Our Great Country

We hear a good deal of late about making our country “great” again. But we hear very little about what that might entail. Just what is “greatness” when it comes to nations, anyway? If Honoré de Balzac is to be believed, it is the principles, the things the people of that nation hold dear, that makes nations great. We might also call them “virtues,” to use a much neglected word. And if we are to make America great again I would assume that this means determining what the principles, or virtues, were that were prevalent at the founding of this country and attempting to restore them to life. According to American historian Clinton Rossiter in his book Seedtime of The Republic those principles prevalent at the founding of this nation were such things as industry, frugality, humility, piety, charity, honesty, love of liberty, self-reliance, courage, and community spirit — what Rossiter called “that special American blend.”

Henry Steele Commager, another American historian, was asked when this country celebrated its bicentennial if he could put his finger on the one thing that differentiated the country in 1996 from the country in 1776 and he said it was the deeply felt concern of the citizens in 1776 with the future, with future generations. In 1996 we were preoccupied with today. I will develop this theme in a bit, but at this point I would like to quote from a letter written in 1775 by the Rev. William Smith that provides broader perspective on the mind-set of so many of his countrymen in that era:

“Look back, therefore, with reverence look back to the times of ancient virtue and renown. Look back to the mighty purposes which your fathers had in view when they traversed a mighty ocean and planted this land. Recall to your minds their labors, their toils, their perseverance, and let their divine spirit animate you in all your actions.

“Look forward to a distant posterity. . . Think that on you may depend whether this great country, in ages hence, shall be filled and adorned with a virtuous and enlightened people; enjoying liberty and all its concomitant blessings . . . or covered with a race of men more contemptible than the savages that roam the wilderness.”

Now, putting aside his use of the politically incorrect term “savages,” and ignoring, if we can, the attempts that followed to eradicate native people from this continent, we might learn something about what it was that made this country great at the time it was experiencing the growing pains that accompany the founding of a great nation. We can do no better than to reflect on the list that Rossiter provided us with, the “special American blend.”

And what, we might ask, to follow-up on the hints that Commager gave us more than thirty years ago, would characterize America in our day? I would suggest that the qualities that define us today — I hesitate to call them “principles” or much less “virtues” —  are such things as a predominant materialism, concern for physical comfort, competitiveness, desire for success (measured in dollars), conformity, physical activity, efficiency, mastery of the world around us, pragmatism, and a fixation on “progress” and profits. And to make the point with emphasis, two years ago those electors who elect politicians determined that the man who embodied those qualities was to be elected to the highest office in the land, a man who embodied those qualities that characterize themselves.

In a word, if we are to make this country great again, we chose the wrong leader. But it will take more than the right leader to turn the tide that is sweeping this country today and return us to a time when things were as they appeared and people looked beyond themselves — a time when “civic virtue” was something all (or most) embraced wholeheartedly as they looked to the future.



8 thoughts on “Our Great Country

  1. Hugh, wanna-be leaders who speak in general terms, oversimplifying problems with bumper sticker solutions (wall, tariffs, trade war) that do not address real problems, are unfortunately siccessful. I find it interesting that the President’s new chief of staff said three years ago that a wall is a simplistic solution that won’t solve anything. Tariffs punish both consumers and producers and trade wars cannot be won. So, three primary issues have been pushed by a fear-mongering candidate and President that won’t solve anything. Then there is all the other stuff he has done which is harmful.

    America, with all of its problems, is still a pretty good place to be, but his moves will only make our country alone, not great. Keith

      • Hugh, true. Yet, it will have the opposite effect. Making it more difficult to trade and engage with the US will reduce our market share of a shrinking market. We make more money when everyone makes more money, yet that is a hard concept for the US President to understand. He is very binary on his thinking. To be honest, given the leg up he had with over $430 million of transferred money from his father, he should have a lot more money than he does. Keith

  2. It’s the same population that voted for Mr Obama. I think there is a lot to said for the changability of the population after all Hitler rose to power and the right is rising again among the same population of Germans. It’s a mistake to think that people’s views are constant , just look at the yellow shirts in France. Two factors are at play leadership which sways the multitude and circumstances which constantly change.
    Rossiter made his list under totally different circumstances America was an infant nation.
    Think how the millions followed Ghandi and then the unprecedented slaughter that took place on the partition and subsequent formation of Pakistan. Today we have technology gone mad , gadgetry obsession and it’s a life style quickly assimilated by the young , add to this the imminent threat of climate change and our circumstances are unique.

    • I used the term “electors” on purpose. The sitting president lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. The electoral college put him in. The populations do change, but there has been a remarkable degree of similarity in the population at large in this country for the past 50 years.

  3. Hugh – I just read this and Keith’s post one-right-after-the-other, and it seems like they are brother posts – great compliments for each other. One stays in this real world, and the other reminds us how things should be 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s