A PREVIEW
Read Excerpts From "The Kennedy Legacy"
Listed below is the book's table of contents with links to the excerpts
Chapter 1. The Demise of American Culture(click to preview excerpts from this chapter)
Chapter 2. Kennedy's death Unleashes Liberal Excesses
Chapter 3. The Culture That Used To Be
Chapter 4. The Big Bang Cultural Transformation( click to preview the entire chapter)
Chapter 5. Special Interest Undermine The Public Philosophy
Chapter 6. The Media And The Uses Of Deception
Chapter 7. Liberal Education Has Undermined The Public Philosophy
Chapter 8: Old And New Morality
Chapter 9. The Failure of Churches To Maintain The Public Philosophy
Chapter 10. What Will It Take To Restore The Public Philosophy?
CHAPTER 1
THE DEMISE OF AMERICAN CULTURE
SELECTED CHAPTER 1 SUBHEADINGS
A Need For The Public Philosophy
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the late nineteenth century, America has been in a struggle to preserve the traditional philosophy on which freedom and self-government depend. The survival of the republican form of government created by our Founding Fathers depends upon a specific philosophical and cultural belief system. There are aspects of it that can be adjusted and revised as our culture changes, but there are some elements of the traditional views that must remain.
The reason the traditional worldview, called by Walter Lippmann, the "public philosophy," must prevail in American society is because it contains the values and virtues that prevent democracies from declining and that maintain a civilized society. Lippmann, a philosopher and journalist, wrote in 1955 that "Underlying the present critical condition of western society is the fact that the democracies are ceasing to receive those traditions of civility in which the good society, or the liberal democratic way of life at its best, originated and developed. . . traditions of civility are the art of government and principles for human conduct that are founded in natural law and transcend human conception."1
In 1955 Walter Lippmann made the case that America was nearly devoid of the knowledge and practice of the public philosophy, and for that reason we were experiencing the loss of freedom and self-government. Before describing that philosophy, we need to see if there are signs in America, which reveal we have lost the means by which to preserve our democratic republic and maintain civility in our society. Do we have signs of decline? Do American citizens have less power over their government, and have they become more uncivilized? If we find the answer to these questions is yes, then, in a search for the cause of our civil decline, we can analyze the traditional American worldview and compare it to our present worldview.
Return to beginning of this section
Return to Chapter 1 subheadings
Why The Fabric Of Society Has Come Apart
The fabric of society comes apart when there is no public philosophy because, without traditions of civility, people yield to their lower nature and are unable to unite into a society. There are two parts to human nature: the higher nature and the lower nature. The higher attributes of human nature are the part of mankind that gives them their humanity in contrast to being animalistic. The higher nature is attracted to love, self-control, dignity, duty, self-sacrifice, learning, and forgiveness. The citizens in a society with traditions of civility are encouraged to strive to attain high, moral and civil goals. They are encouraged to cultivate high, moral character. The desire to be good residing in the higher nature is inspired to the highest human potential for goodness by the goals of the public philosophy.
The lower attributes of human nature are more akin to the instinctual aspects of animal nature. On the positive side, they provide humans with warmth, emotional responses, earthy feelings, and sexual impulses. Without the lower nature, humans can be distant and rigid. However, if the lower nature rules people, it causes them to follow their instincts, desires, impulses and emotions without the use of reason. They will lack self-control and can easily yield to the negative emotions of hatred, rage and revenge. The motto, "if it feels good, do it," makes an appeal to the lower nature. People who follow this motto have less self-discipline and less ability to sacrifice for others. They do whatever gives them pleasure. They exhibit little self-control in sexuality, drugs, alcohol, food, or other sense-driven areas. Those controlled by the lower nature are often attracted to money and power. These two areas of desire cause the most animalistic behavior. (The lower nature is not evil; it just needs to be controlled by the higher nature.)
