternative systems at the local level in order to avoid becoming a banana republic.

He estimated that three-quarters of the Democrats are corrupt; and almost all the Republicans are corrupt (95-percent). I heard him give this ratio with my own two ears, too.

As you so elegantly make the case: Our work is to grow our good piece of the pie. The way we do that is simple (why our leadership doesn't is self-evident):

"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell." -- Harry S Truman

Outstanding essay, Yours, more valuable than gold. Thank you, H20 Man.

that "city on a hill" phrase as being exclusionary and anathema to the true, higher meaning of both "We the people," and "that all men (persons) are created equal."

Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.:thumbsup:

I especially like your point about how so-called "free enterprise" proudly performs acts that would qualify as terrorism were there not a buck to be made by the elites.

This may be a very simple deficiency in my understanding of American history. While I love the subject of American history, I'm certainly no expert. I was wondering what you meant when you wrote:

Indeed, from the 1780s until the early 1800s, the nation was a republic, or “public thing,” to be administered by what Sean Wilentz notes was considered “the most worthy, enlightened men.” In other words, by the elite.

In the early 1800s, the nation became a democracy, or “demos krateo” – meaning “rule of the people.”

What exactly occurred that changed the nation from being a republic in the 1780's to being a democracy in the early 1800's? Was there some law passed during that time that extended the right to vote from property holding men to non-property holding men? I have a feeling you're going to tell me and I'm going to slap my forehead and say, "Duh!" but right now, my lack of knowledge on the subject is killing me!

Excellent writing, my friend! I especially liked what you wrote about the difference between terrorists and capitalists. I would say that expropriating lands against the will and desires of the indigenous people populating the land is terrorism, period. And we absolutely need to start making true democracy a reality in America by starting at the grass-roots community level and working upward.

And not one that is easily answered with a, "Well, it was the ______."

First and most important would be the passage of the Bill of Rights that Madison had introduced in 1787; when 10 of the 12 introduced were passed in 1891, it changed the relationship between the government and the governed. But, as we've seen in issues as recent as the passing of the Civil Rights bills in the 1960s, it takes more than "laws" to change people's minds and thus behaviors.

Although he was a flawed character, Thomas Jefferson would do more to change people's minds, and usher in the form of democratic government that replaced the original republic. Some of his writings that were influential compared democracy to a city, and noted that the city did not function primarily due to the efforts of the elites. More, he understood that real democracy brought about the greatest potential of those in the non-elite layers of society. Perhaps the best example from that time were the previously unknown or little-known political writers, who would bring about the cultural enlightenment that would so impress Alexis de Tocqueville.

Thanks for clarifying that. I have read a little about him, and while I agree with you that he was flawed, I believe his heart and his mind were in the right place in changing the way people viewed their government. I feel chagrined seeing teabaggers pimping his "tree of liberty" quote as though Jefferson only viewed revolution as some sort of bloodbath when Jefferson clearly stated: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_jefferson_2.html">"Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism."

Here's what I think real revolution entails: readiness to preserve the vitality of your liberty and your freedom to defend it, not by overthrowing anything else except for what you've been holding in your head that may not be applicable anymore. A real revolution, the truest revolution is what takes place inside the human soul and mind. America has definitely grown lazy in it's thinking, perhaps a closer reading of Jefferson and de Tocqueville would help.

for example this - "that those other than the elites would come to experience anything close to full citizenship."

Except that I have information that my paternal ancestor voted in 1788. I suppose that means he owned land, but he was hardly a member of some elite. Many had what they considered to be full citizenship because they had their own farms or small businesses.

Also in this regard, "Thus, those considered the worst of the worst – women and African Americans" is kinda hard to believe that our ancestors felt that way about their wives and their daughters, that they considered them to be the worst of the worst somehow.

That seems to come from an us vs. them framework, and I am not sure it is that clear cut.

Starting at the local level seems more manageable, but I am not sure how it works. I have been working at the local level now for six years and have not seen any progress. Even looking at the 2008 election, all anybody wanted to talk about was "President, president, president" as if Congress, the Senate, State legislature and State Senate did not matter.

when I have difficulty telling if people are joking or not. I hope that you are; if so, point well made.

but I understand that Russell said "unless you agree on the basics, no dialogue is possible".

But I think in terms of ancestors. Patrick who was presumably a voter once he became a citizen in 1837, and Stephen in 1870. Not elites, but probably thought they had huge amounts of freedom.

I disagree strongly with would be in regard to the historical context of women in the USA. The truth is that it cannot possibly be measured by someone's however great-grandfather, treating his wife and daughters with respect and dignity. And it was there that I assumed that you were joking.

Our nation's history is rather clear. The women's sufferage movement -- which would eventually lead to women being able to participate in the single most basic "right" in a democracy -- began in 1848. But it wasn't until 1920 that the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution provided for that most basic of rights.

Obviously, there were cultural groups within the boundries of the United States in which women's rights were recognized as equal, if not exact, to men's rights. This was true in both of the larger ethnic groups that comprised to Iroquoian and Algonquin nations, including the Haudenosaunee, which had the most influence on the Founding Fathers. It was also true for the Irish Catholics who came from the counties that comprised Munster, Leinster, and Connaught. This was one of the most outstanding aspects of Irish culture, which caused much of the fear and hatred aimed at them by those influenced by British thought.

The numbers of female US Senators -- and lack of any serving as President -- would suggest that the system has yet to practice equal access to those reins of political power in this country.

... but in actuality what they are trying to preserve is their own status, wealth, and power.

Ultimately, it boils down to greed.

To share it restricts "their" freedom.