To preserve civility, the standards of the public philosophy must be high; in fact, according to natural law principles, they must be unreachable. A student of human nature knows that the lower nature of humans makes most people lazy and mediocre. In school, the majority of students are satisfied to be average. Only a few desire excellence. If students are presented with a very high standard-expected to learn difficult subject matter-those who are ambitious will manage to learn almost all that is presented to them. The average student, while obtaining less knowledge, will still acquire considerable knowledge because they have had to work hard to make a "C" grade. If the standards in schools are low and the students are not expected to learn difficult subject matter, the ambitious will still reach or nearly reach the highest standard. But the majority will only seek to achieve a "C" grade. Therefore, they will learn very little. Consequently, schools need to appeal to the higher nature of students and expect them to learn difficult subject matter.
In like manner, principles of conduct must be set very high. In fact, these standards must be unreachable in order to motivate the majority of people (who accept being average) to exert themselves sufficiently to make them fully civilized. Although character standards should be out of reach, they should not be inordinately beyond reach. Unrealistic standards cause discouragement. At the same time, ethical standards must not be set low. If they are, the lower nature will cause behavior to fall considerably beneath what is considered acceptable in a society. A society needs to instruct its people to endeavor to achieve the most excellent virtues; then its people will manifest a greater capacity to love and less of a tendency to be self-absorbed. Citizens need to understand that the traditions of civility are an ideal to which they commit their greatest effort, always knowing that they will never truly achieve the ideal. It is their constant striving to achieve the ideal that will make them people of good character. Anything less than a high standard will result in disruptive, uncivilized behavior.
We have in this country today many examples of how lowered standards have produced lawless behavior. For example, sometime during the 1970s, a decision was made to remove the standard of love towards our neighbor and replace it with tolerance. Tolerance has been a byword for the liberal movement. We must all be tolerant of different cultures and races. By lowering the standard, the lower nature has had more influence on behavior than the higher nature; and as the years have passed, there has been less tolerance. There is especially less tolerance by liberals of anyone who disagrees with their politically correct terminology. The consequence of lowering the standard from love to tolerance can be clarified by using an analogy: My husband and I have a dog, Lucky, and a cat, Twerp. Lucky and Twerp tolerate each other. When Lucky comes into Twerp's room, my office, he begins to scratch himself near her bed, acting as if she were not there. He scratches the metal tags on his collar, making a loud jangling sound. Twerp always tenses up when she hears that sound. Then, she starts to lick herself, likewise pretending she does not see him. They play a passive game, pretending they are not bothered about each other's presence.
However, if Lucky comes up behind Twerp, and she does not see him, he will jump at her and try to bite her. If Lucky gets too close to Twerp's bed, she hisses at him and raises her back. When Lucky is not in his room, sometimes Twerp will go into his room, our bedroom, and jump up into Lucky's chair. One day Lucky found her in his bed-pandemonium followed. Twerp jumped wildly past Lucky, sprinting down the hall with him right behind her. She was out the dog/cat door and down the street in a matter of seconds. Lucky stayed right behind her until she jumped over a fence. Obviously, Lucky and Twerp have the ability to tolerate each other, but their tolerance is fragile. If they see an opportunity, they will undermine, attack, and try to dominate.
If Lucky and Twerp had affection for each other, their relationship would be more peaceful. With affection, they could trust each other. Then, they could turn their backs without fear. So too, humans must have more than tolerance to secure peace. The multicultural groups in the United States can only have peace when they are called upon to love each other. When people are told they are obligated to love and respect their neighbor, not just tolerate them, they develop a greater capacity to accept each other. The majority may not achieve the goal of love; but as a result of reaching for the higher goal, they will acquire a much greater level of acceptance and respect, thereby, producing accord.
Lucky and Twerp, being a dog and cat, show animal behavior by having natural enmity. Human nature has a lower part that is more like animals. If we set our standards too low, our lower nature rules and the threads of the social fabric spoken of by Lippmann are broken. If we are told to tolerate each other instead of to love each other, we cannot even tolerate each other. We fail to tolerate each other because the majority is willing to put only mediocre effort into achieving tolerance. Therefore, they will fall short of tolerance and fall into dissension and division. Some animals can learn to have affection for those of other species. How much more capable are humans than animals to create unity out of a diverse society since they are of the same species and have the ability to rationally choose to love others.
Return to beginning of this section
Return to Chapter 1 subheadings
Summary
In summary, the public philosophy was a set of principles derived through religion, reason, and natural laws that created a society motivated to achieve the common good through the decisions of its government and the civility of its citizens. It considered and protected the rights of its citizens. But it was equally, if not more, set upon requiring its citizens to fulfill their duties and responsibilities to their neighbors and their communities. The traditional laws of civility were universal and absolute. They were based upon the Golden Rule-to do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Other members of the community were seen as more important than oneself, and personal sacrifice was expected for the good of the whole community. The public philosophy, because it was based on unselfish service, restrained the animal, selfish, instinctual aspects of human nature. It provided the manners, norms, and values that made individuals trustworthy, responsible, courageous, honest, upright, respectful, and forgiving. These are the kinds of individuals or citizens on which the Founding Fathers depended to make their democratic, republican Constitution work.
Return to Chapter 1 subheadings
Summary of the Economic Conservative Influence
Summary of the Economic Conservative Influence
By the 1960s, through the use of the media, especially with the massive
influence of television in the 1950s, the public had accepted the
self-interest, materialistic values fed to them by industrialists. The
Republican Party continued to be representative of big business and the
economic conservatism that was associated with the industrial philosophy.
The presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower during most of the 1950s presided
over self-satisfied, materialist American citizens enjoying the height of
prosperity in the Industrial Age. The public had become less concerned with
duties and righting injustices and concentrated, instead, on increased
desires for consumer goods and enjoying the good life. To them the pursuit
of happiness did not mean the pursuit of virtue; it meant pursuing material
possessions and increasing leisure pleasures. Of course, as we will see, the
children of these fifties’ parents were not as content or compliant.
Return to beginning of this section
Return to Chapter 1 subheadings
The Liberals Fight Back
Unpredictably, the 1960s and the 1970s unleashed revolutionary, liberal values that challenged the complacency of Americans and their industrial values. There was a promising interlude during the presidency of John F. Kennedy and the civil rights activities of Martin Luther King, Jr. that will be described in the next chapter. In this chapter, we are seeking to understand the elements of the modern philosophy of the present society. We have seen the move of Americans away from the traditional values of virtue and duty to the industrial values of self-interest, materialism, and consumerism. Then, in the 1960s, the liberal left, reacting against the industrial values, introduced new values into the mix. Sadly, these liberal values of the 1960s and 1970s were the final act of philosophical violence that killed the public philosophy.
The liberal left of the 1970s was probably unaware of their participation in the death of the philosophy that could have saved the republic. In their frustration with the industrial ideas and the “military industrial complex,” which was undermining American democracy, they mistakenly identified it with the traditions of civility or the best of western civilization provided by the public philosophy. They recognized one conservative philosophy when there were actually two—economic conservatism (capitalism) and civil conservatism (the public philosophy). Liberals were either ignorant of or ignored the public philosophy because they introduced a new philosophy into the American consciousness to combat the capitalist ideas. I call this liberal philosophy the man-in-the-state-of-nature or natural-is-good philosophy (not the same as a belief in natural laws).
Liberal philosophy was anti-capitalist and anti-civilization. Sixties’ activists erroneously sought to overthrow the traditions of civility in their efforts to correct some valid, societal injustices. They mistakenly identified civil conservatism with economic conservatism; therefore they overthrew all conservative traditions. They were unaware that without civil conservatism society falls into a state of nature where animal-type instincts rule rather than the rule of law and the rule of universal moral standards.
Return to Chapter 1 subheadings
Return to Chapter Excerpts page
Return to home page
